JtR failed amputation. Torso killer was successful.

[Batman]

Could below be the killer exploring how to open a human abdomen?

Nichols:

Henry Llewellyn, surgeon,
There were no injuries about the body till just about the lower part of the abdomen. Two or three inches from the left side was a wound
running in a jagged manner. It was a very deep wound, and the tissues were cut through. There were several incisions running across the abdomen. On the right side there were also three or four similar cuts running downwards. All these had been caused by a knife, which had been used violently and been used downwards. The wounds were from left to right, and might have been done by a left-handed person.

----

Yes.

https://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=10998

[Varqm]

Could below be the killer exploring how to open a human abdomen?

Nichols:

Henry Llewellyn, surgeon,
There were no injuries about the body till just about the lower part of the abdomen. Two or three inches from the left side was a wound
running in a jagged manner. It was a very deep wound, and the tissues were cut through. There were several incisions running across the abdomen. On the right side there were also three or four similar cuts running downwards. All these had been caused by a knife, which had been used violently and been used downwards. The wounds were from left to right, and might have been done by a left-handed person.

----

[Fisherman]

Joshua Rogan: 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.

Possibly so, yes - and I am not pressing the point that Kellys murder was the act of a skilled medico or anatomist. The point I am pressing is that if it required skill to remove the Eddowes kidney, then it also required skill to do it with Kellys kidneys.
It is a question that seemingly cannot be put to rest.


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"

There WAS cutting in the rib area, but it was cutting of the intercostals. I believe that is what Hebbert points to, since cutting the intercoastals is cutting the ribcage.
I believe that Bond - who took care to point out the cuts to the vertebrae of the neck (or is it throat...?) - would have told ut if the ribs themselves had been notched by the knife.
My own take on the cut intercostals is the it quite probably came about after the heart had been removed, and not for reasons of facilitating that removal.

[Fisherman]

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.

The kidneys will still be hidden by a membrane, I believe? And it would be as artful to remove them in Kelly's case as it would in Eddowes, I´d say. Whether that is truly an act requiring skill or not is something a medico is more suited to decide.

[Trevor Marriott]

I'm not suggesting that a butcher did. I was merely pointing out how easy it would be for someone to know/find out where the organs were.

I think when it comes to organ removal, there is a big difference between reading about removing them, and actually being able to do it, especially in almost total darkness without a lot of practice.

As i have said before, for the killer to have removed Eddowes organs in the little time available to him he must have been as proficient, if not even more than Dr Browns expert, and I would suggest those persons were few and far between in 1888, and if the killer were of that category why would he take organs when he could have freely obtained them?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

There is no way on this earth that a butcher was responsible for removing the organs from Eddowes, or any of the others save for perhaps kelly.

I'm not suggesting that a butcher did. I was merely pointing out how easy it would be for someone to know/find out where the organs were.

[Batman]

There is no way on this earth that a butcher was responsible for removing the organs from Eddowes, or any of the others save for perhaps kelly.

Correct, not even a butcher would have pierced vital organs while slashing others and making jagged cuts. That's someone with no knife skills or anatomical knowledge at all. As pointed out by Dr. Bond who was standing beside a Dr. Philips who was now abandoning medical claims since that second opinion popped up.

[Trevor Marriott]

Books were still available, and people were more familiar with butchery than they are in today's pre-packed, freezer ready society.

There is no way on this earth that a butcher was responsible for removing the organs from Eddowes, or any of the others save for perhaps kelly.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

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.

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

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.

[Trevor Marriott]

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

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Joshua Rogan]

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"

[Sam Flynn]

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.

[Fisherman]

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.