|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
A Statement
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: Research Issues / Philosophy:
A Statement
Author: Diana Comer
Thursday, 02 September 1999 - 03:44 pm |        | | He seemed more interested in uteri than anything else. If he knew how to get one when he did Nichols why would he content himself with just slitting her abdomen here and there? Had he known at that point how to do it he would have had the confidence to do it. |
Author: Diana Comer
Thursday, 02 September 1999 - 04:04 pm | | | I decided to go into more detail. There is an interesting interaction that occurs in the process of learning between confidence and knowledge or skill. A student who has had their self esteem badly damaged will probably not try very hard. Confidence is definitely a prerequisite to learning. Praise is an important component in building confidence, especially early on in the learning process (but who would have sat JTR down and said, "nice job"!?!?!?). Of course the media attention might have had the same effect. Perceived success is an even stronger confidence builder. ("Well, I did that right, maybe I can do the next hardest thing right too.") However, no matter how much confidence I have, without instruction I'm not going to find a uterus (I'm relying here on the contributions of Dr. Villon.) If he already knew how to find a uterus when he did Nichols, why not do it? If his expertise circa Nichols equalled his expertise circa Eddowes (ie. a uterus and a kidney in under 15 minutes) why not do what he later did to Eddowes? Perhaps you are not speaking of his confidence in his own "surgical" skills, so much as his confidence in his ability to elude capture. I'll have to think that one over. |
Author: Caz
Friday, 03 September 1999 - 06:52 am | | Hi Diana,
I was not thinking so much of Jack's growing confidence in his own surgical skills or ability to disappear after each killing, but more of his reaction to the realisation that he had finally cracked it and become a taker of human life. When he killed for the first time he probably had a good quarter century of inner turmoil behind him. At last he had the power over life and death at his fingertips. What would he be recalling about his life thus far? Would he think back to his cruelty to pets or stray animals, bullying or being bullied or abused as a lad, setting fires, stealing? Maybe he had got away with all these things and felt he could progress to more violent acts, such as the attacks on Annie Millwood and/or Ada Wilson in early 1888. Part of him may have been screaming out 'How bad (or good?) must I get before someone notices me and pays me attention?'
I think he must have got away easily with his first murder (whichever that was), and knowing the police had nothing to tie him in with the crime gave him the confidence and audacity to return to the same area, targeting the same kind of victim. Again he was able to escape the scene without a hint of suspicion falling upon him. He was beginning to realise this was HIS territory to use and abuse at will.
I think a combination of the above allowed him to use whatever 'skills' he had already gained over the years. I would also see Jack as a single male, being able to escape (with some of his victims' body parts) to premises he shared with no-one, and early to mid-thirties in age. I can see him planning his murders to a certain extent, but I don't think each one subsequent to his first depended on how far his practical pathology lessons had progressed to date.
Have a great weekend everyone.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Jim DiPalma
Friday, 03 September 1999 - 10:49 am | | Hi All,
Diana, he may not have had the time. There are strong indications the Ripper may have been disturbed by the approach of Charles Cross and Robert Paul. They found Nichols' body at ~3:40. She had been killed so recently that Paul thought that she may still have been breathing.
A few minutes later, ~3:45, the body was found by PC Neil. According to Sugden, blood was still oozing from the wounds in her throat, and Neil could detect warmth in her arms above the elbow, both sure signs that she had been dead for just a few minutes. Dr. Llewellyn arrived on the scene shortly after 4, and placed the time of death within the half-hour, i.e., a few minutes before the arrival of Cross. So, there is every indication that the Ripper may have been interrupted in his work, which would account for the relatively minor degree of mutilation performed on Nichols.
Regarding the Ripper's interest in uteri, it seems to me that there was little evident intent to procure a specific organ. There is no commonality across all the murders with respect to which organ was taken away. In Chapman's case, he took the bladder as well as the uterus, with Eddowes it was a kidney and uterus, with Kelly he took the heart and left the uterus at the scene. IMHO, this smacks of a slash-and-grab technique - he wanted trophies, but was not particularly discriminating as to what type of trophy.
Cheers,
Jim |
Author: ChrisGeorge
Friday, 03 September 1999 - 11:38 am | | Hi, Jim:
"Slash and grab" or not, and I really think that is a term that is not wholly helpful or descriptive of what actually happened, the series of murders show that when he had time, one organ that he consistently removed was the uterus, whether he took it away with him or not.
Chris George |
Author: Jon
Friday, 03 September 1999 - 12:57 pm | | I'm not inclined to think so much of a learning process here but in the case of Nichols, I agree he was very likely disturbed.
I'm not convinced that he was after a trophy either, if it was simply that he would not spend his time to get the difficult organs, but go for something simpler to obtain, ear, finger or a similar trophy.
There's always the possibility he was leaving a message of sorts, by obtaining such difficult organs under difficult circumstances was he telling everyone 'I know what I'm doing' or 'I'm no random maniac'.
Not that he needed the uterus or kidney, but that in taking those organs he was sending a message, and by doing it a second time, he was leaving his calling card.
But in balance I'm always wondering if we are giving Jack more credit than he's worth.
Regards Jon. |
Author: ChrisGeorge
Friday, 03 September 1999 - 05:48 pm | | Hello, Jon:
Indeed you make a very good point that our man was not after any old trophy, a finger or an ear, say. He was after the difficult stuff, targeting the internal sexual organs and kidneys, and so on. I think you are exactly right that there was a degree of audacity here: a clear attempt in the cases of Nichols (probably) and Chapman and Eddowes (definitely) to elicit the twin reactions of admiration and horror that he could loot a female of her most precious organs on a public street, and, if it was Jack once more with MJK, to do the same thing indoors.
Chris George |
Author: Diana Comer
Saturday, 04 September 1999 - 04:29 pm | | From Dr. Llewellyn's Autopsy on Mary Ann Nichols:
"There were no injuries about the body until just about the lower part of the abdomen. 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. There were several incisions running across the abdomen. There were also three or four similar cuts running downwards, on the right side, all of which had been caused by a knife which had been used violently and downwards. The injuries were from left to right, and might have been done by a left handed person." I'm hoping the Dr. is reading this because I have a question. Could the mutilations described here have been done by someone who had an imperfect idea of how to find a uterus? The perpetrator obviously didn't succeed, but does it look like what you would do if you were only half trained? Or does it look like what you would do if you were competent and starting to extract the uterus and got interrupted? None of the above? |
Author: Villon
Saturday, 04 September 1999 - 05:01 pm | | Hi Diana, and all. Personally, I don't think a man who had no clue how to find a uterus when dealing with Nichols could possibly progress to the level of skill and, more importantly, habituation Jack showed with Eddowes. The man who dealt with her had done this thing so often in the past he could, almost literally, do it with his eyes closed.
So I agree with Chris, the reason he didn't take Nichols's uterus is most likely because he didn't have time.The wounds described, all located around the lower abdomen imply Jack was going for the uterus and knew where to go in to find it. There are several wounds, but seemingly too close together to be random. More like a man who is nervous, maybe hesitant, but basically knows where to do the business.
I would like to know in what direction that first wound was traveling, if it was lateral, and very low across the top of the pubic bone it is pretty undeniably an attempt to open up quickly and find the uterus. The downward wounds on the right side are also consistent with an interrupted attempt to get the abdomen exposed in as swift and brutal a way as possible.
Mike |
Author: Bob Hinton
Sunday, 05 September 1999 - 02:29 am | | Dear All
A question. Would a person with absolutely no medical or anatomical knowledge at all who was looking for, say, an appendix, make any wounds which were inconsistant with the wounds suffered by the victims?
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Villon
Sunday, 05 September 1999 - 06:23 am | | Hi Bob,
a person with 'absolutely no medical or anatomical knowledge' could make a cut almost anywhere in searching for the appendix, because, by definition of the above, he would not know where it was.
On the other hand a person with sufficient knowledge to know where the appendix is located might, if in a hurry, begin to open up partially in the way described, because it offers the quickest means of exposing the abdomen in entirety.
But much depends on the position of that primary incision, the one described as beginning two or three inches from left side. If this was lateral,right across the top of the pelvic bone, it is a classic incision for exposing bladder and reproductive organs.
Ladies who have had caesarians will recognise what I mean.
But why assume Jack was looking for the appendix when he never took one (did he?)
You can't 'slash and grab' a uterus unless you have the time to virtually empty the entire abdomen. If you are reaching in and pulling out the first thing you find in a frenzy of ignorant panic, you might come away with slices of gut or abdominal wall, even liver or what you will, but your incredibly unlikely to hit on the uterus, just because it is stashed away, right down in the pelvis, behind the bladder and is incredibly small as organs go.
But don't take my word for it. Read up on anatomy, and do that practical experiment I suggested some time ago, with the little rubber ball, the length of hosepipe and the fifteen yards of soft stinking-gunge-filled rubber tubing.
Assemble it all in line with female anatomy,remembering to get a friend to glue some of the fragments together in surprising ad hoc ways. Then plunge your hands right in,wielding your knife, IN the dark, and see how long it takes you to find that rubber ball, and cut it free.
Great game for a party.
Mike |
Author: Bob Hinton
Sunday, 05 September 1999 - 09:10 am | | Dear Mike
I think you miss my point. You say that a lateral incision is perfect for obtaining the reproductive organs, and I've no reason to doubt that, you obviously know what you are talking about.
But you are saying that BECAUSE you know what you are talking about. What I am saying is that such an incision might be made by a person searching for an appendix (or any other organ) if that person had no idea of what he was doing.
It might equally well be made by a person merely wanting to slash a body.
You mention emptying the cavity but is'nt that what happened with Chapman and Eddowes. Weren't intestines removed and lain down by the bodies?
I can quickly and efficiently remove the liver, kidneys and reproductive organs from a rabbit, yet I have no knowledge of animal anatomy. I merely clean the rabbit, point to the mass of entrails and inform you the parts are in there somewhere.
Richard Chase performed similar mutilations and removals on his victims and yet he had no knowledge of anatomy.
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Diana Comer
Sunday, 05 September 1999 - 11:41 am | | | I have wondered in the past if Cross was our man. He sees or hears Paul coming, stands up, puts on a shocked expression and says, Lookee what I found" |
Author: Jill
Monday, 06 September 1999 - 01:00 am | | MESSAGE FOR BOB,
Dear Bob,
I assume you tried to mail me with a reply on the address from wich I mailed you. There are indeed some problems with it. My other one, still automatically receives messages of the Casebook every day. Could you please retry to mail the information on Chase on jill.deschrijver@planetinternet.be
I would be very grateful.
Cheers,
Jill |
Author: ChinaCat
Wednesday, 08 September 1999 - 10:54 am | | IMHO, mind you fair people: I feel Jack needed no surgical training. I am sorry to say but anyone with a medical book and a steady hand can slice through someones skin and see and recgonize various body parts. It is quite evident that Jack did become more proficient in doing so..but to say he HAD to have some medical experience I find to be a bit more romanticizing then actual fact to prove this theory. Now I do concede that Jack did know how to slice open a body and remove things but it is clear he was not precise and as neat as say a doctor or surgeon is maybe this was because of his time limitations but in the case of Eddowes there was no need to rush. What he did in her case was as in all others a ritualistic mutilation. Seems to me Jack was more interested in making some kinda point as opposed to really clearly and neatly just dissecting his victims.
Let us all look back to 6th grade anatomy classes and rememeber that we all too know where body parts are located and try and imagine transposing this picture in our heads on one of the victims. Whalla Presto!
I think we just cant be so narrow-minded to think Jack HAD to or NOT had to have had medical experience. Also keep in mind this was a day and age where even the common housewife was able to recgonize certain parts of animals upon her dealing with and cooking of them everyday. Butcher, Huntsman, Doctor or mere JoeBlow we cannot base our opinion and shut out all suspects based on this one clue as to his knowledge.
In your responses please be kind I am but a novice at all this. |
Author: Jill
Wednesday, 08 September 1999 - 03:35 pm | | Welcome ChinaCat,
The responsens look sometimes harsh, but in fact I have not experienced any malignant meaning. So my responses are nicely intended although maybe heated.
1.I would not compare our basic HUMAN anatomical knowledge with those of 19th century Whitechapel. We all went to school and learned by a puppet and schoolbooks where the most important bodyparts are, how they are named, found and look like. A kid from Whitechapel in 19th century didn't. Even our basic knowledge is frightenly little. For example try to imagine how an uterus looks like, draw it live scale as you think it is, and position it on a body drawing. Take this drawing for example to your gynecaelogist, show it and compare it with his models. Be in for a good surprise.
2.Organic anatomy of animals is very different to ours for one obvious reason. We walk straight up, other animals don't. Because of gravity our organs just don't look the same. Arrows for hunt are even made differently if they are intended for humans or other animals, to pass the rib cage as easily as possible.
Find out by yourself on this site:
http://courses.ncsu.edu/classes/zo442001/int_anat.html
Here you can see visuals of fish anatomy. Then use a book of human anatomy afterwards to compare.
3.Besides that, anatomical knowledge does not exactly mean 'surgeon', but includes medical students who already performed a few autopsies.
Lots of pleasure here on the boards,
Jill (no not connected to a ripper tale) |
Author: Diana Comer
Wednesday, 08 September 1999 - 06:15 pm | | | When JTR did Nichols he was cutting around the lower part of the abdomen, making vertical and horizontal slashes as though trying to get the uterus. Forgive me if I do not remember correctly, but I seem to recall reading several messages ago that he would have to get the intestines out of the way first. Would that entail cutting only the lower abdomen? Or to get them efficiently out (and out of the way) would he have to cut the upper abdomen also? If so, then why did he not do this? I'm still wondering if he had the same competency level circa Nichols as he had later. I have seen the mortuary photo of Eddowes. If I recall correctly she was slashed from her breastbone to the lower part of her abdomen. He did Nichols at the very end of August and at the very end of September he did Eddowes. If he was a medical student taking anatomy he had a whole month in there to learn. Of course there is the little problem of Chapman a week after Nichols, but correct me if I'm wrong, he did not do Chapman with the same degree of skill as Eddowes. He did not get a kidney or have time to do anything with her face. And though he did get the uterus, he took the posterior part of the bladder with it (sloppy). |
Author: Jim DiPalma
Thursday, 09 September 1999 - 08:20 am | | Hi All,
Villon: Regarding whether the incision described as beginning two or three inches from left side was lateral or not, unfortunately Dr. Llewellyn's autopsy report does not go into explicit detail on this point. However, a careful reading seems to imply that the wound in question was lateral. Here's the relevant passage:
"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. There were several incisions running across the abdomen. There were also three or four similar cuts running downwards,"
The way I interpret this, the wound in question seems to be associated with the several incisions running across (i.e., laterally) the abdomen. Llewellyn used a seperate sentence and the phrase "There were also" to distinguish these cuts from those running downwards, i.e., vertically.
Sugden includes a report from Inspector Spratling, dated August 31, 1888, here's the bit that's of interest to us:
"the abdomen had been cut open from centre of bottom of ribs along right side, under pelvis to left of the stomach, there the wound was jagged;"
This seems to be describing the wound in question, since it refers to it as being to the left of the stomach and jagged. It's also described as being "under pelvis", which would seem to bolster the idea that Nichols' killer was after her uterus. Comments? Mike?
Diana: others have made this suggestion about Cross, but it seems to me his actions after finding the body tend to mitigate against his being the Ripper. If he were, he surely would have fled the scene upon hearing Paul's approach, rather than be found with his victim. Instead, he calls Paul's attention to the body, stands around having a chat, goes off with Paul to find a policeman, and reports the body to PC Mizen. Pretty strange behavior, if he were the Ripper.
Cheers,
Jim |
Author: Villon
Thursday, 09 September 1999 - 12:11 pm | | Hello Jim and Diana and all,
A lateral incision across the top of the pelvic bone is quite a classic surgical incision for entry into the pelvis, that is for achieving access to the uterus, ovaries, bladder etc.
It is difficult to tell from these reports Jim quotes if this was what Jack was attempting, but it does sound possible.
It just may be that our Jack tried a surgical entry technique with Nichols, but finding it was time-consuming or inappropriate, opted, in later victims, for the radical post mortem ('rip') procedure of exposing the entire abdomen in one long incision, peeling back and just lifting the guts out of the way.
Thus maybe there is progression as well as MO all predicated on detailed surgical knowledge.
I would opt for a senior student, or a chap who had failed his finals God knows how often, and was already headed down the professional tubes, rather than a qualified MD or a raw recruit just learning the ropes.
Mike |
Author: Diana Comer
Thursday, 09 September 1999 - 04:01 pm | | So he already knew surgery, but was learning how to adapt his knowledge to meet his peculiar goals.
(and I do mean peculiar!) |
|
|
|
|
