Did Mary Kellys body illustrate anatomical knowledge?

[FrankO]

It was total carnage. This guy was cutting, grabbing and pulling out whatever he could find.

I agree that it looked like total carnage, Gareth, and that, whoever did it, didn't necessarily need to have any anatomical knowledge and/or some sort of surgical skill. He could just have cut, grabbed and pulled out whatever he felt like at the moment. However, that doesn't mean that he didn't have have either or both of them. Not knowing who he was and what his motive was, makes it impossible to draw any conclusions. Doing what he did, I think he would have, at least, been interested in the female body and anatomy and would have learned something about it somewhere, simply as that is what one does when one has an interest, however morbid it would be. This last bit is pure speculation on my part, I know, but there you go.

[FISHY1118]

There was no earthly point in exposing her ribs, nor in cutting between them, when he removed her heart from below after reaching up through the cut diaphragm... and tearing the bottom lobe of one lung in the process.

It was total carnage. This guy was cutting, grabbing and pulling out whatever he could find.

Nonsense. The Doctors at the time disagree with you . Rightfully so . Your post is more accurate Patrick , #14 is a poor reply considering the topic thread title.

[Herlock Sholmes]

A very highly regarded Doctor at the time agrees with Sam.

Dr. Bond: “In each case the mutilation was inflicted by a person who had no scientific nor anatomical knowledge. In my opinion he does not even possess the technical knowledge of a butcher or horse slaughterer or any person accustomed to cut up dead animals.”

[The Rookie Detective]

The issue with reliance on doctors opinions, is that that's all they are; subjective opinions.
Admittedly, these opinions are based on professional experience and insight, but if you were to put 100 doctor in a room, they'll all say something different.

"Great minds don't think alike"


It then becomes a case of what side of the fence one chooses to sit on.

Take the Letby case for example; riddled with opposing "professional expert" opinions.

The reason why there is so much uncertainty surrounding the Ripper murders lays partly in the fact that different doctors believed in different things and their views were often drenched in bias and supposition.

The amount of times doctors just get things wrong is remarkably high; even today the level of relative misdiagnosis and prognostic assessment is more than it should be considering how "professional" and "expert" these clinicians are meant to be.


So where does that leave us?


What does the body of evidence tell us if we omit every "professional" opinion?

What do the injuries inflicted on Kelly.tepl us about her killer?

I think we can all agree at least that Kelly wasn't his first murder, and that he had certainly killed and mutilated before.
That stands to reason and doesn't require a doctors opinion to verify.

Common sense tells us that the killer had done it all before.

On that basis, one could then be reasonably confident that the killer would have learned through progression and learning on the job so to speak.

This would then support the reason for the apparent escalation in the severity of the injuries.

Ultimately, placing an over dependence on what doctors said at the time, just leads to a circular argument that doesn't really do anywhere.
To really progress we need to omit all of the "opinions" given at the time and look at each murder as if for the very first time.
That will remove all of the stagnant layers that have been allowed to ferment and develop over the decades, and help us to view things with a clear and objective mindset.

[Geddy2112]

My rather crude analogy regarding the murder of poor Mary Jane would be akin to me emptying out my huge box of Lego to locate the small helmet for my spaceman mini figure.

[Patrick Differ]

Hello Patrick,

I see where you are going with all of this and more power to you. I hope it leads somewhere.

But I also see a couple of major stumbling blocks in the way. First, we can't be certain that Jack wasn't an unknown individual so we would have no way of gauging their anatomical knowledge. Second, we don't have complete backgrounds on any of the known suspects. Therefore, it is possible that they could have picked up anatomical or medical knowledge somewhere and we would not be aware of it.

c.d.

Hi c.d- as always your points are well taken. From my own perspective I am considering the degree of work. I would be very surprised if this killer had No experience whatsoever in carrying out the opening of the abdomen and cutting out organs. The way I read the post mortems is that instead of a frenzied attack there was a deliberate attack. In complete silence. Almost as if it were something they were used to. Step by step.

I have no idea if it will lead anywhere but I keep getting thrown back to - Why would Robert Sagar, who had 5 years of medical training before he turned detective, follow a Jewish Butcher on Butchers Row after the murder of Mary Kelly? Who was ,you can say, was indeed completely butchered.

It would be interesting to discover whether the Jewish Free School was teaching human anatomy but I have been unable to find that information in detail. However the Kosher butcher training taught animal anatomy as their law demanded it.

i dont know if this is a case of where the serial killer was used to cutting up animals but i personally feel this killer had some experience in order to perform these kills. They were deliberate and repetitive so there is that pattern to consider.

Hopefully there is a smoking gun somewhere that closes some gaps. ⁸

[Patrick Differ]

The issue with reliance on doctors opinions, is that that's all they are; subjective opinions.
Admittedly, these opinions are based on professional experience and insight, but if you were to put 100 doctor in a room, they'll all say something different.

"Great minds don't think alike"


It then becomes a case of what side of the fence one chooses to sit on.

Take the Letby case for example; riddled with opposing "professional expert" opinions.

The reason why there is so much uncertainty surrounding the Ripper murders lays partly in the fact that different doctors believed in different things and their views were often drenched in bias and supposition.

The amount of times doctors just get things wrong is remarkably high; even today the level of relative misdiagnosis and prognostic assessment is more than it should be considering how "professional" and "expert" these clinicians are meant to be.


So where does that leave us?


What does the body of evidence tell us if we omit every "professional" opinion?

What do the injuries inflicted on Kelly.tepl us about her killer?

I think we can all agree at least that Kelly wasn't his first murder, and that he had certainly killed and mutilated before.
That stands to reason and doesn't require a doctors opinion to verify.

Common sense tells us that the killer had done it all before.

On that basis, one could then be reasonably confident that the killer would have learned through progression and learning on the job so to speak.

This would then support the reason for the apparent escalation in the severity of the injuries.

Ultimately, placing an over dependence on what doctors said at the time, just leads to a circular argument that doesn't really do anywhere.
To really progress we need to omit all of the "opinions" given at the time and look at each murder as if for the very first time.
That will remove all of the stagnant layers that have been allowed to ferment and develop over the decades, and help us to view things with a clear and objective mindset.

The value in the Doctors is they give technical descriptions that reveal what the wounds were and potential methods and potential weapons. So some of it is actual evidence. I dont think the post mortems were debated to any significant differences.

But I agree R.D. that you have to think outside the box since everyone involved is long dead.

As an engineer I question everything and use logic and gap analysis to solve problems and in this case the gaps may be too many to fill. I will give you some examples of a few i am chasing.

1. Where would this killer learn human anatomy?
2. If Robert Sagar, a trained medical man and detective, was following a Jewish butcher he claimed was the Ripper, who are those potential suspects? Outside of Jacob Levy.
3. Do the bodies tell us anything and if so, what?
4. Where was the home Sagars butcher went to?

And so on. I dont know where, if anywhere this information might exist. I do know the Jewish Free School taught physiology but their is no detail. So its a gap.

I dont know if this is helpful but looking at it logically I believe this killer was local, had some education either from schooling or likely hands on, and had cut either humans or animals before.

If Sagar was the best in class as a detective and involved in every murder as London City liason, trained as a medical man, who believed they identified the killer beyond any doubt and he was a Jewish butcher, then you have to ask- How many suspects does that possibly fit and is there any process of elimination? You would think that London City police had a name. Thats a gap im trying to fill. There were only 4 kosher butchers on the Row and they were the Board of Shechita who granted licenses to kosher butchers. None of them were the Ripper. But they would have known this butcher.

Just some thoughts but some insight on how i use information from all the other researchers. I think the real story might now be in the Quest??

Cheers

[The Rookie Detective]

The value in the Doctors is they give technical descriptions that reveal what the wounds were and potential methods and potential weapons. So some of it is actual evidence. I dont think the post mortems were debated to any significant differences.

But I agree R.D. that you have to think outside the box since everyone involved is long dead.

As an engineer I question everything and use logic and gap analysis to solve problems and in this case the gaps may be too many to fill. I will give you some examples of a few i am chasing.

1. Where would this killer learn human anatomy?
2. If Robert Sagar, a trained medical man and detective, was following a Jewish butcher he claimed was the Ripper, who are those potential suspects? Outside of Jacob Levy.
3. Do the bodies tell us anything and if so, what?
4. Where was the home Sagars butcher went to?

And so on. I dont know where, if anywhere this information might exist. I do know the Jewish Free School taught physiology but their is no detail. So its a gap.

I dont know if this is helpful but looking at it logically I believe this killer was local, had some education either from schooling or likely hands on, and had cut either humans or animals before.

If Sagar was the best in class as a detective and involved in every murder as London City liason, trained as a medical man, who believed they identified the killer beyond any doubt and he was a Jewish butcher, then you have to ask- How many suspects does that possibly fit and is there any process of elimination? You would think that London City police had a name. Thats a gap im trying to fill. There were only 4 kosher butchers on the Row and they were the Board of Shechita who granted licenses to kosher butchers. None of them were the Ripper. But they would have known this butcher.

Just some thoughts but some insight on how i use information from all the other researchers. I think the real story might now be in the Quest??

Cheers

Excellent post indeed

For my answer to your no.1, check out my new thread as I feel this may just be applicable.

[Sam Flynn]

The issue with reliance on doctors opinions, is that that's all they are; subjective opinions.

There's nothing subjective about recording that the killer needlessly cut out some of the intercostal muscles and tore away - TORE away! - the bottom part of a lung. I could go on, but those two examples alone are good enough for me.