Anatomical Knowledge

** 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 **

Anatomical Knowledge

Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: Miscellaneous: Anatomical Knowledge

Author: Caroline Morris Wednesday, 05 June 2002 - 08:46 am
If Jack really fried and ate some of Eddowes' kidney, he evidently didn't find it nise enough to repeat the process with Kelly. Did he have a change of heart, or did he fancy heart for a change? Love, Caz
Author: jose luis carril miguens Wednesday, 05 June 2002 - 09:54 am
Hi all, I think the only valid opinion about this matter is the opinion od the doctors in the time of the murders. Six doctors were in the place of the crimes and seven doctors performed post-mortem (five canonical victims). Llewellyn, Phillips, Blackwell, Brown, Sequiera and Duke in the first place, and Llewellyn, Phillips, Blackwell, Brown, Sequiera, Saunders and Bond in the post-mortem. And what about their opinions?. Llewellyn: "mutilations were deftly and fairly skillfully performed". Phillips: "The manner in which they (incisions) had been done indicated a certain amount of anatomical knowledge". Brown: (Coroner) Would you consider that the person who inflicted the wounds possessed anatomical skill?. (Brown) He must have had a good deal of knowledge as to the position of the abdominal organs, and the way to remove them". Blackwell attended the murder of Stride. No mutilations in this case. Sequiera said the killer knew the scalpel. Bond: no anatomical knowledge. Well, on the majority evidence of those present it's a clear case of technical skill and anatomical knowledge. Best regards, Jose Luis
Author: Warwick Parminter Wednesday, 05 June 2002 - 04:09 pm
Caz, you must have noticed how he cut Kelly's right thigh, he sliced it like a ham, to the bone. He didn't take any flesh away with him though, did he?. It was the writer of the letter that inferred the Ripper was cannibalistic, not Jack!! Rick :-)
Author: Caroline Morris Thursday, 06 June 2002 - 04:21 am
Hi Rick, Quite so - hence my 'if'. And even if Jack wrote the letter, it doesn't follow that he ate any part of his victims. Murderers and hoaxers - tchoh! You just can't trust 'em to tell the truth, can you? Love, Caz
Author: Chris Hintzen Thursday, 06 June 2002 - 07:32 am
Hi All, You know Caz's point reminds me of a Star Wars Spoof I just saw. 'The Jedi Council are fools to think there can only be 2 of us. Don't they know it's our JOB to LIE and CHEAT!'<<<A Spoofed Sith Master Regards, Chris H. P.S. 'I'm going to send my Sith Decoy, Darth Maul. Unfortunately Maul is a Dancing Prancing Double-Bladed Lightsaber Pansy, who can't get anything right. But he looks good. All the children will want his action figure.'<<Same Spoofed Sith Master.
Author: Michael B. Bruneio Friday, 07 June 2002 - 06:36 am
Hi All! This was a favorite topic of mine in the past and I am glad it has been resurrected. The Eddowes killing has several remarkable points which, I feel, cannot be taken lightly: 1.) Mitre Square was not deserted; a former PC working as a night watchman passed the evening in one of the ground floor buildings facing the square. He testified that he saw and heard nothing untoward just moments before the discovery of the body. 2.) I believe two constables (or was it just one?) patrolled the square from opposite access points. One testified that he had patrolled the square not fifteen minutes previously and saw nothing. 3.) The Ripper removed Eddowes' kidney from the FRONT, a difficult task in even pristine conditions, as Nick Warren opines. The kidney is hidden by a protective layer of fat called the peritoneal lining. The easiest way to remove this organ would be from the back/side, and it certainly would post no great difficulty for the Ripper to simply turn his victim over after dispatching her and taking the established route to his trophy. Yet he managed to murder and mutilate Eddowes ... secure the kidney cleanly ... in low light ... virtually under the noses of several people ... and affect his escape without detection. I wish I had an eighth of this man's luck! I cannot help but come to the conclusion that the Ripper possessed a certain degree of medical knowledge far and above the knowledge of the working populace of the area. No doubt fish porters and butchers know what they are about; but in my opinion, the Ripper was no stranger to Gray's Anatomy. It follows then that he could read and may well have an education above the majority of locals. Of course, I can prove none of this, but it feels right in my gut. I would look for an unstable medical student/resident/apprentice(?) suddenly out of place. I also feel that in many respects, the Ripper was "showing off" to his "peers." Perhaps he even knew some of the physicians involved in the case. On a personal note, I'd just like to stray from the topic at hand and say that I was absolutely thrilled to have Martin Fido personally reply to one of my recent posts! :-) This is perhaps the most helpful and polite discussion board I've ever taken part in, and I would love to meet everyone at one of the conventions! Also, I am an admitted "Anglophile," and I truly enjoy chatting with the Brits on this board. Though I love my country dearly, I must confess that England has always been my "spiritual home." And ... they are simply better than we are! ;-)
Author: Joseph Friday, 07 June 2002 - 09:20 am
Hello Mr. Bruneio, After reading your succinct description of the Mitre Square murder of Kate Eddowes, I'd have to say that the killings stopped after Mary Kelly because the murderer came to America and became a professional Riverboat gambler. :-) One alternative scenario might be: He had experience field dressing animals and therefore wasn't squeamish about the blood and guts thing. Given the narrow time frame for rendering Kate unconscious, cutting her throat almost to the point of decapitation, and then opening her up from thorax to groin, eviscerating her abdominal cavity, feeling around in there until he found something he liked, removed it, and then, for the pièce de rèsistance, he mutilates her face; all this in the space of fifteen minutes; in a dark corner of a square with only two means of egress, under the nose of a retired (?) or off duty policeman, in an area of London in a heightened state of alert, and then gets away without leaving the slightest trace is extremely good fortune, or an excellent combination of planning, ability and solid brass bongos. What physical characteristics, of both body and knife, could facilitate this scenario? What could hinder the fluidity of the act and alter any aspect of it? Was any aspect changed? Was the murderer so confident of escape sans detection that he could afford to indulge his morbid curiosity of human anatomy, and his anger (the mutilations are an act of anger) simultaneously? Or, didn't he care? Sorry for the rambling train of thought, but, what do you think. Isn't it amazing that a single killer could perpetrate this same scenario at least three times? It just blows me away. I wouldn't want to play poker with this guy, nor would I care to introduce him to my sister. I look forward to your reply. Joseph
Author: Michael B. Bruneio Friday, 07 June 2002 - 11:47 am
Hello Joseph! I do not doubt that old Saucy Jacky had rather EXTENSIVE experience field-dressing SOMETHING! But as I've stated before, the anatomies of humans and animals, while similar, can contain marked differences. Example: While working in a hospital's emergency ward as security/orderly a few years back, we had a patient who was brutally knifed in the stomach. The injury was so graphic that his organs were very visible, and the doctors were even stunned at the extent of the wound. I helped load the man from the stretcher onto the trauma table and stood back and watched. While I've been trained in anatomy, nothing prepared me for the sight! I "saw" the organs, but I'll be darned if I could tell you what they were! The patient expired soon after. My point? The killer would certainly have to be no stranger to rummaging around the workings of the human body to do what he did. I lean more towards a doctor, or a morgue technician, than I do a butcher or fish porter. It's difficult to say what could facilitate Jack the Ripper. He had the advantage, certainly, even with the manhunt in progress. Darkness, blending in with the environment, drunken and desperate victims, and an intimate knowledge of the area all stacked the deck in his favor. You made an excellent point: this guy got away with it 3 times! I gamble myself, and the cardinal rule is never play the same hand twice! I am amazed at his coolness and efficiency. Perhaps what stunned me most was not the Mitre Square killing, but the Annie Chapman murder: here he murders his victim in a BACK YARD of a heavily populated rooming house steps away from a major street (Commercial Street). What's so stunning? According to Sugden, the Ripper murdered her no earlier than 5:30am. It was LIGHT outside!!!! Dawn had broken, and people were already shuffling to the Commericial Street market! Yet ol' Saucy Jacky finished his work and sauntered off without so much as a how-do-you-do! As my revered Brits might say, "The bloody cheek of the man!" One factor that probably assisted him in remaining undetected was the apparent fact that he appears simply not to have given a "tinker's damn" about the risks he was incurring! I, too, would not want to engage in Texas Hold-Em with JTR! As far as introducing him to my sister: In light of how her marriage has turned out, I simply cannot see how the Whitechapel murderer could be any worse! :-) Just kidding, of course!
Author: jose luis carril miguens Friday, 07 June 2002 - 12:08 pm
Dear Michael, Continuing your point, in the murders of the Ripper there is something more than luck. In my opinion, the killer, whoever he were, put a lot of work to prepare these crimes: 1)to silence victims = Strangling 2) to avoid bloodstains = being incisions of the throat left to right, by reaching over from the victim's right side. Abdominal mutilations, from the same place. 3) to remove organs in darkness = Anatomical knowledge. 4)Speed with which matter was resolved = Skill in using knife. 5)to make good escape = Knowing neighborhood and police beats. At least, five murders with a great success: it is not only a question of luck. All the best, Jose Luis
Author: David Radka Friday, 07 June 2002 - 12:13 pm
Mr. Bruneio, Respecting your claim above that the British are better people than the Americans, I would recommend one of the penis enlargement cremes available throughout the internet, laced with Viagara. Not all Americans are lacking in virility. David
Author: Michael B. Bruneio Friday, 07 June 2002 - 12:28 pm
Hello Jose and David! Jose, I am in complete agreement with you. Nobody has that much luck. Though it may indeed be the case, I just cannot envision the Ripper being one of the great unwashed, uneducated masses. Sugden put it best when he said, "we will not find our man amongst the laboring poor." David, I must heartily thank you for your recommendation, unsolicited as it was! The Internet has offered so many hard-to-find products and opened up a world many could not visit previously. Since you were kind enough to read and respond to my post, perhaps you could suggest a product made with good ENGLISH ingredients. Virility is a fine thing, but one must take care not to become too messy. Again, what did I say about how HELPFUL people are here! I am touched. :-D
Author: David Radka Friday, 07 June 2002 - 01:56 pm
Mr. Bruneio, Your position is flagrantly hypocritical. You first stated: "...(the British people)... are simply better than we are!" But then you complained that my advice to you was "unsolicited." Your statement was unsolicited, Mr. Bruneio, mine was a response. Therefore your statement that mine was unsolicited is hypocritical. This kind of thing is precisely what is responsible for the decline in British fortunes clearly observed around the world for the past 200 years. The British are a people who see themselves as inherently superior, and thus do not apply moral lessons to themselves. David
Author: Joan O'Liari Friday, 07 June 2002 - 02:03 pm
Dear Michael,Jose and all: Of all the steps listed by Jose's post, #1)silencing of the victims was the first and most important part of the whole procedure. IF someone had come along just before he began the mutilations, Jack could always act as though he had just happened to see some poor drunken woman lying there and was assisting her. He would listen carefully,and proceed quickly,no footsteps or voices, keep going. My interest is in ligature strangulation,which I believe was used in subduing and silencing the victims quickly.(It takes 10-15 seconds to cause unconciousness and death can occur shortly after if the ligature is held longer).Two of the victims had a tiptoe appearance like that of a hanging victim, so he probably lifted them right off their feet. Do you think that the weekend murder pattern could fit that of a working man who used drugs on the weekend, but not narcotic type drugs or alcohol, which would slow a person down, but rather a speed-type of amphetamine drug that would allow him to be alert, and stay up all night wandering the streets and generally skulking around? It is not easy to stay up all night, ask a night shift worker! Thanks to all, Midnyte
Author: Joseph Friday, 07 June 2002 - 04:09 pm
Hello Everyone, My point in mentioning the possibility of the murderer having field dressing experience, was to emphasize his ability to enter an abdominal cavity without driving the big porcelain bus, so to speak. I haven't read of the police finding pools of vomit at the crime scenes, so the murderer either had a naturally strong stomach, or had built up a high tolerance for the graphic visual affects that accompany evisceration from a regular exposure to the lubricated internal morphology of mammals. I chose the experience of field dressing, because there were more hunters then surgeons in the U.K. at that time, and I'm not all that convinced the killer had human anatomical knowledge at or near the professional level. He may have intended to open the victims and just stick his hands in there, and remove something lumpy; knowledge of human anatomy isn't necessary to do that. The incisions themselves aren't consistent with contemporary post-mortem or surgical techniques of students or experienced professionals. They are jagged cuts made by a sharp, professionally ground blade, slicing through rippled flesh, bunched up from being grabbed by the hand full then lifted and cut with the blade parallel to the ground where the victim lay, rather then perpendicular to it and straight down and cleanly through as a medical surgeon or post mortem surgeon would do. Hunters aren't taught field dressing with as much emphasis on technique and precision as are medical students. Hunters aren't too particular with the pattern of cutting, they are more interested in the depth of the cut. Fishermen are schooled in the time is money tradition, they need to get it done quickly and move on to the next fish. Both hunters and fisherman acquire some familiarity with the anatomy of their quarry, gained either through manual repetition (fishermen), or parental instruction. The Whitechapel murderer would be more concerned with getting his ass out of there quickly after feeding his demon. Consider this scenario: The killer wanted to make his statement without being interrupted. He had to have had very strong hands to handle the victims during the knockout phase, and to handle the knife during the cutting phase; strong hands would enable him to accomplish both tasks quickly. He wouldn't be looking at the victim or watching what his hands were doing, to a certain extent, he was well practiced with that aspect, instead he'd be watching the periphery of his stage for intruders, and gauging the proximity of sounds to his position; as his hands moved, he'd constantly be checking his exit/s for obstacles. Two things enabled his confidence to murder and escape: his appearance, and the proximity of his bolt holes to the crime scenes. His appearance added an element of surprise to the murder, and visually gave him a plausible accountability. He killed close to his hideouts, changing locations every Friday night. Best regards
Author: jose luis carril miguens Friday, 07 June 2002 - 06:18 pm
Hi all, Dear Joan, It is not necessary to imagine the Ripper wandering the streets all the night: 2/3 hours, there's more than enough here. On this matter I see no reason for drugs. I think this "weekend killer" did not live in Whitechapel. Probably, by travelling many times to Whitechapel before killing his first victim, he acquired good knowledge about this area and habits of its residents. It's difficult to assume the Ripper wandering the streets, during one or two hours every day or every night, looking around, and resisting the temptation to attack from Monday to Thursday during three months. At least, it's difficult to me. Best regards, Jose Luis
Author: Warwick Parminter Friday, 07 June 2002 - 07:23 pm
Hello Joseph, nice to see you posting again. Joseph what makes you think Jack grabbed a handful of flesh and cut horizontally?. How would he have held the knife do you think, dagger fashion or butterspreading fashion?. I think your idea of how he did it is quite interesting. Regards, Rick.
Author: Michael B. Bruneio Friday, 07 June 2002 - 08:15 pm
Hello again, David! Allow me to clear up a few misconceptions. You wrote: ""Your position is flagrantly hypocritical. You first stated: "...(the British people)... are simply better than we are!" But then you complained that my advice to you was "unsolicited."" Who's complaining? In fact, I thanked you for the recommendation! And I am not being hypocritical. I clearly stated earlier: "On a personal note, I'd like to stray from the topic at hand ..." This indicates that I am merely giving my humble opinion and thanks to the Brits for enriching my life. I am sorry you feel so uncharitable toward them. "Therefore your statement that mine was unsolicited is hypocritical." I really meant no harm, David. I fail to see why you should get so warm over a trifle. "This kind of thing is precisely what is responsible for the decline in British fortunes clearly observed around the world for the past 200 years." Well, you know what they say: The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing! :-) "The British are a people who see themselves as inherently superior, and thus do not apply moral lessons to themselves." You say this as if it were a BAD thing, David! I find this trait not only admirable, but, especially in today's crumbling society, absolutely necessary! See, I do not like poor people. Ordinary people. Uneducated people. They annoy me. That is precisely why I enjoy posting on this board; the level of conversation is raised above that of the great unwashed. For a better explanation, read Nietzche's "Thus Spake Zarathustra" on the 'Superman.' Fascinating stuff.
Author: R.J. Palmer Friday, 07 June 2002 - 10:20 pm
Hello. A small challenge against one of the orthodoxies. I feel the "week-end pattern" is quite possibly a myth. Considering only the five canonicals and Tabram, we have the crimes falling from early hours on a Friday morning until early hours on a Tuesday morning: 4 days of the 7. Throw in McKenzie and one has Wednesday as well. Numbers are tricky things. Walk in a gambling house and you're likely to see five blacks rolled in a row on the roulette wheel. This doesn't mean that the wheel is biased or that there's anything unusual going on. It only means that you don't have enough data to determine any real 'pattern'. The contemporary suggestion of a 'pattern' was partially created with the assumption that Emma Smith/Martha Tabram were victims...both attacked on bank holidays. Consider also the fact that a typical Victorian tradesman or laborer might have put in a 72+ hour work week, and one becomes even a little more skeptical about the assumption that the murderer was someone in 'regular employment'. Cattle boats? Maybe. A pattern? Maybe. But it is equally likely that it is nothing but a random distribution. I say this even though my own suspects of choice would quite possibly benefit from a weekend pattern. Cheers, RP
Author: David Radka Friday, 07 June 2002 - 10:54 pm
Mr. Bruneio, I wrote my Master's Thesis in Philosophy at Trinity College, Hartford, on the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche as expressed especially in "Also Sprach Zarathustra." I was given the grade Distinction on the thesis; it was only the second time this grade was assigned to an M.A. thesis at Trinity since 1932. Most of my thesis work at Trinity was done on scholarship. Then I was awarded a PhD fellowship worth $40,000 based on my M.A. thesis. The philosophy of Nietzsche has been the most significant study of my life. Essentially, Nietzsche criticizes what he calls the herd instinct, and he makes no blanket criticism of poor, ordinary, uneducated, or unwashed people. He recommends that each individual assert his idiosyncratic self, and makes no recommendation of finer people over coarser ones. In fact, many times he found the herd instinct more intractable in the educated, and correctly predicted misfortunes in the twentieth century based on the ascendence of this group. What you write above is a travesty of Nietzsche. David
Author: Michael B. Bruneio Saturday, 08 June 2002 - 06:03 am
Hello David! Wow. Sounds like you've been busy. I must certainly defer in matters of scholarship regarding philosophy, especially Nietzsche. However,the great thing about asserting one's idiosynchratic self is the freedom to interpret the works of great men like ol' Freddy. Simply put, my reading of his works is the correct one .. for me. And that is all that matters. Freddy is not here to side with either of us. "What you write above is a travesty of Nietzsche." Well, for aesthetic appreciation, always a little time! :-D Thanks for clearing that up, but I'm afraid we've strayed from the topic at hand. So with your leave, I shall confine my efforts to the Whitechapel Murderer and the other worthy posts in this link. Michael
Author: Michael B. Bruneio Saturday, 08 June 2002 - 06:52 am
For Joan Hello! I read your post with interest and would like to address a few points: 1) Jack could certainly have pretended to help a lady in distress as a way to abort a risky murder attempt. It makes me wonder how many times he prepared to strike, only to have fate intervene and foil his efforts; i.e., someone coming along at the last minute, tripping over something to betray his presence, etc. The Ripper had to gradually build up his experience and courage, and again I wonder how many people actually fell victim to his psychotic tendencies. One I definitely include is Martha Tabram. Emma Smith was assaulted by a gang, so I pretty much discount her. 2) You wrote: "Two of the victims had a tiptoe appearance like that of a hanging victim, so he probably lifted them right off their feet." The meaning of a "tiptoe appearance" is unclear. Do you mean the position in which their bodies were found? Please elaborate. As to lifting them off the ground, I must disagree. Unless the Ripper possessed the strength of a rhinoceros, this is almost impossible using just your hand(s). I use myself as an example. I am a rather large man (6' 250 lbs) with a muscular build. I've been a nightclub bouncer for eight years and a prison guard for two, and of all the fights I've experienced, I've never seen this accomplished. The leverage is simply not there. The most simple and effective way to manually choke out and strangle someone is to pinch their throats just above the adam's apple with your thumb and index finger. It requires surprisingly little hand strength, but you can bet the person will not sit idly by and let you do this to him/her. Choking someone like this is also a great way to crush their windpipe. But to lift someone clear off the ground in this manner for any length of time requires incredible strength and balance, the equivalent of hanging a one-hundred-plus pound weight on the end of your outstretched arm! But above all, it is simply unneccesary. With the victim's back to a fence, they are unable to retreat, thereby greatly facilitating the choke. A few seconds later and it's all over. We call this "using the environment as a weapon," in the prison, and I have no doubt Jack did the same. I realize you are talking about ligature strangulation, but why should he bother to carry a garrote, when his hands are just as effective? Especially if he had anatomical knowledge, as I believe he did. I'm not saying he didn't use a ligature; just that there's really no evidence of one. In fact, the police surgeons pointed out the marks on the victims' throats as those resembling a thumb. (See Sugden for the specifics) Of course, if you have evidence to offer for this, I'd love to read it! :-) As far as drugs are concerned, Maybrick was an arsenic addict. In large doses, of course, it is a lethal poison; however, in small ones it is a powerful stimulant. But there really is nothing to suggest the Ripper was under the influence of anything but his insanity. Staying up all night is not that difficult once you've gotten used to it. I've been on night shift in one form or another for 13 years. It just takes a while to adapt.
Author: Joseph Saturday, 08 June 2002 - 07:59 pm
Hello Rick, It's been a long time since we've exchanged greetings; I hope you and your bride are in good health. When field dressing a deer or elk for example, you don't want to cut deeply; to do so could open the large intestine, spread fecal bacteria, and infect the carcass. Therefore, the first thing that a young hunter is taught is to grab the skin of the animal, and pull it up toward yourself, then puncture that skin with the point of your knife, and while holding the blade butter knife fashion, either parallel to the ground or on a slight angle, slit the skin open a few inches to expose the fat/muscle layer beneath. This gives you a good idea of how deep the next cut can be. From this point, you again use the tip of the blade to cut a small slit through that layer (using a few shallow passes) until you just barely clear it, and reach the hollow cavity below. You can now vigorously grab a handful of skin, pull it up towards yourself, and again, by using the butter knife grip, put three or four inches of the blade into the cut and open the animal up and begin to remove the internal organs. In this last step, grabbing a handful of skin bunches it together; as you cut the animal open, your blade is usually as close to that hand as possible, cutting through the lower part of that bunched up skin and producing a jagged or zig zag pattern to the incision. The inquest testimony for Polly Nichols details: Two or three inches from the left side was a wound running in a jagged manner. The wound was a very deep one, and the tissues were cut through. This sounds like the result of a normal field dressing procedure to me. Of course, there may be other explanations for these phenomena, but I believe my theory is supported by additional testimony that describes other, similar cuts on her left side that didn't entirely penetrate the upper layers of skin, keep in mind the successful opening is on her right side; these are similar to failed attempts at field dressing; you don't always succeed on the first try. The failed attempts are also consistent with a left handed person kneeling between her legs, having a greater ability to articulate the movements of a tool when it is slightly to their left, as opposed to reaching their dominant hand across their body and having to articulate a blade at an awkward angle away from their maximum strength. Further support is found in the testimony from Kate Eddowes inquest, which describes: Two cuts were shewn by a jagging of the skin on the left side. This testimony also speaks to the angle of the knife as it cut her thorax area: It then divided the enciform cartilage. The knife must have cut obliquely at the expense of that cartilage.. The crime scene (or post-mortem) drawing of Ms. Eddowes wounds depict a jagged aspect to the entirety of the cuts, which confirms my handful of skin cut on an angle theory. One handful of skin, however, will not produce a linear jagged edge to the entirety of the incision; a number of handfuls were necessary to achieve that pattern, and I believe the crime scene (or post-mortem) drawing sustains my theory. Also, one last item that I think is a dead give-away to a hunter's hand on the knife; Ms. Eddowes navel is deliberately bypassed, leaving the navel on a tongue of skin. Every person who has ever field dressed a kill knows to make such a detour around the animal's anus; take a good look at your belly button Rick. Have you ever field dressed a deer? What does your navel (either an inny or an outy) remind you of? Now, do the math. :-) I hope after that analysis you can still have a great weekend. Best regards,
Author: Vila Saturday, 08 June 2002 - 11:26 pm
Mr. Brunieo, I, for one, find your remarks highly offensive. "See, I do not like poor people. Ordinary people. Uneducated people. They annoy me." Sir, I am all of the above; poor, ordinary, and highly uneducated. As ignorant as I am, I have been contributing to the Casebook for nigh on a decade now, and I have seldom seen a more fatuous, egocentric, and offensive a post as those in which you expressed your attitude of smug superiority. While I have no disregard for British people, your slavish fandom of an idealized version of the reality of their existence seems to have overridden any iota of good manners to which any honest Anglophile would aspire. Your lack of tact reveals you as a pretender, ignorant of any facet of the culture that you falsely claim to emulate. To put it bluntly, you sir, are a boor. You obviously do not have two brain cells to rub together to make a spark. It boggles my little, ignorant mind how you expect to cope with the intricacies of the Jack the Ripper murder theories when you are such an utter twit. That you, as an Anglophile, or any random Britt was in some way "better" than I, or any other human on this planet, is laughable. You, sir, are inferior to excrement -for the sake of your attitude alone. In other words, you are worthless, even as fertilizer. I, the scion of coal miners and blacksmiths, spit on your family escutcheon. How dare you presume to be "better" than I? Or anyone else on this planet, in any timeline of the multiverse, for that matter. My seconds stand ready to meet with your seconds at any time of your choosing, to arrange for our meeting for coffee and pistols at the dawn of your choice. Feel free to employ any weapon you choice, from a fistful of rock to thermonuclear warheads. I shall rely on my .45 Colt Army automatic. And by the way, I'm an American by birth and a southerner by the grace of the Gods -And I truly look forward to knecappin' yo' ass. That is, if I'm in a merciful mood that day. Vila
Author: Thomas Neagle Sunday, 09 June 2002 - 02:34 am
Prince Eddy's(Jack the Ripper)favorite thing was hunting. He was experienced in the opening up and dressing of the carcasses of animals. Soldier and sailor, mentally deranged and knowingly dying of venereal disease contacted from a prostitute, Prince Eddy went out dressed in his dearstalker hat, and wearing his long, dark, navy serge coat, to commit murders on the prostitute class, probably with, as lookout, the equally deranged, and possibly also suffering from venereal disease, friend, the journalist, poet and young clerk, J.K. Stephen, the probable author of The "Dear Boss" Letter, and many of the other Jack the Ripper letters and poems. It is possible, though less so in my opinion, but possible nevertheless, that Prince Eddy acted alone, and only informed his friend of the crimes.
Author: Michael B. Bruneio Sunday, 09 June 2002 - 07:07 am
For Vila and All Posters While I normally would not bother to dignify Vila's post with a response, there are a few points I'd like to address: "I, for one, find your remarks highly offensive." Normally I wouldn't care, but I should point out that the "winking" and "smiling" icons I left in the message were to assure the reader that I was being facetious. Obviously, in Vila's case, I failed. Regardless, this is simply MY opinion, and I am entitled to it. You will also notice that I will not stoop to insult Mr. Vila as he has unmercifully done to me. To do so would serve no purpose. "Sir, I am all of the above; poor, ordinary, and highly uneducated." Unfortunately, this was made obvious in the immature manner in which you attack me. My email address is included in my profile. You could have sent me a personal email, but instead you choose to waste space on this board with a ham-handed overreaction. In fact, let me apologize to ALL who read this. This is surely neither the discussion I'd planned to be having nor the medium in which to have it, and after I finish redressing Mr. Vila, I will devote my posts to the topics at hand. "As ignorant as I am, I have been contributing to the Casebook for nigh on a decade now, and I have seldom seen a more fatuous, egocentric, and offensive a post as those in which you expressed your attitude of smug superiority." Vila, I did not express my attitude of superiority; rather, I simply alluded to my perception of the superiority of the Brits. I may be completely wrong, but last time I looked, I have the right to be wrong. "Your lack of tact reveals you as a pretender, ignorant of any facet of the culture that you falsely claim to emulate." I'm sorry, but I never CLAIMED to emulate anything. Oh, I put a few "British-isms" in my vocabulary now and again, and you're right about my being tactless, but that's about it. "To put it bluntly, you sir, are a boor. You obviously do not have two brain cells to rub together to make a spark. It boggles my little, ignorant mind how you expect to cope with the intricacies of the Jack the Ripper murder theories when you are such an utter twit." Makes me kinda wonder, then, why you should waste your valuable time and energy (not to mention board space) on such a lost cause as me! The lady doth protest too much, methinks! "I, the scion of coal miners and blacksmiths, spit on your family escutcheon. How dare you presume to be "better" than I? Or anyone else on this planet, in any timeline of the multiverse, for that matter." It has long been an axiom of mine to be wary of the person who overstates his case. Makes me wonder what hidden agenda or need he/she/they are satisfying. Curioser and curioser ... "My seconds stand ready to meet with your seconds at any time of your choosing ..." Hmm. Indeed. Mr. Vila, you apparently have taken great offense to something - something written on a message board - by a perfect stranger! In fact, you've taken such offense to it that you are prepared to "kneecap" my ass should the opportunity present itself. Can you see now why some would label your attitude "extreme," or perhaps even "pathological?" No one else has taken such exception to my posts, and if they have, they have exercised the common sense and restraint by not responding to me. I offer a simple solution: Since this is a free country, neither of us are obligated in any way to respond to each other's posts (or anyone else's, for that matter). In fact, we are not obligated to even READ them! I am perfectly willing to limit my posts and replies to the topic at hand without any personal involvement. I suggest you do the same out of respect to the other posters. However, if you choose to engage in pointless ad hominem insults and challenges, I shall be forced to contact the moderator of this board and ask that you be censured. Thank you for your kind attention to this reply. FOR ALL OTHER POSTERS! I am heartily sorry if my or Mr. Vila's comments have disrupted the board. Believe me, this was not my intent. While I do admit a dislike for the "common man mentality," my statements were not intended to be directed to any one person on this board. If my words or their tone have offended you, I apologize. It's a shame to have my return to this board tainted like this. A bit of explanation may help: I am a corrections officer, the C.E.R.T. trainer for our county prison. I deal with the apathetic, ignorant mind-set every day, and it's possible that it has hardened me. Britain has always, to me, set the standards for good taste and finery. Also, every Brit I have ever met was gracious, educated, and downright nice; a far cry from many of the people in my area. I stand by this assessment. Besides, I just plain out like the place! :-) I will be on holiday and unable to post or reply until Friday afternoon. Thanks again for your patience and attention. :-D Michael
Author: Vila Sunday, 09 June 2002 - 11:44 am
Michael, You are quite right, I appologize. I had no right to post that message. I should have e-mailed you privately, and been much more polite at that, or simply gotten over it without responding at all. I also appologize to everyone else for acting the proper fool. I don't know what came over me. I just read the post, and went ballistic. Uusally, I'm not like that at all. You seem to have accidentally pushed a button I didn't know I had. Thank you for doing so electronically so that I can keep it from happening offline as well. Once again, I had no right to say what I did, and no right to say it publicly. I appologize to one and all. Vila
Author: Michael B. Bruneio Sunday, 09 June 2002 - 03:59 pm
Vila, Thank you very much! Apology noted and accepted! :-) To be fair, I am a rather frank person, and, unfortunately, I have found that not all people respond favorably to my candor or sense of humor. As a prison guard, I have no practical use for subtlety, as it is wasted on the inmates. Holding my tongue has always been a problem for me, and one I should work on. I never meant to suggest that one race of people was inherently "better" than another. Just that, to me, the Brits seem more cultured and refined than the indigenous people I have met in my experiences. I can easily see how this was misconstrued, and the blame lies partly with me. As one "Gentleman of the South" to another (I was born and raised in Cheraw, SC), I am sure we can put this unpleasantness behind us and respond to each other without rancor. Again, thank you and see you in a week! Michael
Author: Warwick Parminter Sunday, 16 June 2002 - 08:59 pm
Joseph, My apologies over and over for not answering you and thanking you for that excellent detailed hunters job description. I've read it again and again and I for one would think your theory holds a lot of water. I thought the jagged cuts were caused by the knife being held upright inserted in the skin and pulled toward the killer, but your theory makes a lot more sense and with Dr Brown saying that some cuts were shelving, that kind of proves the knife was used horizontally. The thing is Joseph, can you read slaughterman for hunter maybe, and could the Ripper have picked up these skills by working just now and again in a slaughter house, because there's no getting away from it, not just anybody and everybody could do what the Ripper did, as regards the mutilations. All the Best, Rick.
Author: Clyde Monday, 17 June 2002 - 04:18 am
Hello All, I'm glad that someone has brought this topic up. It always seems curious to me that the killer took a kidney. It furthered my curiosity to learn that some people thought that the killer had some anatomical knowledge. I can't help but agree with them. In the early 90's while I was in college, I took a job as a meatcutter apprectice. It was in a small grocery store and it stayed in business by catering to specialty cuts of meat because the big chain stores had pretty much dominated the area by that time and had cornered the market on all the standard cuts and everyday items like chicken breasts and strip steaks. This specialty store taught me how to cut meat the old fashioned way. The master butcher that taught me had learned his craft in the 30's and 40's. I was even given the old books and manuels from that time so I learned the right way. Now people have to understand that there is a difference between a meatcutter and a butcher. A meatcutter is a person that cuts the meat into serving sized portions such as with pork chops. A meatcutter takes the pork loin and chops it into individual chops. The butcher is the person that disassembles the carcass of in the above example a pig and removes the loin in this case. Now this whole process can be done by the same person if he has the knowledge to do so. However, most of the people who cut meat in grocery stores today never see a side of beef or a hog carcass. They get the meat in boxes already boned (in many cases) and ready to slice or cut with a saw into steaks or chops. The disassembling of the side of beef is done at the processing plant or slaughter house. This is in contrast to how it used to be done and how I was taught. When a side of beef was brought in we had to disassemble it into smaller managable portions because it obviously weighed hundreds of pounds. This is were it may become interesting to ripperologists (I appreciate your patience this far!). The only internal organ that remains with the side of beef and is not removed in slaughtering is the kidney. The reason for this is because the kidney is hidden in a protective layer of fat commonly called "suet". The suet naturally protects the kidney from drying out until it is harvested for consumption. When removed from the suet, kidneys dry out very fast rendering them unfit to eat. Now in the U.S. the kidney is often discarded anyway because very few people eat them anymore. However, they used to be in high demand in the "old days" here and I believe they still are in some other countries (France for one). The kidney is not particularly difficult to remove from a carcass if it is done by a professional. Actually it takes minimal knife work and is commonly "peeled" out of the carcass. This peeling of the kidney is achieved because the carcass has been allowed to dry and age for a period of time, often 1 week to 10 days. This feat would be very difficult, not only to perform but to even view, in a "wet" carcass. Wet being a carcass just killed and still having the blood in the abdominal cavity. For side money I would butcher deer during hunting season. In many cases the kidneys were left in the deer carcass when it was given to me. Not because the hunter did this by design but because he did not see them or even consider them important in a "wet" carcass. Hunters are concerned with removing the entrails (intestines, bladder, sphincter, anus, etc.) to avoid contamination by fecal matter and urine. The kidneys dont present a problem and are often overlooked because of obscurity. The kidneys have to be specifically targeted for removal and the person removing them has to have specific knowledge as to there whereabouts. I will say that the kidneys can be grabbed out by the hands easier in a deer carcass than a cow carcass because the kidneys are not concealed in suet in a deer carcass (Whitetail Deer). Most deer carcasses are very lean and contain very little fat. Human bodies internal structure as far as fat goes, reminds me more of a cow or pig than that of deer or lamb. I've had the "priveledge" of attending several autopsies and necropsies (spelling?). Even relatively thin people are surprisingly fat on the inside. To go a step further and add that any hunter that has field dressed an animal in the same position that the JtR victims were found in would agree with me that when the intestines are removed and the cavity is empty, the blood (butchers call it "purge") pools over the area of the kidney's and "tenderloin" often requiring the hunter to tip the body and drain this fluid out to hasten cooling. The kidney area is not apparent until this is done. Pretty lucky for a person with no anatomical knowledge to find the kidney by accident and remove it in almost complete darkness. Yet, it is possible. Now that I've bored you all to tears and turned half of you into vegatarians, would you like to hear how they used to kill cattle and how it strangley parallels the JtR murder sight? Then again, Maybe Not! Clyde
Author: Clyde Monday, 17 June 2002 - 05:06 am
Oh by the way.... Perhaps a better measure of the killers anatomical knowledge is not so much the harvesting of organs but the first cuts into the abdominal cavity. For those of you who have had the opportunity to look at the coroners report in more depth, does it say if the intestines and/or stomach was pierced in the initial incision of the abdominal wall. The vast majority of first time hunters and field dressers of large game will puncture the intestines of a game animal creating a huge and gag inducing mess unless specifically instructed not to. It is almost an expected phenomina among experienced hunters when watching an inexperienced hunter "gut" a deer. The ripper could have "ripped" intentionally and still posessed anatomical knowledge as to the whereabouts of internal organs. But if he intentionally avoided "ripping" during his initial cut then I would start eliminating half the suspects on this board. Just for a goof, start asking around to see if modern people know where to find common organ groups by pointing them out on another persons body. Do you think a desperately poor, uneducated, 19th century test group would do better or worse in their answers? Ask your people what the organs that Jack took look like. I think you will be amused. If the ripper didn't rip, it doesn't mean he's a surgeon but I would bet he wasn't a common hack! Clyde
Author: Warwick Parminter Monday, 17 June 2002 - 06:35 am
As a hunter, or slaughterman would look at it,-- did the Ripper make a good or bad job in what he did to Kelly's body?,--eg, "in the abdominal cavity was some partly digested food of fish and potatoes and similar food was found in the REMAINS of the stomach attached to the intestines",-- was that a mistake in cutting? Rick
Author: Joseph Monday, 17 June 2002 - 03:35 pm
Hi Rick, I figured you get around to saying hello when time allowed you to. A slaughterman is the person at the stockyard charged with killing the animal, I'm not sure if the slaughterman is also responsible for the gutting, and skinning process. Cows, and other bovines have a different skin and fat layer arrangement than Homo sapiens, probably due to the abundance of short hair on their hides. Deer, Elk, and Moose etc. have longer abdominal hair making it easier to grab hold of. The short hair on bovines would make that a real tough job. I believe the freshly killed bovine carcass is hydraulically lifted and secured to the hook, which allows the innards to sag a bit. Then a cut can be made under the sternum, gauged for depth, and the gutting, and skinning process would begin there. The blade angle would probably mirror the one used for field dressings. Perhaps you and Clyde would like to stop by the Means, Mode & Instrumentality: "Knife" discussion on the Pub Talk thread. We're discussing how various types of knife blades, and different degrees of sharpness may have affected the way the wounds were made (the use of a second tool is a possibility), and why some incisions appeared more articulated than others; it definitely speaks to cutting techniques, and you might find it interesting, besides, I'd appreciate your input. I hope to read you there. Best regards
Author: Ivor Edwards Monday, 17 June 2002 - 06:01 pm
Joseph, A trained slaughterman can kill, gut, skin, and perform every task required in the processing of livestock. In a large slaughter gang however each member has his own job although 90% may be capable of performing every one elses task.An aprentice cannot kill livestock until he gets a licence to do so and to get a licence he must be able to perform every task which is required of him.It can take years for a person to obtain such a licence.
Author: Joseph Monday, 17 June 2002 - 06:12 pm
Hi Mr. E, Thank you for that feed back. Can I assume you are describing the 1888 slaughterman, and apprentice scenario? Best regards
Author: Ivor Edwards Monday, 17 June 2002 - 08:25 pm
Hi Joseph,Relating to 1970 scenario. In 1888 in Whitechapel I would shudder to think of the methods employed.They would not be working with a Health Inspector on site like today.But a good slaughterman then would still have experience of all the processes involved from start to finish.I doubt if many of them knew what a licence was.
Author: Joseph Monday, 17 June 2002 - 09:30 pm
Hi Mr. E, Were there any stockyards in the Whitechapel vicinity during the murders? Best regards
Author: Ivor Edwards Monday, 17 June 2002 - 10:45 pm
Joseph, I believe so they were located at Broad Street Station in Bishopsgate, and Aldgate goods depot.
Author: Ivor Edwards Tuesday, 18 June 2002 - 03:25 pm
TRAIN TIMES IN WHITECHAPEL. Someone asked me some time ago about how often the trains ran at night. I forgot who it was who inquired but a railway worker from Aldgate Station researched the question on my behalf.He informed me today that the trains were running all night and on every hour in 1888.
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan Tuesday, 18 June 2002 - 07:27 pm
Cattle pounds, or cattle yards, and cattle markets are a feature of medieval commerce outside the castle walls, hence, markets at the entrances to London Tower included one at Bishop's Gate, the Aldgate/Oldgate...mainly on the more northernly side of the Tower due to the main drover's road from the north passing along the axis of Whitechapel Road. The "Whitechapel" is the turret on the south corner of London Tower. The Tower itself was surrounded by a wall at some distance from the Tower itself having a number of "gates"...one of these being the Aldgate leading to The Tower and the "Whitechapel". One historical source suggests Julius Ceasar set up a camp there on the site of an existing Celtic necropolis..."Win Carn" (The White Hill). I believe a wild Celtic woman took exception to this move by Imperial Rome and obliterated it. Rosey Rides Agin :-)
Author: Monty Wednesday, 19 June 2002 - 04:48 am
Ivor, It was I..... Le Monty. I had forgotten that I had asked that. It was to to with a thread about Bucks row I think. I cannot remember who it was with now, but they were supposing that Jack travelled by train and I wondered if trains did indeed run until the early hours. Thank you my friend. Monty PS Would it be possible to find out the exact hour ??
Author: Ivor Edwards Wednesday, 19 June 2002 - 03:07 pm
Hi Monty, So is was you. Monty for you I will find out the exact hours between midnight and 8am!!By the way the train drivers name was Frederick and his wife was having it off with the Station Master from Aldgate while he was working nights!!!! Hope that helps.:-)
Author: Monty Thursday, 20 June 2002 - 07:41 am
Ivor, Oi, oi, dont get cheeky ! I was just wondering if Jack had to wait a while for the next train after he despatched Polly. I can just imagine him checking his pocket watch as he was hacking away. Monty PS Shoe size would be of great help too !
Author: Ivor Edwards Thursday, 20 June 2002 - 07:19 pm
Hi Monty, You did not state who's shoe size you wanted so I got you the train drivers who wore size 8,and Polly's was a 5.Jack never wore shoes he had a canoe instead which he used in the sewer system to get from site to site.
Author: Diana Wednesday, 03 July 2002 - 03:44 pm
Knowledge comes in several forms. 1. Language -- recognizing a thing and associating it with a culturally defined set of sounds (a word). Having the oral motor skills to produce those sounds correctly or the education to write symbols representing those sounds. Putting words together to create more complex expressions of thought (sentences). The only possible language related anatomical knowledge here is the Lusk letter and we don't know if it is genuine. 2. Cognition (reasoning skills). This can happen completely independently of language. Jack can reason about getting the body open and getting what he wants and avoiding capture. 3. Perception -- the CNS processes what the five input devices (senses) send it. There is nothing neccessarily wrong with the eyes of a dyslexic but the brain does not manage the incoming sensory input correctly. A. Visual Perception -- excellent, he found those organs. B. Olfactory, and Gustatory -- unknown unless you want to go with Lusk and then we are talking motivation and not skill. C. Tactile -- very good. Found the organs in unlit surroundings. D. Auditory -- not relevant to anatomical knowledge, but may have made use of sound to avoid capture. All of the above feed into perception of spatial relationships in which he seems to have had a pretty good grasp. 4. Memory -- excellent, somewhere sometime he had seen organs removed and he had perfect recall. We are talking here about visual and tactile memory. We are told that the uninitiated can't find a kidney. Therefore he was not uninitiated. 5. Sensorimotor -- This is the kind of knowledge it takes to ride a bicycle. There is constant sensory input informing the CNS of how much pressure is being applied to the pedals and the eyes and balance centers in the inner ear are sending constant messages as to whether the bicycle is balanced or tipping over. Memory supplies the strategies that worked in past bicycle riding experiences. The motor portion of the brain responds to the sensory messages and memory by making compensatory adjustments in what the muscles are doing. If the rider is learning there are few stored motor memories and he will probably fall a few times and skin his knees. Motor skills like this can't be taught using language. The person has to get on the bicycle and create those motor memories. This is where Jack falls down. He knows where the uterus and kidney are and what they look like( visual and possibly tactile memory) but when he tries to take out Chapman's uterus he hacks away the back half of the bladder with it. Dr. Ind has said that his incisions are sloppy and surgically incorrect. He has seen and possibly touched before but never or seldom has he done or he is experiencing motor impairment due to alcohol or drugs. Where exactly does this put us? Possibly an intoxicated Doctor, Butcher, Hunter or Slaughterer. All of these would have visual and tactile memories that would help them. They would also have motor memories which might be unimpaired but the motor portion of the brain would not direct the muscles properly. That is why a drunk staggers. Would there not also be sensory impairment? If I am seeing double I might not be able to tell where the bladder ends and the uterus begins even if I am a very skilled surgeon. Someone who has seen and possibly even felt but not done. A hanger on at the morgue or at the slaughterhouse, an observer at the hunt.

Add a Message