Mary Kellys cadaver would not be out of place....

To me Sam the context of the comments infer knife skills comparable to some you would find in post mortem rooms. Only less obviously displayed due to the nature of the crime being committed and the environment. The word "skill" doesnt have to be used to glean what the comments mean in terms of his overall.... "abilities", shall we say.

I hope you gained some insight in my last post why I feel there may be some credence to the suggestions that the killer sought to obtain the organ he takes from Annie. There is a story that would tie that supposition together....an unsubstantiated story with unverified details to be sure...but for me its not invalid unless it can be proven as such. They did investigate medical students, and there is a great deal of contemporary opinion from all the witness categories that indicates they believed at least for a time that the killer had some medical training. One of the 3 Macnaghten suspects may have been confused for a surgeon due to that entrenched mindset.

Thats what impacts my opinions regarding Kate and Mary Jane,....neither of those deaths were the result of the killers focus on obtaining their uteri. In one case it may have played a part....and thats why I stay on the fence there.

Cheers Gareth

[Sam Flynn]

Its quotes like these that I was referring to....

"The similarities of the injuries in the 2 cases is considerable......and those injuries, again, have been performed with anatomical knowledge"... by Wynne Baxter in summation at the Nichols Inquest.

That statement is not from one the medical "men who examined" the body, Mike - and all he mentions is anatomical knowledge, not skill. As I've observed, however, it doesn't take much anatomical knowledge - never mind skill - to slash a woman's belly open, which is all that happened at Buck's Row.

And this from Phillips at the Chapman Inquest.....

"[Coroner] Was there any anatomical knowledge displayed?
[Phillips] I think there was. There are indications of it. My own impression is that the anatomical knowledge was only less displayed or indicated in consequence of haste.

Now, this one actually is from one of the medical men who examined the body, but - again - he only mentions anatomical knowledge.

And of course this, by the Coroner

Indeed, by the coroner... the flamboyant and dramatic Wynne Baxter.

So, it seems that none of the "men who examined" these two bodies made much of the killer's skill at all. However, as I indicated earlier, they both (Llewellyn and, to a lesser extent, Bagster Phillips) gave some decidedly dodgy opinions on the Nichols and Chapman murders anyway.

Hi Sam,

Its quotes like these that I was referring to....

"The similarities of the injuries in the 2 cases is considerable......and those injuries, again, have been performed with anatomical knowledge".... by Wynne Baxter in summation at the Nichols Inquest.

And this from Phillips at the Chapman Inquest.....

"[Coroner] Was there any anatomical knowledge displayed?
[Phillips] I think there was. There are indications of it. My own impression is that the anatomical knowledge was only less displayed or indicated in consequence of haste.
[Coroner} Are those *portions (*the organs absent from the abdomen) such as would require anatomical knowledge to extract?
[Phillips] I think the mode in which they were extracted did show some anatomical knowledge."........." the whole inference seems to me to indicate that the operation was performed to enable the perpetrator to obtain possession of *these (*the organs taken from the abdomen) parts of the body."

And of course this, by the Coroner in summation at the Chapman Inquest....

"...his anatomical skill carries him out of the category of a common criminal, for his knowledge could only have been obtained by assisting at post mortems, or by frequenting post mortem rooms."

When you look at those opinions, the story regarding the sub curator of the Pathological Museum, the story regarding Tumblety and a supposed uterus collection, and his experience gained while sweeping floors as a young man in post mortem rooms and operating theatres....there is undeniable symmetry.

What that might mean is interesting.....if there was any truth to it. The story regarding the sub curator was told by the Coroner himself based on a conversation he had with the man, so I think its worth considering....the uterus in jars parts just makes it suggestive.

Dr T need not have killed anyone to be legally responsible for their death(s).

Best regards Sam

[Sam Flynn]

The man that killed Mary Ann and Annie had those skills that Bond thought were absent in room 13, according to the men that examined them...

Presumably you mean Rees "Left-handed killer" Llewellyn* and George "He cut through her colon and a third of her bladder but I still think he showed some knowledge" Bagster Phillips**? Any suggestion of "skill" on the killer's part in respect of Polly Nichols is patently ludicrous - she just had her throat cut and her belly slashed open.


* Alternatively, Rees "I didn't notice she was disembowelled" Llewellyn.

** Allegedly. The "the work of an expert" opinion, oft-attributed to Bagster Phillips himself, is nothing of the kind. The phrase comes from an article in the Lancet. The nearest Phillips approaches this subject, in the Chapman inquest testimony as reported in the papers, is to opine that the killer possessed anatomical knowledge. He doesn't use the word "skill" at all, as far as I can tell.

[slysnide]

thanks kensei. i'd read the name joseph barnes somewhere shortly before posting that page. oh well, still not too far off to guess.

Since weve drifted from what I hoped would be a different stream of thought, Ill see if I can more specifically suggest what the threads birth was about.

Mary Janes cadaver could easily be placed in a picture, surrounded by Medical Students, in an operating theatre,...and her remains would look unsurprising. What was done to her body was done daily by medical students around the globe at that time, including denuding limbs partially. (That is of course aside from the throat cuts and the facial slashes). Even putting some of the viscera on a table would be normal med student behavior.

The thing is......in the opinion of the most opinionated of the medical authorities as to the skill exhibited by her killer, the same man who inspected those remains, ....her killer showed absolutely no knife skill or anatomical knowledge, not even that of a fish processor or slaughterhouse man.

Does this then suggest that the man did what he saw in photographs from med schools, or that he just happened to do what thousands of med students are trained to do?

The man that killed Mary Ann and Annie had those skills that Bond thought were absent in room 13, according to the men that examined them, so....how does a killer with no knowledge or skill just happen to match in essence what semi-trained and semi-skilled men could do?

Cheers all.

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Of course, if one believes he always set out with the same object - to extract and sell wombs from malnourished, alcoholic, potentially diseased and menopausal women - then one will find it hard to imagine a moving wish list, either from choice or absolute necessity. If he doesn't take a womb away with him when he can, it can't be the wombinator.

But I see it the other way round. The fact that he didn't bother taking Mary's womb away with him suggests to me that there never was a wombinator. If the killer was known to Mary, he'd have needed to make it look like Jack's work, so why go to all that trouble and then not take a kidney away with him, even if he didn't recognise the womb? Everyone knew what kidneys looked like and everyone knew that Jack had taken one from the previous victim. Many believed he'd eaten half of it and posted the other half off to Lusk, and might well be after a replacement.

Those are definitely some interesting and, more importantly, valid points. I don't think he was solely after wombs and think that he took whatever took his fancy and/or whatever was nearest to where he was cutting when he took out a trophy or two.

[kensei]

Slysnide, can I just spare you from taking any more heat here? It's Joseph BARNETT, not Barnes.

[slysnide]

caz, by Jo Barnes, I was referencing Joseph Barnes. Given his association with the vic, I figured it'd be obvious whom I was reffering to.

And yes, I agree that the killer took what he wanted in the time alotted, but he kept escalating and adding to what he was taking. The 3 vics with mutilations had JTR taking the same and more from Eddowes, and Annie having been mutilated like Polly, who was mutilated like Eddowes. It's constant escalation. First nothing was taken from Polly and there was no evisceration. Then he evicerated Annie and took the uterus, and finally he eviscerated, facially mutilated, and stole organs from Eddowes. As I said: Escalation. The differring circumstances with MJK suggests either another killer who framed JTR by mutilating the corpse was responsible (like Joseph Barnes), or that JTR was so frustrated from not being able to kill all October because of police patrols that it drove him over the edge when he finally satisfied his bloodlust on MJK. The same increased patrols between 9/8/88 & 9/30/88 would also justify the added facial mutilation to Eddowes. Frustration of the delay got the better of him. Plenty of criminal profiles support the escalation theory for other serial killers, as well as how they change when delayed for extended periods of time. And it's just as easily applicable to this case.

But I see it the other way round. The fact that he didn't bother taking Mary's womb away with him suggests to me that there never was a wombinator.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

That caption above to me tells me a lot about our discussions, because what youre suggesting is that pre-existing evidence thought to be pivotal to the killer of Polly and Annie at least is made invalid by the fact that Marys killer didnt take her excised uterus away. Medical opinion clearly suggests that Annie died so that she could donate her uterus to the killer. Not any organ....the one he took.

Instead of the more pragmatic position that if the killer in room 13 didnt want the uterus then he may not have the same interests any longer, or he may not be the same man.

My best regards Caz

[caz]

Who the hell is Jo Barnes?

The man who took out Mary's heart did it because he could.

The man who took out Annie's bits and Kate's bits did that because he could.

I'm sure it was just a case of one man doing whatever he fancied doing and was able to do, given the individual circumstances and limited time.

The man would not have been the same man from victim to victim. He would have emerged each time with a new experience to add to the old, and to be judged on its individual merits or otherwise. Whenever he set out again with his knife he arguably took with him a slightly revised wish list and had to reassess his options according to the opportunities offered.

Of course, if one believes he always set out with the same object - to extract and sell wombs from malnourished, alcoholic, potentially diseased and menopausal women - then one will find it hard to imagine a moving wish list, either from choice or absolute necessity. If he doesn't take a womb away with him when he can, it can't be the wombinator.

But I see it the other way round. The fact that he didn't bother taking Mary's womb away with him suggests to me that there never was a wombinator. If the killer was known to Mary, he'd have needed to make it look like Jack's work, so why go to all that trouble and then not take a kidney away with him, even if he didn't recognise the womb? Everyone knew what kidneys looked like and everyone knew that Jack had taken one from the previous victim. Many believed he'd eaten half of it and posted the other half off to Lusk, and might well be after a replacement.

Love,

Caz
X

[slysnide]

JTR may have split open his vics from the sternum to the pelvis, but that was always said to happen with one blade, and in one stroke (correct me if I'm wrong on that). Perhaps it was just for his own convienience? After all, he didn't gut the vics above or around the chest to take any hearts. So making such a long cut is just neccessary to properly evicerate the victim such that they don't get in the way when he goes after what he took from the first 4 vics (so the intestines would naturally have to be pulled out and up rather than out and down). And that's another clue separating MJK's killer from JTR. Her killer didn't take her kidneys or uterus, but rather the heart. And what's the motive for taking the other organs? Since it's generally agreed that JTR had reasonable medical experience as he dissected the women much like a mortician would, then it seems that his motive for making off with them was one of two things: 1) to keep them for personal study as docs would keep such things after dissections if allowed to; 2) cannibalism. For they can't be trophies as organs don't last that long. Albert Fish did the same in the twenties.

Enough of my rhetorical questions. Here's a real one: How do we know that MJK's heart wasn't destroyed through the savagery of the killing? After all it looked more like the work of a butcher than the work of a doctor. Removed organs weren't removed as nicely as everything around them was destroyed, meaning you wouldn't have to have much expertise to remove them when everything else around them is mutilated. Question two: It is said that a group of doctors examined the body at the crime scene rather than at the morgue where it'd be hard to steal away with such things. Given the stated reactions of the police who maintained the crime scene from the public, then is it possible that they just accidentally lost it? Or that a doctor took it? After all, it was a small room. 12' by 7' wasn't it? And the docs knew what they were in for when presumably told there was yet another ripper killing.

And MJK was nearly half the age of the others, killed indoors, screamed for help thus eliminating the element of surprise the ripper presumably had since given the public areas the others were killed at and the fact that the police were on patrol, then they couldn't have screamed since they'd be there to catch the killer before he'd have time to go to work on the deceased whom had specific organs removed & stolen of which MJK did not, meaning that all of this breaks the MO severely. Though after the double murder it'd be obviously hard to try and kill in the streets again, making it a necessity to go indoors and prey on whomever he could instead of prostitutes in their forties wandering the streets at odd hours of the night as the other four were. So maybe it was a necessity (to answer my own question).

I however would like to re-point out that it wouldn't have been as hard to remove the organs of MJK when everything else around them was destroyed. So maybe Jo Barnes was the killer? He was suspected of it, and framing the ripper would be easy. Given the hysteria another murder would cause, the public wouldn't be bright enough to recognize that the MO didn't fit, not that they'd even care after that since it would be even more savage than the previous killings (and it was). The police on the other hand would notice, but without hard evidence like with the previous victims who hadn't any evidence pointing to the killer either, then there'd be nothing they could do about it except succumb to the public's opinion as they'd have no evidence to deter reports of MJK being a ripper victim. And given how truly butchered MJK was, then perhaps Jo Barnes killed MJK in a rage if he killed her at all, and realizing what he'd done he would've had to find an escape route. Enter framing JTR. So then he butchered her, but made sure to remove the organs without damaging them as JTR did, but without a place to store them he left them there on the bed.

And lastly in reference to the point posed in the first post: Being in the presence of a gruesome murder is one thing. Actually killing & butchering them? That's something else.

Hey Sam,

After reading your post I thought of a story to illustrate my point on excising 8 but taking only 1....

A neanderthal comes across a wounded animal, and looks around for something to bonk it on the head with. He picks up a small branch, and it breaks when he tests it. He tries using a piece of mud and it crumbles. He finds a rock, tests in on his hand while its sitting on another rock....like a neanderthal might, not too bright ......and voila, he finds his objective,... a bonking instrument.

What values, forensically, does this prehistoric man show us that he places on the 3 items he handles. It shows us that he only values 1, because he only uses 1. He only wanted 1 thing to use....he tried others, but 1 thing was what he wanted.

Thats the same story with 8 excised and 1 taken.....he only wanted the one that left the room with him apparently. An organ that Jack the Ripper had never shown interest in....and while leaving the excised organs he had shown interest in previously.

And I would think the desire for that organ came upon him as he worked on the corpse,..... because had he gone into that room wanting Marys heart at the outset, at least 50 % or more of whats done to her would be just time wasting. I dont see evidence that half or more of the cuts that Jack made on Annie were unnecessary....or time wasters. And I see no evidence that Annies killer had any inclination towards a heart extraction.

Cheers SF

[Sam Flynn]

So the excision of eight or so organs counts for nothing, Mike?.....Not at all, but he only kept one.

I presumed that a wheelbarrow wasn't part of his "murder kit", Mike - but you never know!

I didn't answer your other points, because they each draw in some way on the hilarious routines of the comedy double-act Bagster and Baxter (They go wider than this discussion anyway.)

Hi,
... but if the murder involved a copycat killing, and the intention was to blame the former for the ghastly deed, then he could have been as sane as you or I, and the violence was simply done for self preservation , not from an act of madness.

Regards Richard.

I think thats what Ive been trying to say, but I prefer your phrasing Richard......what evil men do to cover their tracks, eh?

All the best Richard