Tweet
This is a nagging question I keep coming back to. It stems from the comments by Doctors at the scene and post mortem narratives. My take is that as Surgeons, likely Cambridge trained, they would have a unique undertanding of how the victims bodies were mutilated. They certainly had the technical knowledge of the day, also well illustrated in the post mortem terminology.
Was it possible that these Doctors were too technical when they thought having some anatomical knowledge may have been a requirement for this killer? Maybe, but again if there was an expert at the scene and at autopsy it would have been them. They appeared conflicted with regard to anatomical knowledge although the additional extraction of Uterus and Kidney, in my opinion, would have moved their needle towards knowledge. Or at least...awareness.
Was the killer a trained medical person is an obvious question. The technical post mortem narrative concerning the Eddowes kidney and the repeat nature of removing intestines and the uterus seem to point to the affirmative. The cuts were not considered sloppy by these surgeons. Did this contribute to their conflict? They seemed to agree that the knife was sharp, and as we have a serial killer, the knife was kept sharp.
I also kept coming back to the question of... Where did the knowledge come from and what was available at the time to obtain it? Medical training, other education, books, knowledge transfer in the case of a butcher.
These questions led me down a path to see what was in fact available in 1888 London. To my astonishment the pictorial representations of human anatomy were readily available. I say astonishment because these illustrations look eerily like the bodies of these victims.
Was Mary Kellys organ placement around her body an attempt by this killer to illustrate human anatomy from some pictorial knowledge he himself had? I honestly could think of no other reason why he would have posed the body and organs that way. It appears deliberate. He could have just thrown them in a pile!!
The abdominal mutilations seem like less of mutilation and more like deliberate extraction. The bodies of Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes were laid open exposing organs and not carved up in a frenzy.
Whoever this killer was the Doctors were conflicted on this issue and struggled less with how ( some exposure to human anatomy) then perhaps who. The How would appear to be from an educational perspective and not some random frenzy. That would be my guess. The illustrations of that day were not unlike they are today. I believe the bodies mimic to some degree, right down to mention of skin flaps, to available illustrations of the day.
This killer was an expert with a knife and had some knowledge or awareness of the information required to perform these kills. Mary Kellys body has some semblance of an Anatomical illustration with parts placed around the body.
Do the bodies and Doctors observations indicate anatomical knowledge? I think they do when you consider the observation in similarity to known human anatomical illustrations of the day and the organ placement around Mary Kelly.
Was it possible that these Doctors were too technical when they thought having some anatomical knowledge may have been a requirement for this killer? Maybe, but again if there was an expert at the scene and at autopsy it would have been them. They appeared conflicted with regard to anatomical knowledge although the additional extraction of Uterus and Kidney, in my opinion, would have moved their needle towards knowledge. Or at least...awareness.
Was the killer a trained medical person is an obvious question. The technical post mortem narrative concerning the Eddowes kidney and the repeat nature of removing intestines and the uterus seem to point to the affirmative. The cuts were not considered sloppy by these surgeons. Did this contribute to their conflict? They seemed to agree that the knife was sharp, and as we have a serial killer, the knife was kept sharp.
I also kept coming back to the question of... Where did the knowledge come from and what was available at the time to obtain it? Medical training, other education, books, knowledge transfer in the case of a butcher.
These questions led me down a path to see what was in fact available in 1888 London. To my astonishment the pictorial representations of human anatomy were readily available. I say astonishment because these illustrations look eerily like the bodies of these victims.
Was Mary Kellys organ placement around her body an attempt by this killer to illustrate human anatomy from some pictorial knowledge he himself had? I honestly could think of no other reason why he would have posed the body and organs that way. It appears deliberate. He could have just thrown them in a pile!!
The abdominal mutilations seem like less of mutilation and more like deliberate extraction. The bodies of Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes were laid open exposing organs and not carved up in a frenzy.
Whoever this killer was the Doctors were conflicted on this issue and struggled less with how ( some exposure to human anatomy) then perhaps who. The How would appear to be from an educational perspective and not some random frenzy. That would be my guess. The illustrations of that day were not unlike they are today. I believe the bodies mimic to some degree, right down to mention of skin flaps, to available illustrations of the day.
This killer was an expert with a knife and had some knowledge or awareness of the information required to perform these kills. Mary Kellys body has some semblance of an Anatomical illustration with parts placed around the body.
Do the bodies and Doctors observations indicate anatomical knowledge? I think they do when you consider the observation in similarity to known human anatomical illustrations of the day and the organ placement around Mary Kelly.
Comment