Jack the Ripper-The Secret Police Files

[Fisherman]

As I just posted, Fish, I wonder how much of that "clean sweep of the knife" came from Phillips and how much came from a "clean sweep of the journalist's pen". Interestingly, and I'd never noticed this before, the reports in the Echo and some other papers have this to say:

"It was evident, continued the witness [Phillips], that these absent portions, together with the incision in the large intestine, were the result of the same excising power."

I've no idea what precisely was meant by "the same excising power", but it seems too wacky a phrase to have been made up. Anyhow, if this is a verbatim report (as opposed to the précis report in the Lancet), perhaps "the same excising power" is what Phillips really said. The more melodramatic - and memorable - phrase "clean sweep of the knife" could well have been the invention of an enterprising journalist after all.

I think that is a very risky suggestion, to be frank. And I also think that the killer had a thing for colons (Eddowes, Jackson and the Rainham torso - and now Chapman), so I read the reports in a very different manner.

To add, the Echo article you refer to also included this passage by Phillips:
"The mode of removal of the abdominal wall indicated a certain anatomical knowledge; but the incision of certain viscera conveyed to my kind a greater anatomical knowledge."

More enterprising journalism? Or?

A further elucidation comes via the Morning Advertiser:
"Dr. Phillips then requested that the evidence given by him on the former occasion might be read over, and, this having been done, he said the abdominal wall had been removed in three parts - two from the anterior part. There was a greater portion of skin removed on the right side than on the left. On adjusting these three flaps it was evident that a portion surrounding and constituting the navel was wanting. The womb itself and two thirds of the bladder were absent from the body and could nowhere be traced. It was apparent that these absent portions, together with the division of the large intestine, were the result of the same incising cut, and hence his opinion that the length of the weapon was at least five or six inches, and probably more. The wounds generally confirmed him in his opinion that the instrument must have been of a very sharp character. The removal of the abdominal wall indicated certain anatomical knowledge, as did the cutting in three portions of the abdominal wall, and the non cutting of the intestine. Also the way in which the womb was removed showed this in a more marked degree."

So that is how "the same excising power" translates - it was the same cut that did it.

Overall, I think that time eroded the implications offered by Phillips - it was just as obvious that no surgeon would have done it, as was the case with the Rainham torso, where Galloway took the exact same course. First, he said it was clearly the work of a surgeon or anatomist, and then he realized that no matter how skilful the knife work was, the cutting as such was totally non-surgical.
Another common - and extremely specific - denominator for the Riper and the Torso man, therefore: Both were deemed by medicos to be surgeons, but time and some afterthought hollowed the idea.

[John G]

Indeed, John - although I've often wondered how much Dr Phillips himself is represented in that article, and how much of it was journalistic spin. The plain fact of the matter is that the Lancet does paint a somewhat cleaner picture of the evisceration than Dr Phillips' own testimony conveys.

Hello Sam,

Yes, I agree. And, of course, Dr Phillips' original medical report/notes hasn't survived so, alas, we have no definitive answer.

[Sam Flynn]

See what you mean - of course it was not a "clean" sweep in that respect. What I think Phillips pointed to was an uninterrupted, unhesitating sweep of the knife

As I just posted, Fish, I wonder how much of that "clean sweep of the knife" came from Phillips and how much came from a "clean sweep of the journalist's pen". Interestingly, and I'd never noticed this before, the reports in the Echo and some other papers have this to say:

"It was evident, continued the witness [Phillips], that these absent portions, together with the incision in the large intestine, were the result of the same excising power."

I've no idea what precisely was meant by "the same excising power", but it seems too wacky a phrase to have been made up. Anyhow, if this is a verbatim report (as opposed to the précis report in the Lancet), perhaps "the same excising power" is what Phillips really said. The more melodramatic - and memorable - phrase "clean sweep of the knife" could well have been the invention of an enterprising journalist after all.

[Sam Flynn]

Yes, but this is what was stated in The Lancet:

"...and the incisions cleanly cut, avoiding the rectum and dividing the vagina low enough to avoid injury to the cervix uteri. Obviously the work of an expert-of one, at least, who had such knowledge of anatomical and pathological examinations as to be enabled to secure the pelvic organs with one sweep of a knife..." (The Lancet, September 29, 1888).

Indeed, John - although I've often wondered how much Dr Phillips himself is represented in that article, and how much of it was journalistic spin. The plain fact of the matter is that the Lancet does paint a somewhat cleaner picture of the evisceration than Dr Phillips' own testimony conveys.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: Glad we agree on some things, Fish!

So am I, Gareth!

I'm glad you said "seemingly", because Phillips' own notes contradict the "clean sweep" argument by noting the two-thirds hacked bladder and partially-severed colon; not to mention the incredibly crude means by which the killer opened Annie's abdomen in the first place.

See what you mean - of course it was not a "clean" sweep in that respect. What I think Phillips pointed to was an uninterrupted, unhesitating sweep of the knife, in itself something that told a story of a very skilled knifesman - but NOT a skilled surgeon.
This, by the way, is exactly what signifies the Torso killer´s work too. Skilled, unhesitating, sweeping knifework.

[John G]

Oh, but there was collateral damage. Two-thirds only of the bladder was removed, leaving one-third inside the corpse, and Chapman's colon was partially cut through.

Yes, but this is what was stated in The Lancet:

"...and the incisions cleanly cut, avoiding the rectum and dividing the vagina low enough to avoid injury to the cervix uteri. Obviously the work of an expert-of one, at least, who had such knowledge of anatomical and pathological examinations as to be enabled to secure the pelvic organs with one sweep of a knife..." (The Lancet, September 29, 1888).

[Sam Flynn]

Very true! The removal of the uterus from Annie Chapman´s body was not something any surgeon worth his salt would be proud of.

Glad we agree on some things, Fish!

What impressed Phillips was instead seemingly the skilful sweep of the knife that took out the portions from the body.

I'm glad you said "seemingly", because Phillips' own notes contradict the "clean sweep" argument by noting the two-thirds hacked bladder and partially-severed colon; not to mention the incredibly crude means by which the killer opened Annie's abdomen in the first place.

[Fisherman]

Oh, but there was collateral damage. Two-thirds only of the bladder was removed, leaving one-third inside the corpse, and Chapman's colon was partially cut through.

Very true! The removal of the uterus from Annie Chapman´s body was not something any surgeon worth his salt would be proud of. What impressed Phillips was instead seemingly the skilful sweep of the knife that took out the portions from the body. It was not a question of fiddling around with the blade, stabbing, carving, groping and slashing the uterus out, but instead of a sweeping movement, made with lots of confidence and causing a totally clean cut - through all the wrong sections if you were a surgeon.

[Sam Flynn]

Yes, but Drs Biggs and Neale fail to take into account that no surrounding tissue was damaged in the case of Chapman

Oh, but there was collateral damage. Two-thirds only of the bladder was removed, leaving one-third inside the corpse, and Chapman's colon was partially cut through.

[Elamarna]

Steve,

Yes, but Drs Biggs and Neale fail to take into account that no surrounding tissue was damaged in the case of Chapman, or that Eddowes' kidney was "carefully" removed. This suggests a very different, i.e. far more skilled, approach to that of the cut and slash method employed at abattoirs.

Thus, Dr Biggs asks the question, "It is a question as to whether the uterus and kidney were 'surgically' removed, or was it just the case that large chunks of these organs were hacked out by an 'unskilled' person." (Marriott, 2013).

Dr Brown seems to provide the answer to this question, stating that the left kidney was "carefully taken out and removed".(The emphasis is mine).

John, we do not know what "carefully" meant

The Butcher said he would probably remove it by just plucking it out, that would leave very little damage to surrounding tissue if any.

The problem as Biggs points out is that the descriptions are inadequate to allow anyone to draw real conclusions.


Steve

[John G]

John

While blood will flow into the cavity, it does not get filled very quickly if the throat is cut first and will collect in the lowest areas,


While it may be an inconvenience it does not stop the killer ,in my opinion or, as the evidence from the time suggests.


John, the issue here is that if it is targeted then it does require knowledge.

If not targeted it does not matter as the intestines were removed anyway.


It should also be noted that Neale and Biggs see little problem with the mutilations and timings as given by the 88 medics.


Steve

Steve,

Yes, but Drs Biggs and Neale fail to take into account that no surrounding tissue was damaged in the case of Chapman, or that Eddowes' kidney was "carefully" removed. This suggests a very different, i.e. far more skilled, approach to that of the cut and slash method employed at abattoirs.

Thus, Dr Biggs asks the question, "It is a question as to whether the uterus and kidney were 'surgically' removed, or was it just the case that large chunks of these organs were hacked out by an 'unskilled' person." (Marriott, 2013).

Dr Brown seems to provide the answer to this question, stating that the left kidney was "carefully taken out and removed".(The emphasis is mine).

[Elamarna]

The experiment also demonstrated that, in attempting to remove a kidney, the perpetrator would be faced with the difficult problem of the abdominal cavity filing with blood which, together with faecal matter, would result in messy hands, acting as a major hindrance.

Dr Calder also opines that the kidneys are not easy to find because they are behind other major organs: see Marriott, 2013.

John

While blood will flow into the cavity, it does not get filled very quickly if the throat is cut first and will collect in the lowest areas,


While it may be an inconvenience it does not stop the killer ,in my opinion or, as the evidence from the time suggests.


John, the issue here is that if it is targeted then it does require knowledge.

If not targeted it does not matter as the intestines were removed anyway.


It should also be noted that Neale and Biggs see little problem with the mutilations and timings as given by the 88 medics.


Steve

[John G]

The experiment also demonstrated that, in attempting to remove a kidney, the perpetrator would be faced with the difficult problem of the abdominal cavity filing with blood which, together with faecal matter, would result in messy hands, acting as a major hindrance.

Dr Calder also opines that the kidneys are not easy to find because they are behind other major organs: see Marriott, 2013.

[Elamarna]

QUOTE=Elamarna;404406



So what you say here is that the people who gave their views on the mutilations based their views on their own experience of working in good modern lighting.

And you say that they may have little or no experience of working in low light.

This means that the working conditions of the professionals and the working conditions of the killer was very different.

When Harrison and Calder constructed their experiment there is the question about another difference: the difference between them and the killer as to the ability (A) to perform mutilations in a dark place.

One dimension of this difference is experience.

Another dimension of this difference is the method.

Regards, Pierre

I agree.

the experiment if you can call it such, shows the Harrison and Calder could not remove the kidney with a 6 inch blade.

That is all.


Steve

[Sam Flynn]

If he had no experience of working (at anything) in low light, the tasks performed would probably be more difficult, but it does not preclude them from happening.

Quite so.