|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through 21 August 2001
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: Medical / Forensic Discussions:
Medical round table: General: Anatomical skill of JTR:
Archive through 21 August 2001
Author: Thomas Ind
Friday, 21 January 2000 - 05:58 pm |        | I thought that we could continue these conversations here (or until we get our own section)
To re-cap. Dr Mike Villon is of the opinion that surgical knowledge was required to perform the extractions (correct me if I'm wrong); Diane has made numerous suggestions as to the possible professions that could have assisted JTR; Bob has given us a butchers view; and I have stated my opinion that JTR required no special anatomical knowledge. |
Author: anon
Friday, 21 January 2000 - 06:51 pm | | | Surely it was Jon who gave the butcher's view. |
Author: Dr. G.
Friday, 21 January 2000 - 07:50 pm | | | Kemp may disagree with your statement, Bob. |
Author: anon
Saturday, 22 January 2000 - 01:31 am | | | About the same as it was in 1888, the doctors cannot agree, we have got nowhere in 112 years. |
Author: Thomas Ind
Saturday, 22 January 2000 - 07:08 am | | True anon, but why is it that the doctor's opinion is considered so important? Getting doctors to totally agree on anything is almost impossible. You've heard the arguments. What is your opinion.
PS Sorry Jon |
Author: Thomas Ind
Saturday, 22 January 2000 - 09:05 am | | Bob posted this inanother thread
By Bob Hinton on Saturday, January 22, 2000 - 08:34 am:
Dear everyone,
I thought it might be of some use to reproduce the section of testimony where Dr Brown talks about the knowledge required to remove the kidney from Eddowes. He states:
'It required a great deal of (medical) [the word medical is deleted] knowledge to have removed the kidney and to know where it was placed such a knowledge might be possessed by someone in the habit of cutting up animals....'
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Thomas Ind
Saturday, 22 January 2000 - 09:16 am | | Yes, but Dr George Sequiera who was the first doctor to examine Eddowes believed the murderer showed no skill and had not been seeking and particular organ in extracting the kidney and the uterus.
So doctors then disagreed as they do now.
As I see it, the arguments for skill are as follows;
1) Knowing the position of the uterus would enable JTR to remove it quicker and we know that the mutilations and extractions occured in a short period of time.
2) The peritoneum covers the kidney so this can be difficult to find.
3) The number of organs removed in Kelly's case suggest knowledge that these organs existed.
I see the arguments against knowledge as follows;
1) Feel in an abdomen in the dark someone would feel a uterus and be able to remove it.
2) Someone with surgical skill could have removed the uterus wthout damage to the bladder.
3) One the bowel is removed the kidney is easy to feel and remove.
4) Someone with medical knowledge and the correct instruments would have crushed the chest and accessed the heart in MJKs case rather than coming up through the diaphragm.
5) Eddowes abdominal incision was jagged and appeared to be cut with a sawing action up and down with a knive vertical. Someone with surgical skill could have done this quicker and more efficently with a straight incision throught the skin and onther one through the fat, rectus sheath and peritoneum.
I'm sure there are other arguments which people could post. I am interested in peoples opinions having seen the arguments. |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 22 January 2000 - 12:06 pm | | I guess we might be making Jack's task more difficult by refering to the conditions 'being too dark' or 'feeling around in the dark' etc.
Dr. Sequira who arrived at Mitre Square about 1.55am said "....the place where the deceased was found was the darkest place in the locality; but there would be plenty of light for the murderer to see to inflict the injuries...."
It had been raining that morning, according to Lawende it was raining at 1.30am, so we might assume it was cloudy. But the ever debatable Major Smith said it was a moonlight night.
If we give him a morsal of credit we might assume the clouds had cleared within the 30 mins, for Sequira to think it was light enough by 1.55am.
But how light was it between 1.35-1.44am? ..thats the question.
So maybe Jack didnt need to be so proficient with his hands, he may have been able to see well enough, according to the Doctor.
Regards, Jon
P.S. Tom, I am becoming labelled 'the butcher' but I am an engineer, I took a butchers apprenticeship back in the early '70s. And I remember most of what was required very clearly, but to answer your question on comparing animal to human kidneys (sorry, wrong board) I cannot help you there. |
Author: Thomas Ind
Saturday, 22 January 2000 - 12:30 pm | | I am going out tonight so not many more posts from me today.
Does it matter that it was dark?
Previously I proposed that the excisions were smash and grab. In other words that the organs were felt and removed using the sensation of feel rather than sight. Few people (even advocates of the anatomical skill theory) have argued against this. To remove a kidney and uterus in broad daylight under vision would required directional light and assistant in exposing the appropriate area. So even if it was light, then the organs could still have only been removed by touch and feel.
I tried to give a balance of the arguments but that is difficult given my current opinion. Yes we should add point 4 to the arguments advocating anatomical skill. Most of the extractions were probably done in the dark. |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 22 January 2000 - 12:52 pm | | Just thinking out loud for a sec......
I think that facial & abdominal mutilations would require superficial light, but locating an organ within the abdomen would need little light as this is done more by feel than anything.
Removing parts from an anatomists dummy doesnt give the right feel, things dont slither around to fill in the cavity, you dont get a better view, in real life, by simply pulling things out.
So we can agree that organ removal was more of an excersize in touch than visual. And if he locates the organ with his left hand then he still needs some light to use the knife, or risk slicing off his thumb or something.
Chapman's murder was around 5.45am, quite light, Kelly's was indoor & possibly light enough. Nichols was possibly an incomplete excersize, whether it was too dark or not is irrelevent as he never entered the abdominal cavity.
So, on the surface it would seem that Jack, for the most part had sufficient light in most cases.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Bob Hinton
Sunday, 23 January 2000 - 07:18 am | | Dear Everyone,
Good points about the darkenss, but don't forget when Sequira made his comments about there being enough light he was surrounded by police officers holding lanterns.
The only person who saw the body in the same amount of light as the killer was PC Watkins, and he apparently only noticed it when he turned to the right and the illumination from his Bullseye on his belt shone on the body.
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: RLeen
Sunday, 23 January 2000 - 09:48 am | | Hello Everybody,
It is quite true that in 1888, as now, the question of the perpetrator's medical skill was never completely resolved. Perhaps it never will. The inconsistencies seem to emanate because of a dichotomy arising from, say, the butchery of MJK and the relative sophistication of the previous fast and silent attacks.
Would it be generally acceptable to presume that some killings demonstrated some form of anatomical knowledge on the killer's part. And if so, would this perhaps point to at least two of the killings being of a copy-cat nature.
Thanking you for your consideration
Rabbi Leen |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 23 January 2000 - 09:52 am | | Bob, do you really consider Dr Sequiera so inept?
Also, as you may well understand, when you are in darkness and holding a source of artificial light (lantern), your peripheral vision is impared, you can only see in detail, whatever is in the direct path of light.
Jon |
Author: Bob Hinton
Monday, 24 January 2000 - 05:13 am | | Dear Jon
Sorry I don't quite understand your point. I don't think I have accused Dr Sequira of being inept? Why should I?
I don't understand the other point about peripheral vision.
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Bob Hinton
Monday, 24 January 2000 - 08:09 am | | Dear Everyone,
Another indication as to the available amount of light that night can be found in Det Halses testimony. He states.
"Iwent to Mitre Square I had the light turned on to the body and saw it was murder"
Which tends to suggest that without the light he couldn't see the body with any degree of clarity.
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Diana
Monday, 24 January 2000 - 08:54 pm | | | Another fly in the ointment re anatomical expertise or surgical knowledge is the issue of possible impairment. It is always possible that when Jack did his thing he was either drunk or high. It would explain the apparent big leap in expertise between Nichols and Chapman. Maybe he was more impaired when he did Nichols. He seems to have anatomical knowledge without surgical skill, but what if he has the skill but his motor and perceptual abilities are really messed up when he commits these crimes. Can one of our two Dr.s guess as to how a surgeon who is high or drunk would function. Would it explain things like taking the back half of Chapman's bladder along with her uterus? |
Author: ChrisGeorge
Tuesday, 25 January 2000 - 05:44 pm | | Hi, Diana:
You make some excellent points about Jack being possibly drunk or otherwise impaired when he committed the crimes. He could have made himself drunk to give himself "Dutch courage" to commit the crimes. Are we then looking for a shloshed shurgeon? :-)
Incidentally, another thought of mine would be that if the Lusk kidney did come from Eddowes, and had been pickled in spirits of wine, this might be another indication that Jack was a drinker.
Chris George |
Author: Caz
Wednesday, 26 January 2000 - 04:15 am | | Then he certainly didn't write the Goulston Street graffito, it would have been all over the place. He'd have dropped the chalk in the darkness halfway through (how WOULD he have seen to write it?):
The are men
Juwes the
who
-
-
-
"oh bugger it (hic), I've dropped the flaming chalk now...."
:-)
Love,
Caz |
Author: Thomas Ind
Wednesday, 26 January 2000 - 02:19 pm | | Caz I love it!!
However, we all know that people a capable of driving when they are drunk, they are often capable of writing and turning up to work drunk. Regrettably, it has been known for surgeons to operate and pilots to fly planes drunks. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 27 January 2000 - 06:04 am | | Stop it, you're scaring me! We have also all seen just how bloody incapable some people are when under the influence.
Why is it that some people's coordination and reactions suffer so badly while others find their senses are heightened and their concentration is better? I thought it was more in their imagination than real, but a high Jack would have needed his wits about him, or a great deal of luck, to escape the way he did each time.
I guess musicians and writers often produce their best work, become geniuses, when stoned, but at least they don't have to worry so much about health and safety at work issues!
Caz |
Author: Michael B. Bruneio
Sunday, 13 February 2000 - 11:45 pm | | My two cents ...
I am of the opinion that JTR possessed medical knowledge which would be unknown to the common citizen inhabiting that district. This man was no stranger to the inner workings of the human body. I agree with Sugden when he states that "although the doctors and surgeons who examined one or more of the 'canonical' victims disagreed about the EXTENT of the murderer's expertise, all attested to some degree of knowledge or skill. Doctors Phillips and Gordon Brown, thought they could detect a great deal of expertise, both anatomical and surgical skill, in the mutilations."
If this is indeed the case, it follows that JTR was a literate man, probably with some amount of education again uncommon to the residents of the district. I do not have the illiteracy stats for that time and place, but it seems likely to be high, despite the educational boom occurring in England at the time.
"Whatever, the evidence suggests that we shall not find our man amongst the labouring classes or indigent poor." - Sugden |
Author: Thomas Ind
Monday, 14 February 2000 - 07:45 am | | I think similar statements were made concerning the Yorkshire Ripper but these proved to be untrue.
Correct me if I am wrong Bob |
Author: Diana Louise Comer
Monday, 14 February 2000 - 09:27 pm | | | A slaughterhouse worker would not have to be literate. |
Author: Joanne
Sunday, 12 August 2001 - 10:55 pm | | well, is there the possibility that instead of being a doctor or a butcher, that he was capable of getting information about the human body? medical text can contain a lot of diagrams, paragraphs, etc. things that he could've acessed to gain information about the human body. he pulled out a few organs, it's not like he performed surgery. the bodies were heavily mutilated, weren't they? the speculation that he had to have had medical knowledge, and thus, was a doctor, might not have neccesarily applied because he could've found the information right?
Joanne |
Author: Michael B. Bruneio
Thursday, 16 August 2001 - 10:09 am | | Hello Joanne!
Yes, JTR certainly could have gotten his hands on a text of Gray's Anatomy.
However, he did extract a kidney from the front, which is no mean feat, and without damaging the organs surrounding it. There is a wall of fat called the peritoneal(sp?) lining that obstructs the kidney from view from the front.
One could say that this proves he WAS NOT a doctor; why remove the kidney in such a fashion if all he had to do was turn her over and extract it the normal (and presumably) easier way? My reply? He's showing off. Or he knew this as well.
I think it takes a leap of faith to believe a rank amateur could perform this on a darkened street with time against him with such competency.
Granted, authorities of the day were divided as to Jacky's alleged skills. However, I think a more emotional explanation can be assigned to the physicians who dismissed Jack's skills out of hand:
Simply, they knew a doctor had performed the injuries, but due to professional pride and the rather bizarre hypocrisy of the day, dismissed JTR as nothing but a lunatic butcher. After all, why bring medical science into disrepute over some common prostitutes?
Of course, this is only my gut feeling, supported tenuously by the nature of the injuries. |
Author: R Court
Thursday, 16 August 2001 - 04:04 pm | | Hi all,
I consider, as before, that Jack could have stumbled (metaphorically) over the kidney in the dark (ha ha) and cut it out, not knowing what it was or at least not having originally intended to remove it. He was, I suspect, more interested in the womb and intestines and could have simply come upon the kidney while rummaging about in the poor girl's guts. Why would he need a kidney, anyway?
Now, this means, of course, that he would have simply removed the kidney from the front by chance, which is possible, assuming he'd already removed a large amount of the Ladie's insides.
The removing of this organ from the front in darkness, silently and in incredibly short time does seem to point to chance having played a part, especially as he also needed time to e.g. nick eyelids and cheeks as he did.
Bob |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 16 August 2001 - 08:02 pm | | Hi Bob
That crossed my mind too, that Jack could have only stumbled across the kidney by accident. But it did not appear to be removed by an amateur, if we are reading the evidence correctly.
You could always propose he removed the most difficult reasonably sized organ, being that it was at the rear of the abdomen.
Why would he need a kidney anyway?"
He didn't, he removed it to make a statement. The police, press & public would not see the significance of removing the kidney but the doctors would.
What was Jack's message?...."I am no ordinary Jack the lad, I know what I'm doing".
I run it by you for consideration 
Regards, Jon |
Author: E Carter
Friday, 17 August 2001 - 02:03 am | | | The skills here were indeed varied, because more than one killer used the knife! ED |
Author: Michael B. Bruneio
Friday, 17 August 2001 - 02:27 am | | Jon,
Yes, exactly! I feel as you do that Jack was making a statement. I am glad to see our hypotheses are running along the same lines! |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 17 August 2001 - 10:10 am | | Hi, Jon and Michael:
Indeed, by introducing a degree of difficulty in removing the organ from the front and neatly excising it, as the medical testimony shows, it does appear that the killer was making a statement to refute the charges made that he lacked anatomical knowledge and skill. I continue to think that, as Jon has indicated, the medical community were on the defensive and did not like the imputation that one of their number could have done the murders.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: R Court
Monday, 20 August 2001 - 12:40 pm | | Hi all,
The suggestions above are indeed all valid, I just wonder if we read a bit much into the business. As far as I can ascertain, the average medical opinion of the time was that no great medical skill had been shown. (That 3 doctors gave 3 differing opinions does not help).
As e.g. Sugden points out, the doctors may not have taken into account that Jack had to work in the dark, in haste and in danger of being detected at any moment. This means that Jack was either a, if not brilliant, then exceptional surgeon or the sucessful extraction of the organ was by chance.
Such a brilliant, or exceptional, surgeon would surely have made a 'professional' job of Kelly. Or perhaps he did, at least for him.
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: Michael B. Bruneio
Monday, 20 August 2001 - 08:46 pm | | Bob,
You make a good point. I, for one, have no trouble admitting that for some unknown reason, I WANT the Ripper to be a "toff," a doctor, a fiendish mad genius. However, I am certainly not so narrow-minded as to forget considering he may have been none of these things.
Despite contrary opinions, I don't think anyone on these boards will deny that Jack had an enormous run of luck. Yet ...
Luck is one thing. Skill is another.
Are we really to believe that JTR removed Cathy Eddowes' kidney from the front - in a darkened square - with little or no light, in an area heavily patrolled with police and escape undetected - without knowing what he was about? I think that strains plausibility to its breaking point.
Of course, he could have had a light, but how many johns soliciting prostitutes carry a lantern with them? Not to mention the tools of his trade. One would expect him to make a rather noisy getaway, encumbered as such. :-)
As far as Kelly goes ...
Well, Jacky had been presumably driven underground by the public and official pressure, so he had about six weeks for his madness to go unreleased. Plus, he had the convenience and (relative) safety of being indoors, able to indulge himself in Mary Kelly's destruction. Again, the man took a hell of a risk: Miller's Court was frequented by prostitutes, and anyone passing Mary's window could have seen the murderer at work. In fact, Sugden ponders why no one noticed so great a fire that Jack must have lit. Talk about not giving a toss!
Jack's madness is also offset by his arranging the personal effects of Annie Chapman in Hanbury Street. One minute he's tearing her apart like a sack of grain; the next, he carefully arranges her comb and other articles. Implying that he would "logically" give Mary Kelly a professional job is attaching reason where there is none. Except in Jack's mind. Aside from the obvious mysogyny, I wouldn't dare give a reason for anything this man did!
I still remain convinced of Sugden's assertion that "we will not find our man among the laboring poor." |
Author: R Court
Monday, 20 August 2001 - 10:36 pm | | Hi Michael,
Curiously your point about straining plausibility to it's breaking point is exactly that which causes me to even consider that he could have just had luck. Could a fully qualified surgeon have intentionally removed a kidney as he did under such conditions?
About Hanbury Street. The arranging of Chapman's belongings (we ignore the ballyhoo in a number of publications viz. farthings etc.) does indeed indicate some sort of ritual, assuming again that the possesions/organ parts didn't just fall there by chance. So much depends on the judgement of those who saw it. I tend to accept that Jack did intend some display, though. As Sugden points out, intricate cuts/nicks to Eddowes's eyelids and cheeks follow this pattern.
The bit about fire in MJK's room is relevant only if it is assumed that Jack lit the fire for light to chop her up. This is not neccessarily the case, however. Witnesses testified that there was light in Kelly's room long before her killer may have been at work, especially as she was heard singing at this time. The fire may well have been lit by her earlier. (There were reports of a candle on an upturned wineglass in the room, but this was also reported as being 'unused')
What has always bothered me with this "Roaring fire" bit is that if the fire was fueled with clothing, as is generally submitted, how could it have "roared"? Any attempt to create a blaze with naturally sourced materials such as wool, leather or cotton founders on the propensity of the stuff to smother itself. If not continually tended, such a fire usually reduces to a smoulder quite rapidly, unless some other material such as wood or coal is added. Jack would have had some fun having to poke the fire at every third rip.
The man's coat serving as curtain should have protected Jack in the one window, in the other window a blind is reported. This is even visable in the photo of the outside of no. 13. I still wonder if this photo, however, was taken at the same time as the photo of the entrance to Millers Court (with the chair at the entrance) which is reported as being done in 1926.
Best regards
Bob |
Author: Jon
Tuesday, 21 August 2001 - 12:47 am | | One minor point which Michael brought up is valid, that of light. There are those who will suggest it was light enough, I think Sequiera suggested as much. But light is not the issue.
When you slice the abdomen the innerds erupt out and in order to get any particular organ you have to pull some of the intestines out of the way (as Jack did).
This does not leave a cavity, other organs simply slither over the void to fill up the cavity again. Light in this case is not a prime issue. To get to a kidney located adjacent to the spine, underneath all the other organs, you must insert your hands deep into the mass and work by feel. Its not what you see but what you feel that guides you to the kidney.
This requires some anatomical knowledge.
Regards, Jon |
Author: R Court
Tuesday, 21 August 2001 - 05:30 am | | Hi Jon,
That is mainly correct, but doesn't change the point that could a fully trained and experienced surgeon intentionally, as Jack must have done in a few minutes and in great danger of detection, have removed the kidney from the front without damage to the surrounding organs? If Jack had operated by touch, as is likely, he could still have done the kidney deed by chance.
Only in Chapman's case was in all probability daylight available at the scene, Jack was indeed reckless (or under influence of drink, drug or serious insanity.) The view that Jack MUST have had medical experience is IMHO still not proven. (And also not disproven.)
I have never shared the view about the fire in MJK's room having been lit by Jack, amongst others for reasons outlined above. Indeed, much evidence is there that Jack worked almost exclusively by touch or feel. (See Eddowes case.) If this is the case then we could even start considering looking for a blind person who, by way of his blindness, would not usually come in question as the miscreant and could thus have escaped without notice.
This were maybe a new line of research...
best regards,
Bob |
Author: Harry Mann
Tuesday, 21 August 2001 - 05:59 am | | I think anatomical knowledge would have been a subject that a good proportion of what we term the ordinary people,would be conversant with.At that time at least.People from that period,and I have known some,showed a good knowledge of where the main organs were situated,and also the common complaints associated with those organs.
Allied with that knowledge,was also the acquired skill at gutting and disecting animals,that would put some on a par with most of the medical practitioners of that time.
I knew a person that could neither read nor write,but was envied by his doctor in the manner in which he could kill and dress an animal.Would working on a dead human body be so different.
Do not underestimate the working class when seeking the killer of those women.That would be taking a narrow view indeed.
Regards H.Mann. |
Author: E Carter
Tuesday, 21 August 2001 - 07:47 am | | | The organ removed from Eddowes was not taken by the same man that extracted the organs from Annie Chapman; however the same two men were together during both murders! ED |
Author: Michael B. Bruneio
Tuesday, 21 August 2001 - 09:27 am | | Bob, John, and Harry,
Thank you all for your well-thought replies. Once again, we reach an impasse where evidence for and against medical knowledge seem to cancel each other out.
E Carter, I believe I've read similar statements from you before. Care to tell us of your theory? I'm open to just about any suspect, EXCEPT Kosminski or Maybrick! :-) |
Author: Jon
Tuesday, 21 August 2001 - 09:29 am | | Ed
If you dont mind.....when you throw in these unsubstantiated statements, please give a reason or source. This is not story-time, we are all mature enough to be able to grasp bonafide evidence, ......should it exist.
Bob.
Already you have referred to Jack's medical ability as: "fully trained experienced surgeon", then later you hint "the view that Jack MUST have had medical experience".....I do not recall anyone recently making those claims, certainly the last time I referred to Jack's ability it was the suggestion that:
All the lacerations and random cuts can easily be put down to haste and poor lighting rather than claim inexperience. As Dr. Phillips pointed out "There were indications of anatomical knowledge, which were only less indicated in consequence of haste".
I would not propose Jack had to be a doctor, to have some medical experience and a little anatomical knowledge would be sufficient.
Those comments of mine were on another board a few days ago, and in reading your postes above I believe you agree, or at least it appears that way.
Regards, Jon |
Author: R Court
Tuesday, 21 August 2001 - 10:06 am | | Hi Jon, Hi Micheal,
Jon,
I must confess, alack, not to have read your posts elsewhere (yet) as far as I know, my comment do not have any relationship to these.
To clear misunderstanding, my question concerning 'fully trained' etc. should be read as saying 'if a fully trained and experienced surgeon could not do what Jack did, then Jack must have done it by chance, or he was an absolute genius in the medical branch' which is not automatically calling him a qualified surgeon at all.
As to the sentence about 'the view that Jack must have had some medical experience....', it was not intended to imply that you share this view, it was badly written. I do agree that Jack may have had some experience... 'cutting up animals etc. ' springs to mind. Would this be enough, however, to allow him to intentionally remove the kidney as he did?
The doctors of the day were at varience with each other as to what level of 'skill', if any, were indicated. Of course there is another possibility, Jack may have had the best of both, a little knowledge and luck....
Michael,
Jack's like that (sigh). He's an enigma even to us today. The truth is, I think, that you can expect as many points of view as there are people to have them, this can lead to a wonderfull mish-mash of everything (im)possible, but is the very essence of the JtR -board, it is great fun (for me, anyway) even when it is not unserious.
Best regards,
Bob |
|
|
|
|
