Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

JtR failed amputation. Torso killer was successful.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Batman View Post
    Eddowes head was nearly taken off. Warning graphic.

    Also, he didn't manage to take off her whole nose. He hit bone at her bridge. Examiner even notes the nasal bone was hit. He tried to cut from the nasals themselves where the wings meet the face. In the end, he could only remove the tip.

    Her nose looks in a bit better condition in that photo than I expected.
    Have you only just seen that photo?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
      Have you only just seen that photo?
      No, but I visited it again to have a look. That's a near decapitation. Her nose looks in better condition but could be the photo.

      I know there is some controversy over the photo but obviously, it's Eddowes. Ear sliced and all.
      Bona fide canonical and then some.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Batman View Post
        No, but I visited it again to have a look. That's a near decapitation. Her nose looks in better condition but could be the photo.

        I know there is some controversy over the photo but obviously, it's Eddowes. Ear sliced and all.
        Actually, it is less of a near decapitation than what Nichols, Chapman and Kelly suffered. A horrific injury nevertheless, and - I think - a useful insight for those who say that Nichols had her neck cut before her abdomen was cut. If the neck was indeed cut first, then this (or worse) is the kind of wound from which the blood escaped, suggestedly forming only a small pool under her neck, whereas al the rest was taken up by the garments she wore.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
          A horrific injury nevertheless, and - I think - a useful insight for those who say that Nichols had her neck cut before her abdomen was cut.
          Not many people say that. But they do say that Nichols' throat was cut first, which it most certainly was.
          Kind regards, Sam Flynn

          "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

          Comment


          • What this tells us is that if the bodies were lifted up, the head would have been dangling, nearing a falling off, at a 90 degree without them also being supported.

            I think the chin bruising seen in many of his victims is a combination of the blitz attack and probably what Philips also saw in the attempted separation of the neck muscles, with JtR pushing their chins back to open up the wound through the heads own weight coupled with force.

            JtR must have had some strength in him.
            Bona fide canonical and then some.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
              Not many people say that. But they do say that Nichols' throat was cut first, which it most certainly was.
              Do you need me to explain the difference between a neck and a throat? Again?

              Comment


              • In Dr Hebbert's lecture on Criminology, he compares the torso killings with those of the Ripper, and concludes that they had different perpetrators with different motives.
                In the case of Kelly he states that "there was nothing to suggest any knowledge of anatomy or surgical skill. In fact the killer had evidently attempted to remove the heart by cutting the ribs, and, failing to do this, he had dragged it down through the midriff".

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
                  In Dr Hebbert's lecture on Criminology, he compares the torso killings with those of the Ripper, and concludes that they had different perpetrators with different motives.
                  In the case of Kelly he states that "there was nothing to suggest any knowledge of anatomy or surgical skill. In fact the killer had evidently attempted to remove the heart by cutting the ribs, and, failing to do this, he had dragged it down through the midriff".
                  I think Hebbert made some likely remarks.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
                    In Dr Hebbert's lecture on Criminology, he compares the torso killings with those of the Ripper, and concludes that they had different perpetrators with different motives.
                    In the case of Kelly he states that "there was nothing to suggest any knowledge of anatomy or surgical skill. In fact the killer had evidently attempted to remove the heart by cutting the ribs, and, failing to do this, he had dragged it down through the midriff".
                    Did Hebbert see Kelly´s corpse? I can´t remember. What I do remember is that Bond said that "The intercostals between the fourth, fifth, and sixth ribs were cut through and the contents of the thorax visible through the openings".
                    To me, this does not speak of any cutting to the ribs, but instead cutting through the meat BETWEEN the ribs.
                    It has been suggested that this owed to a wish on the killer´s behalf to be able to see the heart through these openings, something that would facilitate getting the cuts to the heart attachments right.
                    If the killer wanted to take the heart out through the ribcage, would he not be able to simply grab the ribs and tear them apart? I don´t know but it seems a likely thing to try in such a case.

                    The whole discussion about Kelly and the line of thinking represented by those who say that it involved no skill whatsoever is a tad absurd to me. To begin with, we must define what skill we are looking for. Even if the killer did not show any medical training, he could we be skilled with the knife and in achieving whatever goals he had set himself, if you ask me.

                    It is often said that the two definitive examples of skill on the killer´s behalf lie in Chapmans uterus removal as witnessed about by Phillips and Eddowes´ kidney removal, as defined by Brown. In the latter case, we are told that excising a kidney from the front is no simple matter since the kidney is not visible or easily accessible from the front. But isn´t it a fact that Kelly´s kidneys were both found under her head? And would they not both have been excised from the front? And if so, how is that not at least as skilled as the Eddowes excisings?

                    There will have been a contemporary brawl amongst medicos and anatomists at the time of the murders, and I would not be suprised to learn that this owed to how it was not comme il faut to point to a possible link to the medical profession on the killer´s behalf. And so whatever such link that could possibly be there was perhaps hushed. The perhaps clearest example may lie in the torso series, where Galloway was initially adamant that the Rainham victim had been subjected to cutting performed by somebody with thorough surgical schooling and skill. When the inquest opened, though, Galloway had toned himself down very much and settled for possibly some anatomical insights.
                    To me, it would seem that colleauges of his had a word with him before he spoke at the inquest.

                    Myself, I am not saying that there WAS surgical schooling on behalf of the killer. What I think there was, primarily in the torso series, was a high degree of knife and cutting skills, impressing anybody who had experience from dissections in mortuaries.

                    PS. Had a quick check and it seems that Hebbert saw Kelly´s corpse. But nothing is said about any effort to cut the ribs, which makes me think that Hebbert opted for the idea that the killer tried to bend the ribs apart and take the heart out that way. I am fine with that option myself, since my candidate certainly didn´t have medical training or surgical skills. He may, though, have had comprehensive anatomical insight, as many victorians did. At the end of the day, I personally think that the cutting between the ribs may have had another aim than taking the heart out, and I would not be surprised if these cuts came after the heart removal had already been performed.
                    Last edited by Fisherman; 12-09-2018, 01:29 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                      In the latter case, we are told that excising a kidney from the front is no simple matter since the kidney is not visible or easily accessible from the front.
                      That might be the preferred approach from a minimally invasive surgical perspective, but we're not talking about such surgery in either Eddowes' or Kelly's case, but evisceration with no regard to minimising damage to the body. I've not eviscerated a human, thankfully, but I've dissected enough rats to know that, once the abdomen is open and the intestines displaced, getting at any abdominal organ from the front is easy.
                      Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                      "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                        It is often said that the two definitive examples of skill on the killer´s behalf lie in Chapmans uterus removal as witnessed about by Phillips and Eddowes´ kidney removal, as defined by Brown. In the latter case, we are told that excising a kidney from the front is no simple matter since the kidney is not visible or easily accessible from the front.
                        Anyone used to viewing flesh as a commodity rather than a patient would likely know how to find and remove a kidney, as they are packed in the best fat in the body.

                        PS. Had a quick check and it seems that Hebbert saw Kelly´s corpse. But nothing is said about any effort to cut the ribs, which makes me think that Hebbert opted for the idea that the killer tried to bend the ribs apart and take the heart out that way.
                        Well, I've always thought that the holes in the ribcage were probably created to allow knife access to release the heart, but the quote from Hebbert that I posted earlier definitely said "cutting the ribs". Not bending. And he was there - the very next line says "As I saw the awful sight before any disturbances of the body, or interference with the room, I can vouch for the truth of the conditions"

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                          That might be the preferred approach from a minimally invasive surgical perspective, but we're not talking about such surgery in either Eddowes' or Kelly's case, but evisceration with no regard to minimising damage to the body. I've not eviscerated a human, thankfully, but I've dissected enough rats to know that, once the abdomen is open and the intestines displaced, getting at any abdominal organ from the front is easy.
                          It’s not quite that simple it’s knowing what you are looking for, then being able to locate it, that is where the anatomical knowledge comes into play

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                            It’s not quite that simple it’s knowing what you are looking for, then being able to locate it, that is where the anatomical knowledge comes into play
                            Thanks to biology books - and coming from a carnivorous family - I've known what kidneys look like, and where they're located, since I was a child.
                            Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                            "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                              Thanks to biology books - and coming from a carnivorous family - I've known what kidneys look like, and where they're located, since I was a child.
                              That maybe, but you were not the killer of Eddowes,or the person responsible for removing her organs in 1888.

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                                That maybe, but you were not the killer of Eddowes,or the person responsible for removing her organs in 1888.
                                Books were still available, and people were more familiar with butchery than they are in today's pre-packed, freezer ready society.
                                Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                                "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X