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.

[seanr]

There were only 4 kosher butchers on the Row and they were the Board of Shechita who granted licenses to kosher butchers.

Butcher's Row was a shambles and a meat market, each of the shops had slaughterhouses at the back and employed many butchers and shochets, both immediately here and at the slaughterhouses at Deptford and Islington.
In 1899, when the Prince of Wales had made comments that at one of the major meat markets of London a man visibly suffering from leprosy was employed, it was reported that:

Mr Nathan, one of the largest meat salesmen in the Aldgate Market, made several inquiries with a like result. Indeed, it is hardly possible that at this market a leper would be in any way employed. The large number of Jews who deal here almost precludes any such possibility, for, as is well known, absolute cleanliness and health are necessary in all persons who prepare Kosher meat.

Mr Nathan was Mr Henry Nathan of 46 Aldgate High Street, he ran a large operation of which the shopfront was just a small part.

These butchers were NOT the Board of Shechita. The president of the Board of Shechita in 1888 was Samuel Montagu MP, the member for Whitechapel. I haven't found evidence of any of these butchers sitting on the board. I don't know where you get the claim from "they were the Board of Shechita who granted licenses to kosher butchers" but its wrong.

As it is a matter of Jewish dietary and religious law, it is respectful to get these details right.

[FISHY1118]

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.”

Dr Bond was clearly referring to the Mutilation/s inflicted to Kellys body , and not the way in which her organs may or may not have been removed.

[Abby Normal]

yeah the drs at the time were totally divided. some thought the ripper had sr skill like that of a dr, some didnt.

id say at tje least exp with a knife, and some sort of anatomical knowledge.

[Mike J. G.]

Does anybody know if the removal of Mary's heart suggests a degree of knowledge or finesse? The post-mortem's phrasing is very spare and just says "the pericardium was open below and the heart absent." I would imagining approaching the heart from below would make it more difficult to extract?

FWIW, I incline toward the "excavation" idea expressed by Sam, but I had always heard that the heart was a difficult organ to remove, which makes me curious.

I hate to sound morbid, but as far as the questions of surgical skill and the difficulties of plucking a heart from a human body goes, the grim reality of murder videos on the internet show us that anyone can pretty much take a body apart in minutes if he really wants to. I've unfortunately seen people taking hearts from chests without any difficulty whatsoever.

People have these ideas of the Whitechapel murderer needing to have some knowledge of anatomy, and whether he did or he didn't is irrelevant IMO, because once he's killed a few times he's pretty much used to the process. Add to that the fact that he had time on his side and four walls to hide within when it came to Miller's court.

For people who enjoy murder, taking a body apart is pretty easy.

IMO, the killer was just another type of necrophiliac. He just enjoyed playing inside dead bodies, I don't particularly think there was any rhyme or reason or hidden meaning behind any of it. Just a man getting his sexual kicks from playing with offal.

[Patrick Differ]

Butcher's Row was a shambles and a meat market, each of the shops had slaughterhouses at the back and employed many butchers and shochets, both immediately here and at the slaughterhouses at Deptford and Islington.
In 1899, when the Prince of Wales had made comments that at one of the major meat markets of London a man visibly suffering from leprosy was employed, it was reported that:



Mr Nathan was Mr Henry Nathan of 46 Aldgate High Street, he ran a large operation of which the shopfront was just a small part.

These butchers were NOT the Board of Shechita. The president of the Board of Shechita in 1888 was Samuel Montagu MP, the member for Whitechapel. I haven't found evidence of any of these butchers sitting on the board. I don't know where you get the claim from "they were the Board of Shechita who granted licenses to kosher butchers" but its wrong.

As it is a matter of Jewish dietary and religious law, it is respectful to get these details right.

I dont need a lecture or some fake outrage on Jewish dietary laws. Rabbi Adler was the head man and the way I understand this worked is they had a hierarchy but some of the Slaughterman did the day to day heavy lifting including the training of Kosher Butchers.

Morris Bossman was one of those and Montagu was a figurehead who didnt get his hands dirty. The Board controlled the licenses and the interaction between Kosher Butcher and Shochet were part of the process because (1) they did the training and (2) they gave character reference.

The Trial of Jacob Levy for meat theft illustrates the relationship between Kosher Butcher, slaughterman , character and license.

The Board, as I understand it, had more than just a bunch of guys sitting around a table in suits. It had hands on members who did the actual hard work. You can say this is wrong but I cant imagine Montague or any other MP slaughtering a Cow and removing and inspecting organs. Eventhough that was part of training.

I havent found where there were many Shochets in Butchers Row which is what I focused on because of Robert Sagar and the suspect Jacob Levy.

Sean if you have more concrete evidence of how the Kosher process worked in 1888 then please share it. The Board as I understand it wasnt like a Corporate Board but more of a process. While it relied on oversight and political representation the real work was in the trenches. It seems logical that there would be Shochets on the Board or reporting directly to the Board.

The whole point of referencing the Board of Shechita in my view is to draw a distinction between gentile and Jewish Kosher Butchers. More training, inspection of organs, licensing and anatomical education are key differentiators.

[seanr]

I'm quite sure that many of the Jewish slaughtermen and butchers who were working in the Aldgate market had a relationship with the Board of Shechita. That's quite different though than being the Board of Shechita itself.

The Shechita Board of London is composed of twenty members, five being elected as representatives from each of the four city Synagogues every four years, the Revs. Dr. Adler; Dr. Artom and the Dayonim being Ex-Officio members. Its functions are the levying a tax upon all kosher meat at the rate of 3/9 for every Bullock, 5d. Sheep and 7d., or 8d. Calves; to pay the officers for the different duties in connection with killing, and otherwise the carrying out, in a religious point of view, the supply of kosher meat to the community in London.

The make up of the board changed over time, for example when representatives from the Federation of Synagogues joined the Board. However, this get complicated as not all Jewish communities accepted the authority of the Chief Rabbi. The dispute with the Machzike Hadass, who set up their own Board of Shechita and Beth Din is one case which illustrates the point.

The archives of the Board are held at Southampton University, better answers will likely be available there:https://archiveshub.jisc.ac.uk/searc...9-f65cac1ef3c6

There would have been many Shochets who worked in the Aldgate Market, but they weren't necessarily the names on the shop door so much as employed there.

This isn't a Shechita Board thread though.