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

[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.

[kensei]

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

[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.

[perrymason]

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.

[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.

[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.

[perrymason]

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]

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.

[perrymason]

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