Surgical knowledge?

[Tecs]

I know the issue of whether the Ripper showed anatomical, surgical or medical knowledge has been done to death already, but a weird story on yesterday's news got me thinking.

It was reported that a farmer in Cheshire discovered several of his sheep had been attacked and their back legs removed. A few people were interviewed yesterday and the interesting bit was that all of them immediately said that it was done "expertly."

There was unanimous agreement that whatever the motive for doing it, either for food or to sell on in these tough times, whoever had done it knew how to do it.

I wonder if the fog of ripperology and debate has obscured the simple fact that if bodies get found in the street with organs removed in what appears to be an expert way, then it is fair to assume that it was done by an expert?

And by that I don't mean a brain surgeon or doctor, just somebody, as was said at the time, who was no stranger to the knife.

Anyone interested in discussing?

Regards,

[lynn cates]

street opinion

Hello Tecs.

"I wonder if the fog of ripperology and debate has obscured the simple fact that if bodies get found in the street with organs removed in what appears to be an expert way, then it is fair to assume that it was done by an expert?'

That would seem correct PROVIDED that were the opinion on the street. The opinion (and that's all it was) that Polly and Annie were skilfully mutilated, whilst Kate and "MJK" were not, comes from the medicos and coroners involved.

Cheers.
LC

[Scott Nelson]

Sometimes there was surgical skill involved and other times there wasn't. I guess it was just the killer's mindset at the particular time, if you want to argue for just one killer.

[Ben]

Hi Tecs,

The opinion that there was surgical expertise evinced by the mutilations was a minority one amongst the medical professionals at the time, and was put forward by just one doctor, George Bagster Phillips, who also believed that Eddowes and Chapman were killed by different people. Dr. Brown, who thought he detected anatomical knowledge (as opposed to surgical skill) in the Eddowes case, was effectively outnumbered three to one in that respect by Drs. Phillips, Saunders and Sequeira, who also examined the body. Dr. Bond, who examined the notes for all victims and personally examined Mary Kelly, detected no knowledge whatsoever.

All the best,
Ben

[Errata]

I have to wonder how many times these men had actually seen the mutilation done by someone who was in fact an expert? In my mind, no expert would remove an organ while taking parts of another organ, because an expert would have habit reinforced by practice to make as little of a hash of it as possible. Presumably the people they mostly work on are alive, and the intent is for them to stay that way. I sometime think "expert" is used to distinguish wild swings of a knife that you might see in a fight. How many doctors, vets, medical students, whatever had actually gone of some kind of mutilating rampage that the coroners would have used as comparison?

[Hunter]

This has been one of the most misunderstood aspects of this case, and much because of fitting suspect theories into what was evolving medical evidence at the time, and the predilictions as to whether some suspects chosen would have had some medical knowledge or not.

The idea that Nichols' and Chapman's murders displayed some sort of skill while latter ones didn't emerged because of a contemporary theory proposed by Wynne Baxter during the Chapman murder inquest. The medical opinions expressed at the Eddowes inquest were in reaction to that proposal put forth by Baxter just days before the 'double event' took place. It is rather complicated and not suitable for a single post. There was an extensive article in the recent NIR that dealt with this issue.

In short... just look at the actual evidence in each murder. It is obvious that the injuries inflicted upon Mary Nichols in no way compare to what was done to Catherine Eddowes in terms of 'skill' or 'anatomical knowledge' or familiarity with the use of a knife. There is nothing to indicate any of these traits in Nichols' murder. And it must be understood that Baxter developed his theory after only these two murders (Nichols and Chapman) had taken place.

No one offered a singular opinion on the murder of Mary Kelly in comparison to the others except that Thomas Bond thought none of the murders displayed even the skill of a butcher.

[Hunter]

In response to Errata's points...
You are exactly right.

Excerpt from the article "Murder by Design?":


Just how could any level of real medical skill be ascertained when the conditions at the murder site were quite different from any normal surgical environment, other than the reasonable conclusion that the killer knew where the organs were located and was handy with a knife? Even battlefield surgery would not be comparable. A field surgeon would have, at least, a basic array of instruments, some type of assistance and a clear logical objective for performing his procedure.

[Tecs]

Dear all,

Thanks for all of the replies.

Regarding the issue of surgical skill/anatomical knowledge, in my opinion one is pretty much the same as the other if you think how the observation is meant. ie having seen an organ removed, a medical man may then observe that the person who removed it who in his (the medical man's) opinion obviously showed some surgical knowledge in doing so, also knew exactly what he was doing anatomically. I'm not explaining this well am I?

What I mean is, scenario 1 Killer goes straight for the kidney and removes it = anatomical and surgical knowledge.

Scenario 2 killer rips abdomen open, says "I'll have that" and removes an organ = surgical but not anatomical knowledge.

A medical man may have mentioned the anatomical bit in order to distinguish between the two whilst believing surgical skill has also been shown but not mentioning it because it sort of goes without saying.

But on the subject it is interesting to see what was actually said.

Bagster Phillps said at Chapman's inquest that he detected anatomical knowledge. This was later published in the BMJ and I don't think anyone ridiculed that idea in that publication?

He also said it was "Obviously the work of an expert."

At the previous Nicholls inquest, Dr Llewellen was recalled and asked if any part of the viscera was missing, to which he replied "No." But, why was he recalled? Were people already thinking that organ removal was the aim?

At the resumed Nicholls inquest on 22nd September the coroner said, when talking about Nicholls and Chapman's murders that the injuries "in each case had been performed with anatomical knowledge."

He also suggested that Nicholls murderer may have been disturbed before he had chance to "accomplish his object" which suggests organ removal was being talked about as a possibility. (Tom Westcott wrote a very good piece on this website suggesting that close examination of Nicholls injuries testimony suggests that her injuries were in fact the same as the other victims were organ removal occurred.)

Dr Gordon Brown said about Eddowes that the left kidney was "carefully taken out and removed. the left renal artery was cut through. I would say that someone who knew the position of the kidney must have done it."

He also said "I believe the perpetrator of the act must have had considerable knowledge of the position of the organs in the abdominal cavity and the way of removing them. It required a great deal of medical knowledge to have removed the kidney and to know where it was placed."

To me, this is more than just a bit of anatomical knowledge. Considerable is a suggestive adjective and great deal of medical knowledge to know how to remove a kidney clearly is talking about surgical knowledge because de facto that's what it is!

Stride had no other cuts so shows nothing one way or the other and for some reason, Kelly's inquest mentions nothing one way or the other. Bagster Phillips does not comment on any skill or lack of it, nor does Bond's post mortem, although they expected that an opportunity to go into more detail may arise later but didn't.

So overall, the two cases where organs were removed, Chapman and Eddowes, the doctors say there was anatomical and/or surgical skill. And the coroners were clearly thinking of organ removal as a possible motive.


It was just the simplicity yesterday of the people saying "legs removed expertly=expert did it which intrigued me.

regards,

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Tecs,

The opinion that there was surgical expertise evinced by the mutilations was a minority one amongst the medical professionals at the time, and was put forward by just one doctor, George Bagster Phillips, who also believed that Eddowes and Chapman were killed by different people. Dr. Brown, who thought he detected anatomical knowledge (as opposed to surgical skill) in the Eddowes case, was effectively outnumbered three to one in that respect by Drs. Phillips, Saunders and Sequeira, who also examined the body. Dr. Bond, who examined the notes for all victims and personally examined Mary Kelly, detected no knowledge whatsoever.

All the best,
Ben

Hi Ben,

Since Phillips is the ONLY doctor who saw 80% of the Canonical victims during their post mortem/autopsies, and since no-one has put forward any information that shows us that Dr Phillips was less than capabale of making sound observations, it would seem that his opinion should carry some weight.

Seeing notes isnt seeing the victims themselves.

And if we use that logic, then 2 Canonical victims murders showed a medical expert that skill and knowledge were used.

As for Mary Kelly, I would agree with Bonds assessment...since he did actually see that 1 Canonical in person.

Cheers Ben, all the best.

[lynn cates]

skill

Hello Cris.

"It is obvious that the injuries inflicted upon Mary Nichols in no way compare to what was done to Catherine Eddowes in terms of 'skill' or 'anatomical knowledge' or familiarity with the use of a knife."

Precisely! They don't even begin to compare.

Cheers.
LC

[Hunter]

And if we use that logic, then 2 Canonical victims murders showed a medical expert that skill and knowledge were used.

Which two would that be, Mike?

[Michael W Richards]

Im sure you knew this

Which two would that be, Mike?

Hi Hunter,

Well, since youre setting me up for a pronouncement,... ... I believe that the documentation shows us that based on the medical analysis of the bodies of Polly Nichols and Annie Chapman,.. Medical Students, Butchers, Slaughterhouse men, and any men who used knives frequently and have some idea of the composition of internal structures were sought out as potential suspects. The Police contacted medical colleges.

Phillips did not see the same skill sets when he viewed the Eddowes autopsy, and that murder would be the only other one among the 5 that could have been done by someone with the above characteristics. I think it was because the cuts were so sloppy, and the inclusion of superfluous cuts, made a concrete determination impossible.

For my money, the skilled semi-surgical fiend who killed the first 2 did not kill any other Canonicals. And that ties in well with a suspect for only those 2 murders that Lynn Cates has published material on.

Cheers Hunter

[Hunter]

Hi Mike,

Let's set the medical and coroner opinions aside for a moment. I'm sure we'll get to Phillips and that will be fine by me... but for now, which two murders do you think exhibited more skill than the others, and on what basis looking at the forensic evidence?

[Ben]

Hi Tecs,

The distinction between anatomical knowledge and surgical skill is, I believe, an important one. I have some "knowledge" of sumo wrestling, but I am in no way "skillful" at it, and as such, we shouldn't read "skill" into medical reports where none was mentioned. The only doctor who referred to any "skill" - as opposed to familiarity with the knife, or organ locations, or whatever else - was Phillips, but what tends to get glossed over is that he also attributed the Eddowes murder to a different killer, which is almost certainly erroneous (I know Lynn and Mike would disagree!). If Phillips was capable of an error of judgement in misattributing Chapman and Eddowes to different killers, he could have been equally errant with regard to to the degree of skill he detected in the former case.

I've noticed a number of authors ignore all this, and go straight to quoting Dr. Brown's evidence in the hope that it will lend gravitas to the theory that "Jack the Ripper" had medical knowledge, which of course it doesn't. Brown's views on the level of skill evinced by the Eddowes mutilations were not shared by the THREE other doctors who examined the body, one of whom was Phillips.

Dr. Sequeira, for instance, opined that:

"the murderer had no design on any particular organ of the body. He was not possessed of any great anatomical skill"

Dr. Bond studied the Eddowes notes and came to very much the same conclusion.

To have four doctors attesting to a lack of skill, and one doctor claiming the opposite does tend to undermine the authority of that conspicuous minority opinion.

Equally, Baxter's theories should not be invested with more importance than they warrant. His theory that the killer was fulfilling the needs of an American doctor seeking specimens was based on a faulty knowledge of the true circumstances of that doctor's request, and was accordingly refuted in the British Medical Journal.

The vast majority of eviscerating serial killers extract organs for their own gratification, and often resort to cannibalism afterwards. When viewed criminologically and after studying other serial cases, the idea that the ripper targetted organs for profit should be regarded as a complete non-starter, in my opinion.

Bagster Phillips does not comment on any skill or lack of it, nor does Bond's post mortem, although they expected that an opportunity to go into more detail may arise later but didn't.

But Bond did go into more detail. He observed that the offender had no anatomical knowledge whatsoever, not even that ordinarily possessed by a butcher.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Seeing notes isnt seeing the victims themselves.

It shouldn't make any difference to any competent doctor, Mike.

Unless the other doctors withheld details from their autopsy reports, Bond was just as qualified to pass judgment on the strength of these, whether he'd personally attended to the bodies of not.

I notice that Nichols has also been mentioned, but all Llewellyn observed is that the perpetrator had some "rough" anatomical knowledge, which describes most people!

Cheers,
Ben