|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Geeper
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 27, 2003 - 3:48 pm: |       |
Thought this would be a good thread to get started as there has been so much debate about this before.
I recently did a very unscientific survey of about 250 people. Basically everyone I can into contact with over the last few weeks. I very seriously explained why I was asking the question and then put it upon them, if they didn't answer or joked about, they weren't counted.
"Could you, give an unlimited amount of time, find a human kidney in a corpse laying infront of you." Remember, I explained why I was asking this question.
-90% thought about it and didn't know what a human kidney looked like so they said "no"
-7% said yes, in a second
-the rest guessed they could but admitted they were guessing and really didn't know with all the blood and other organs if they really could
This is with 21st century schooling. I really doubt that a lay person in 1888, in a candle lit room could randomly find a kidney and know it was a kidney. Sure someone with some medical knowledge or someone who hunted or dealt with dead animals probably cound have, but I highly doubt if the type of lowly educated people that lived in Whitechappel would know a human kidney if it was right infront of them.
As for the heart... I asked that too.
"Could you find the human heart in a corpse laying infront of you."
-98% "yes" Most thought they could find it even in the pitch dark by knowing it would be a large muscle somewhere between the lungs and could identify it on sight.
-2% "I think so"
IF the Lusk letter is to be believed, and the killer knew he had taken a kidney and not a liver, spleen or other various part of the inner human body, I think you'd have to conclude that he had some medical training, even if he was killing today.
I just thought the survey was fasinating. We study the murders so much we often forget the average person doesn't even know what a human kidney looks like. |
GARY WEATHERHEAD
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 28, 2003 - 6:01 pm: | |
IF A HUMAN CORPSE WAS PLACED IN FRONT OF ME I DOUBT I COULD EXTRACT A KIDNEY WITH CERTAINTY.
HOWEVER, I THINK WE SHOULD CONSIDER THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE RIPPER WAS WILDLY RIPPING OUT ORGANS WITHOUT REGARD TO WHAT HE CAME AWAY WITH. IT SEEMS TO ME HE WAS SEEKING TROPHIES WITH THE ULTIMATE PRIZE BEING THE UTERIS.
BEST REGARDS
GARY |
Geeper
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, March 01, 2003 - 6:52 am: | |
But if the Lusk letter is real he knew afterwards that it was a human kidney... |
Gary Weatherhead
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, March 01, 2003 - 11:54 am: | |
He might not have realized what he extracted when he first fled the scene. I recall he took part of the bladder and part of the uterus. He was in a hurry and operating in the dark. I am in the minority and believe the Lusk letter was real. If the killer lived in contempt and defiance of the police then he would have held a special hatred for a man like Lusk who might be seen as a interloper.(this probably belongs on another board) But as you say the killer knew what he had come away with. The killer stated that he had eaten part of the kidney that was sent to Lusk. With our knowledge of serial killers today we know that this is a way to fully possess the victim and is entirely plausible. This reference in the letter may even be a way to alternatively verify the letter. How many hoaxers would even consider mentioning such a detail.
Getting back to his degree of medical knowledge; the conditions he was working under
seem to make it almost impossible to say what degree of medical knowledge he possessed. I feel
he was familiar with the knife, as is often said
and that he had a rough knowledge of anatomy. This might point to a slaughterman or even a fish porter. Someone with the degree of anatomical knowledge to identify a kidney after he got back to his lodgings would include someone in these occupations. My pet feeling is that cattle boat slaughtermen should be carefully considered.
Best Regards
Gary
|
Marie Finlay
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, March 03, 2003 - 11:45 am: | |
My own personal belief is that 'Jack' most likely posessed some basic anatomical knowledge, but I don't subscribe to the theory that he was a doctor.
There are many serial killers who have removed specific organs from their victims, and yet not had any medical/ surgical training. Ed Gein, Richard Trenton Chase, Jeffrey Dahmer, and Dennis Nilsen- to name but four.
I believe that Jack most likely gained his anatomical knowledge from his trade, or hobby- slaughterman, or hunter, for instance. |
Jon Smyth
Police Constable
Username: Jon
Post Number: 2
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 08, 2003 - 9:28 am: | |
Gary/Marie.
Due to the location in the body of the human kidney (underneath every other abdominal organ) it is highly indicative that it was not simply 'grabbed' at random.
The medical testimony states the kidney was 'removed with care'. Now, knowing that the kidney is encased within a fatty membrane it is interesting that the membrane appears to have been split open and the kidney removed from within. The testimont does not specifically describe it so plainly but I think it is implied in the wording.
The fact that the kidney was 'cut out' is also suggestive that the renal artery was severed leaving some attached to the kidney, which is usually the case. I think it is highly unlikely that the murderer would sever the renal artery at its connection to the side of the kidney, the renal artery is so fragile it may even snap away from the kidney in rough handling.
But, I suggest there is a good possibility that there was at least a small portion of the renal artery attached when the kidney was removed. I am of this opinion because in my teenage years I spent a little over three years as a butchers apprentice and have removed numerous sheep kidneys which are similar in size & location (compared to many other animals) to the human body.
In removing the kidney invariably there was always some renal artery still attached which needed to be 'trimmed up' afterwards.
The bottom line for me in this matter is that I believe the killer knew what he was doing in removing that kidney, not that he was a doctor, I am not a doctor but I could do it, which is to say I think the killer had some related experience.
The removal of the kidney 'with care' from within a membrane, at night, underneath the other organs, is a good clue that he had more abilities than some 'crazed lunatic'.
Remember, the most knowledgable doctor in these crimes, Dr Phillips, stated with regards to the mutilations of Annie Chapman, the skill displayed was "only less so in consequence of haste".
A hurried hand, even though it is an expericenced hand, will still make mistakes, slashes & over cuts, but to an equally experienced eye (Dr Phillips) the mark of 'skill' is still discernable.
My 2 cents.
Regards, Jon |
Marie Finlay
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, March 08, 2003 - 12:57 pm: | |
Jon, you posted: "I believe the killer knew what he was doing in removing that kidney, not that he was a doctor, I am not a doctor but I could do it, which is to say I think the killer had some related experience."
I do agree. Actually, you have in a way made my point, but made it much more eloquently than I could have.
There was skill discernable in Jacks's removal of his victims organs, we have that testimony from an eminent doctor of the time. But I'm just not convinced that the killer himself was a doctor, when the ghastly job could well have been done by a butcher, or even someone who had once been an apprentice (as you have pointed out).
I'm not a believer in any 'crazed lunatic' theories, either. 
I'm a firm believer in Jack having had some type of related experience (such as cutting, or preparing animals)- but I just don't have a 'gut feeling', about him having been a doctor.
|
Jon Smyth
Police Constable
Username: Jon
Post Number: 5
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 08, 2003 - 11:59 pm: | |
Hi Marie
No, actually you made your point plain enough, I was agreeing with you, but some would have it that certain mutilations done to both Eddowes & Kelly indicate the killers 'crazed' state of mind.
I do not agree, however, accepting that murder is not a logical or sane pursuit I am also of the opinion that this killer was not under any 'crazed' influence.
Take for instance the cuts to the throat, as one minor example, the killer appears to have cut each of his victims throat twice.
Nichols & Eddowes had very distinctively similar wounds to the throat. In the case of Chapman the wounds were not described in any detail but from what was printed it appears there were two cuts to the throat also.
In each case the killer made a short slice at the jugglar vein farthest away from himself.
This is enough to kill his victim and obviously relieve the blood pressure within the body. Then he makes a second cut in all cases (Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes, Kelly) almost encircling the neck. The suggestion is he attempted to remove the head, well maybe, but 4 times?.
Seeing as his victim was dead or dying from the first cut I wonder what the actual purpose of the second cut was. This was very methodical, very systematic, almost, to my mind, a reasonable indication that this killer had killed before, he knew his stuff.
I think details like this indicate a controlled state of mind.
In a later murder case, that of Rose Mylett, the medical opinion was very strong, from 5 doctors, that she had been garotted with a 4 string twisted cord. One doctor, Dr. Bond decented, he thought she choked naturally, the jury found it was "murder by person or persons unknown".
An interesting suggestion came out of this case, due to the autopsy finding of black blood, which Dr. Phillips had seen before in the previous Whitechapel series of murders.
The killer of Rose Mylett used a garotte, a suggestion, therefore, was made, the mark of the garotte encircles the neck, a killer attempting to hide this mark would run his knife around the neck and through the mark of the garotte. Obliterating evidence of the mark and completely encircling the neck, as we find with Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes & Kelly, interesting?.
It's a shame we do not have more medical details of the autopsy on Annie Chapman, clues to the killers method are in those autopsy reports.
Clue's that this killer was no stranger to the knife, and I might add, no stranger to relieving a body of life.
Best regards, Jon |
Gary Weatherhead
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, March 08, 2003 - 10:41 pm: | |
Jon
As you say the kidney is encased in a membrane and is covered by a number of other organs. I don't see how the organ could have been carefully removed in the dark gloom of an unlit corner of Mitre Square while the killer operated under time constraints for fear of being caught.
If it was his intention to take the kidney it seems he would have removed it all rather than make a sweep of the knife sufficient to extract part of the bladder and part of the uterus.
As a former butcher's apprentice you indicate that it would be possible to know how to remove the kidney from your experience with sheep. Would you say the same is true of cattle or pigs or does the anatomy differ markedly?
You bring up the subject of the renal artery. Many books state that a portion of the renal artery was attached to the kidney sent to Mr. Lusk. The corresponding amount of renal artery remained in the body. This tidbit apparently came from Major Smith who was either wrong or only partially right on his "facts". Your comment about the delicacy of the artery would seem to confirm the opinion that the artery was either trimmed before it was sent or that it broke away. the most recent speculation has tended away from Smith"s statements that the artery left in the body matched that sent to Lusk.
I agree that the killer was not a doctor but as you say had some "related experience"
This brings us around to whether the Lusk kidney was taken from Eddowes body. That is a subject for a future post. I would be cuious to hear your opinion and Marie"s opinion on that subject which seems to be a rather contentious issue for JTR students.
Best Regards
Gary
|
Jon Smyth
Police Constable
Username: Jon
Post Number: 8
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 09, 2003 - 11:33 am: | |
Hi Gary.
you ask.....
"I don't see how the organ could have been carefully removed in the dark gloom of an unlit corner of Mitre Square while the killer operated under time constraints....."
Well, Dr Sequira suggested it was not too dark in that corner. I suppose you would have to take issue with the opinions of the doctors at the scene, and unfortunately, they have the last word.
".....rather than make a sweep of the knife sufficient to extract part of the bladder and part of the uterus".
Are you talking about Chapman or Eddowes?
".........how to remove the kidney from your experience with sheep. Would you say the same is true of cattle or pigs or does the anatomy differ markedly?"
Yes Pig kidneys are somewhat comparably but those of cattle are huge and of a totally different size & shape.
My point on mentioning the renal artery on the human kidney was exactly as you picked up on.
Major Smith reported that a portion was 'still attached' and yet subsequent reports state it was 'trimmed up'.
In removing the kidney I would believe that a portion would still be attached, to me it would not only be natural but expected. However, due to the fragile nature of the artery & other veins combined (there is more than one at that location on the kidney) I could expect the portion may have broken away.
Smith's statement is consistant with a hurried removal of a kidney. I don't think it is fair to consider this point another of his errors.
Now, as to the Lusk kidney being genuine. Would you expect me to commit to anything else other than "its possible".
I have always regarded the kidney removal from Eddowes as being to serve no other point but as a "challenge", if you like a "message". It seemed a pointless thing to do for a supposed sexually motivated "hack & slash" artist.
But the 'carefull' removal of a kidney from within the membrane at night would raise the eyebrows of the medical community.
Consider the doctors, Sequiera, Brown, Phillips & Saunders all looking agast at each other, "Oh, my God, ......no layman could do that".
Best regards, Jon |
Diana
Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 12
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 09, 2003 - 8:22 pm: | |
If the renal artery is fragile then is it possible that in Jack's frenzied haste he tore the kidney out, ripping the artery in two? In this case both the end left in the body and the end attached to the kidney would be jagged and only match each other. If the artery was cut cleanly with Jack's knife then the situation would be much more ambiguous. If the Dr. who examined the kidney had seen the body or talked to the Dr. who had done the PM then even if Eddowes was already in the ground by the time the kidney arrived they might have had some idea whether those two pieces of artery could have matched. |
Marie Finlay
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, March 09, 2003 - 5:19 pm: | |
Hello Jon,
You bring up some very interesting points regarding the Rose Mylett murder, use of a garrotte, and the evidence of black blood. I don't believe that Rose was a Ripper victim, because it appears that her killer/s had a completely different MO.
However, it's certainly very intriguing to speculate that perhaps 'Jack' would have run his knife fully around the necks of Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly- possibly in order to obscure the mark of a garrotte.
But this begs the question: why? After all, the other mutilations are there for all to see. It seems strange that he would wish to conceal just *one* particular aspect of the killings.
Honestly speaking, I can't imagine why Jack would have made the second, deeper cut to the throats of the already- dying victims. My own guess would be that if the first cut was to kill, maybe the second cut was a mutilation he enjoyed. Perhaps it gave him a sense of power over these women, much like the other mutilations inflicted upon them (I imagine).
Hello Gary,
Frankly, I'm forever in two minds regarding the Lusk kidney.
I've been following the debate regarding this subject on the 'Letters and Communications' board, with great interest! However, nothing I have read either here at 'Casebook', or in any of my sourcebooks- has made me want to dismiss the kidney and letter as a hoax, once and for all.
I can't put myself in Jack's mind, but I can probably put myself in the mind of a hoaxer. If I had gone to the trouble of procuring just such a kidney, I would want the maximum amount of bang out of my joke. I would want a big fuss to be made, and therefore, I would send my little prank kidney piece to the newspapers, or the police.
I wouldn't waste it on Mr George Lusk of the vigilance committee. After all, he might just think the whole thing was a sick joke, and throw the darned kidney away, without reporting it.
By all accounts, he very nearly did.
|
SirRobertAnderson
Police Constable
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 5
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 11, 2003 - 12:46 pm: | |
"Honestly speaking, I can't imagine why Jack would have made the
second, deeper cut to the throats of the already- dying victims. My
own guess would be that if the first cut was to kill, maybe the second
cut was a mutilation he enjoyed."
I've always puzzled over this, too. If we subscribe to the view that Jack was a "humane" killer, and interested in inflicting as little pain as possible, perhaps his M.O. was first to throttle, second for a quick cut to reduce the blood pressure and insure complete unconsciousness, and then the more methodical throat cutting.
I've wondered if the "humane" aspect of his M.O. reflects anything useful about his personality or religious beliefs.
Sir Robert |
Diana
Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 17
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 11, 2003 - 3:40 pm: | |
Some of the people who saw the corpses speculated that he was making an unsuccessful attempt to decapitate them. |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Sergeant
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 32
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 12, 2003 - 12:44 am: | |
Sir Bob,
I've always felt that the double swipe was primarily a means of ensuring that he cut through. If, theoretically, he was slicing from behind, he wouldn't be able to see how deep his first cuts were. So he'd need to make sure. Hence, two cuts. Just an idea.
B |
Monty
Police Constable
Username: Monty
Post Number: 6
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 13, 2003 - 11:41 am: | |
Boys,
I think speed is essential to Jacks MO.
We all have are own way of working. This was our boys way of getting his job done quick smart.
Nothing symbolic nor humane.
Monty
 |
Marie Finlay
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, March 14, 2003 - 1:18 pm: | |
Sir Robert, you posted: "I've wondered if the "humane" aspect of his M.O. reflects anything useful about his personality or religious beliefs"
Although it is a possibility, I personally don't believe that JTR was concerned with the suffering of his victims.
If he had merely cut their throats, and not gone on to mutilate them in such a horrific manner, I would be more likely buy into the 'humane' or 'religious' theory. But to me, the mutilations (particularly the facial ones), look very much like an attempt to dehumanize, and defile the victims- so I can only assume he had very little regard for them.
So my own guess would be that the second, deeper cut he made was for speed, and to make sure that the job was done properly- as Monty and Bob pointed out.
|
SirRobertAnderson
Police Constable
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 6
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 14, 2003 - 10:17 pm: | |
"Although it is a possibility, I personally don't believe that JTR was
concerned with the suffering of his victims. "
Of course, it is impossible to say for certain, but it does appear that he killed in a fashion that caused the least degree of suffering for his victims. First, he throttled them to semi-consciousness, then a quick arterial slice to cause an immediate drop in blood pressure, unconsciousness and death, and finally a more thorough cutting of the throat.
I hesitate to refer to this as "humane". Perhaps it was just a by-product of other urges that were driving him, but it is interesting to contemplate whether or not the M.O. does tell us anything about Jack's religious views. I confess to seeing some intriguing possibilities with Robin Odell's shochet theory.
Sir Robert} |
Brian W. Schoeneman
Sergeant
Username: Deltaxi65
Post Number: 43
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 14, 2003 - 11:25 pm: | |
Sir Bob,
I agree that the methodology that he used probably didn't cause a significant amount of pain for the victims. But I don't think that was the result of sympathy or compassion for them. I mean think about - he's still killing them.
I think it was really just an odd coincidence - the quickest, quietest way of killing them also happened to be relatively painless.
I don't know which I'd prefer personally...not dying or not dying painfully. I'm betting on the former, though.
B |
SirRobertAnderson
Police Constable
Username: Sirrobert
Post Number: 7
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 15, 2003 - 11:24 am: | |
"But I don't think that was the result of sympathy or compassion for them. "
A desire to kill painlessly is not necessarily driven by compassion. It could be born of religious conviction. For instance, a kosher slaughter is supposed to minimize the animal's suffering.
Sir Robert |
Marie Finlay
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, March 15, 2003 - 12:53 pm: | |
Sir Robert, you posted: "A desire to kill painlessly is not necessarily driven by compassion. It could be born of religious conviction"
The horrible mutilations committed on the women do make me seriously doubt the religious conviction of the killer. In particular, the murder of Mary Kelly- it seems that the killer attempted to deprive her of everything that would identify her as a human being. I wonder how that could tie in with any religious feeling at all?
Surely if the killer was religiously- motivated, he would have just killed his victims, and then left it at that? Why make such a terrible mess of those poor women, almost as if to deprive them of any dignity in their deaths?
Personally, I think the method Jack used in his murders was to be as quick and economical as possible, with the least amount of attention drawn to the act as possible.
However, the points you make are very interesting, and I cannot completely discount them. |
R.J. Palmer
Sergeant
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 11
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 15, 2003 - 1:41 pm: | |
Though I don't believe I've encountered any modern commentator that accepts the idea, it is perhaps worth mentioning that Dr. Llewellyn expressed the opinion that Polly Nichols' abdominal wounds were performed before her throat was cut, not after.
|
Diana
Sergeant
Username: Diana
Post Number: 30
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 15, 2003 - 7:42 pm: | |
Lets hope he was wrong! |
Jon Smyth
Sergeant
Username: Jon
Post Number: 12
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 17, 2003 - 5:47 pm: | |
Hi Marie
You write.....
"I don't believe that Rose was a Ripper victim, because it appears that her killer/s had a completely different MO."
Well actually neither do I, but not because of the MO, which you say was different. I do not agree, if the Ripper's victims were garrotted and Mylett was also, then we cannot argue that the MO was different. Mylett would have been another 'interrupted' attempt.
The reason I would not argue that Mylett's killer was the infamous JtR is because of lack of anything else to support such a suggestion. We would need more and we don't have it.
"But this begs the question: why? After all, the other mutilations are there for all to see. It seems strange that he would wish to conceal just *one* particular aspect of the killings."
Exactly, "why?".
Lets assume the killer is well aware that his use of the garrott is known to others, he might wish to hide it.
- Was he previously arrested in connection with crimes of this nature?.
- Was someone in authority (Doctor, Lawyer, Police, Prison Warden, Military, etc.) in a position to identify the perpetrator from the use of such a device?.
- Was he known, even by way of rumor, to carry such a device?.
- Would any past accomplices be able to identify him and give him away?.
I could go on but I think you get my drift, we can speculate on reasons "why", but we will get nowhere without some data. For instance, are there any arrests, or warrants out for such a person 'by name' in connection with garrotting, in the years previous to the Ripper murders?
Unfortunately I am not in a position to search the press reports (Collingdale?) to such depth, but I offer it as 'food for thought' for anyone who has.
Best Regards, Jon
|
Marie Finlay
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 19, 2003 - 7:31 am: | |
Dear Jon Smyth,
Well, that certainly told me! 
Seriously, I cannot argue with any of your points, particularly this:
- "Was he previously arrested in connection with crimes of this nature?.
- Was someone in authority (Doctor, Lawyer, Police, Prison Warden, Military, etc.) in a position to identify the perpetrator from the use of such a device?.
- Was he known, even by way of rumor, to carry such a device?.
- Would any past accomplices be able to identify him and give him away?."
I don't have the time available to properly do the research myself, but I do hope someone else will pick up on it.
It certainly is food for thought! |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
