|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 292
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 07, 2004 - 2:33 pm: | 
|
On the old boards there was an ongoing debate as to whether Jack had anatomical knowledge or not. We had a Dr. who said "no way". We had a Dr. who said "Yes he had to." Now everybody can judge for themselves. I am taking an anatomy and physiology course this summer. Follow the link and you will see a dissection of a female rat. Her innards are not all that different from those of a human. The uterus is kind of two lobed which makes it different and in this picture the bladder is already out. If you had never studied any anatomy, could you find your way around? http://www.utm.edu/~rirwin/RatFemReprodAnsw.htm |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 293
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 07, 2004 - 2:47 pm: |
|
Oops -- I looked again -- bladder isnt out. If you use the link on the page and go to the index you can see other views of the dissection. Try to figure out for yourself. If you wanted a kidney and a uterus and a heart, and you had no background, could you find them? Would you need the background of a doctor or would a slaughterer be enough? What if you had no knowledge at all? |
Mephisto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, June 11, 2004 - 10:11 pm: |
|
Hello Diana,
I haven't had dinner yet, so I think I'll forego
checking-out the dissection web-site for the time being. To answer your question, I'm positive a doctor would be able to find all of the organs you mentioned. A slaughterer would at least be familiar with the general areas that they could be found. Someone without any knowledge at all might know the general location of the heart, but I think that identifying the locations of the kidneys and uterus would present them with a problem.
A hunter, like a slaughterer, would also have a good working knowledge of where the heart, lungs, liver et al might be found, but might not be able to pin-point the uterus. My reason for thinking my idea is accurate is this: the heart, liver and kidneys are edible, and while learning to field dress or butcher a carcass, these organs would be identified.
One thing I've always found interesting about the victim's wounds, especially Catherine Eddoews, was the ragged pattern that is reflected in the post-mortem(?) drawings. They gave me the impression that the murderer grabbed a handful of skin, pulled it up and away from organs below, and made the cuts by either slashing the skin, or puncturing it with the point of the blade,sliding some length of the knife into the cavity perpendicular to the ground (so as not to cut the organs below), then pulling the knife backward toward him (this scenario assumes that the killer knelt between the victims legs to perform the mutilations). When he let go of the skin, and it lay flat again, it looked jagged, like the teeth of a carpenter's saw. Slashing or cutting skin while gripping it produces a series of ripples; cutting through the ripples renders the saw tooth affect. The idea that the killer might have proceeded in this manner indicates to me that he was either a hunter or slaughterman; a doctor, by training, would be more apt to cut in a straight line.
From what I've read, a contemporary surgeon or post-mortem doctor would make a small opening in the skin-2 to 3 inches long-insert a finger or two in the incision, and place the knife blade into the cavity dull edge toward the fingers, and once again, perpendicular to the ground. He or she could then gently lift the skin slightly up with his or her finger(s), and slide the scalpel along the area he wanted to expose. This procedure would result in a fairly straight incision. It would also reveal whether the murderer was right or left handed, i.e., the bevel of the incision is either left-over right for a right handed person, and right-over left for a lefty.
My apologies to you if my description grossed you out.
Mephisto
|
yazoo
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 3:37 pm: |
|
I couldn't find some of my old haunts around the JtR Casebook, but I think this thread might be interested in the following book I found.
"A Traffic of Dead Bodies: Anatomy and Embodied Social Identity in Nineteenth-Century America" by Michael Sappol, Princeton University Press, 2002.
While covering America, I think there's enough similarity between British and American culture in the 19th c. for this book to be of interest in the following:
1) General (i.e., public) knowledge of anatomy (or morbid interst in same!)
2) Professional (i.e., medical) knowledge and views about anatomical study
3) Social ramifications of practical anatomy, the use/misuse of the poor for anatomical study
4) The prevalance of an "amatuer" anatomical lecturer or practicing anatomist (Dr. Tumblety, I presume?)
5) Photocopy of a 25 cent pamphlet on nuerAsthenia (Dr. Stephenson, I presume? And ahoy, Melvin Harris -- page 299, pamphlet from "Dr. Baskette's Gallery of Anatomy; Chicago, n.d., ca. 1875!!)
6) And more social info on one of the more central features or grounding principles of the acts of one JtR, otherwise Unknown
Nice message board, Stephen and Ally! No I go before I muck up the place...again?
Yaz
Oh, P.S.: Happy Bloom's Day, everyone. Nudge, nudge; wink, wink.
Oh 2: I see Caz is now a Chief Inspector! Hmmmmmm... |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 299
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, June 19, 2004 - 11:04 pm: |
|
I'm so glad to hear from you again yazoo. I'm taking Anatomy and Physiology this summer and last week we disected a rat. (The website was preliminary to this). I think if pressed we could have done it in ten minutes and gotten the uterus and a kidney out with this caveat. We had at our disposal: diagrams, pictures from the website of a dissected rat; and printouts with detailed instructions as to how to proceed. In place of all that Jack would have had to had the knowledge maybe of a butcher or a slaughterman. He would not have needed to be a Dr and the fact that when he took Chapman's uterus he took part of her bladder with it argues against his being one. We conducted the entire proceedure without piercing the intestines and releasing their contents. We were all as green as the grass. We identified the liver kidney spleen intestines uterus bladder, trachea, diaphragm heart and thymus. But again we had reference sources. |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 515
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 9:12 pm: |
|
I think this little chart speaks for itself.
|
Mephisto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 11, 2005 - 1:34 am: |
|
Hello Diana,
Thank you for putting together the chart. It makes it a lot easier to see which trades and professions had what type of anatomical knowledge.
I hope you don't mind if I make a suggestion, but you may want to consider adding "farmer" to your chart. Historically, from the time of Sumer and Akad to the present day, farmers have slaughtered and butchered a portion of their livestock for their own use and consumption.
When I was a teenager, I helped a farmhand in Sicily slaughter and butcher a rather large pig. Based on this experience, and what I've read about commercial slaughterhouses, slitting the animal's throat and removing its viscera from the abdominal cavity, i.e., the heart, kidneys intestine etc., pretty much requires the same type of anatomical knowledge in both industries.
Below you will find the URLs for two web sites, which you and the other readers might find interesting and informative. They explain the "home kill" process in a straight-forward, yet sensitive manner, that is, without the gory details.
The Backwoods Home
http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles/geissal23.html
Simply Self Sufficiency
http://groups.msn.com/SimplySelfSufficiency/reminiscing.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_
Message=8758&LastModified=4675405377987867814
Thanks again for compiling the chart.
Best regards,
Mephisto
|
Mercury
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, February 12, 2005 - 4:01 pm: |
|
Thanks for the chart. i'm doing a report on the whole thing. if it helps any, i've got a couple books i've found to be quite usefull
Jack the Ripper A to Z by Paul Begg, Martin Fido and Keith Skinner.
The Diary of Jack the Ripper no author. contains valid arguements by real criminologists and the full diary of Jack
Portrait of a Killer by Patrichia Cornwell
I hope all goes well. If there's anything i can do to help, let me know.
-Sincerely-
Mercury |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 523
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 10:36 pm: |
|
Hi Mercury,
Well, you sure have a diversity of opinions there. Be aware that the facts as presented in those three books contradict each other, so they can't all be right.
One of the unfortunate aspects of this field is that you can grab five books out of the library and get five completely different views, not even just on opinions on who the Ripper was, but also on the facts of the case. There a lot of them that just use very poor research, and they often are the ones packaged by the book publishers to appear to be trustworthy.
You might want to check out the reviews on this site for some guidance. Click the link called "Ripper Media" on the left side of the Casebook web page and look around.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1321
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 11:45 am: |
|
Hi all
I have said elsewhere that the stated opinions of the medical men in the case changed noticeably after the uproar over Coroner Wynn Baxter's pronouncements at the Chapman inquest in late September. Specifically, Baxter stated that he had information that a foreign medical man had been enquiring from British medical institutions some time before for specimens of uteri, and was prepared to pay £20 for each specimen, supposedly to issue with copies of a new book.
It was subsequently stated that while there had been such a doctor, he was said to be a respectable (though unnamed) Philadelphia physician with a large practice and that he did not want the specimens for the reason stated, nor did he offer that sum of money. The British medical press proclaimed that it was nonsense to think that a medical man could be involved in any way with the crimes.
Thus the early pronouncements of anatomic skill, e.g., by Dr. George Bagster Phillips at the Nichols and Chapman inquests, were supplanted by the opposite sort of assertion in the ensuing murders -- no anatomic skill, no surgical skill.
Do we sense here that the powerful lobbying action of an interest group such as the British Medical Association was behind the change of attitude? The doctors who testified in the case no doubt saw it was in their interest not to rock the boat and even hint at medical expertise on the part of the killer.
Best regards
Chris George
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Mephisto
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 4:55 am: |
|
Hello Mr. George,
It's been a while since the last time we exchanged posts. How have you been?
You wrote: "Do we sense here that the powerful lobbying action of an interest group such as the British Medical Association was behind the change of attitude?".
Yes, I think this might have been the case. The killer's basic understanding of anatomy is revealed by the sequence of his actions in each murder: a) immobilization, b) cut the throat to relieve blood pressure and drain the circulatory system, and c) evisceration. Some press reports sensationalized the police surgeons' inquest testimony about the murderer's skill with a knife, which gave the readers the impression that anatomical knowledge was limited to doctors. As Diana and I have pointed out, hunters, farmers, butchers, and slaughterers also share this knowledge. If you take subsequent events into account, it becomes evident that the British Medical Association (hereafter, the BMA) reacted to the doctors' inquest testimony, and looked for ways to deflect attention away from the medical profession, and inform public opinion about the extent of the anatomical knowledge that was needed to do the above mentioned work.
A close reading of the historical record shows that the series of events listed below were contemporaneous. The following paragraphs, briefly discuss these events, and explain the reasons why the BMA might have been compelled to take action.
1. The complexity of the mutilations increased with each murder.
2. With each murder, police surgeons became more convinced that the murderer possessed some degree of anatomical knowledge.
3. The BMA's level of anxiety rose with each inquest.
The BMA must have realized that the murders showed an escalating pattern of brutality and complexity, and that despite their best efforts, the police were no closer to capturing the killer after Chapman's murder, than they were after Tabram's death. (Many people at the time, including some police officers, believed that the same assailant killed Tabram, Nichols, and Chapman.)
Ceteris paribus, as the complexity of the victim's mutilations increased, the post mortem doctors continued to find more evidence of anatomical knowledge.
Martha Tabram was stabbed repeatedly in the throat, breasts, and vagina. Dr. T. R. Killeen did not use the term, anatomical knowledge.
Polly Nichols was stabbed in the groin; her throat was cut to the bone, and her abdomen was deeply slashed exposing her intestines. Dr. Rees Llewellyn testified that Nichols' injuries "were the work of a person with some rough anatomical knowledge" (Jack the Ripper: The Uncensored Facts Begg 1988 :46, emphasis added). Nichols' wounds were more sophisticated than Tabram's; they showed a more controlled attack:
1. She was disabled.
2. Her throat was cut.
3. Her abdomen was slashed.
Annie Chapman, was completely disemboweled. Dr. Bagster Phillips stated that it was clear "the murderer was possessed of anatomical knowledge from the manner of the removal of the viscera" (Begg: 60, emphasis added):
1. Her small intestines were taken out of her abdominal cavity and placed on her right shoulder.
2. Some other organs and flaps of skin were placed on her left shoulder.
3. Her navel, the upper portion of her vagina, her uterus, and a large portion of her bladder were cut out and taken away.
Chapman's mutilations were more complex then Nichols' and Tabram's, and accordingly, showed a greater degree of anatomical knowledge. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to assume that the hierarchy of the BMA was indifferent to Dr. Killeen's perspective; they were uncomfortable with Dr. Llewellyn's testimony from the Nichols inquest, and were totally freaked out by Dr. Phillips' deposition at Chapman's inquest.
When one realizes that Dr. Llewellyn's testimony was first published in The Times on 3 September, and that subsequent stories about the Nichols' case had run concurrently with those of Chapman's, it isn't hard to imagine the top brass of the BMA panicking when Dr. Phillips' inquest testimony was published by The Times on 11 September.
I think Dr. Phillips' affidavit reinforced public suspicion of the medical profession's culpability, and made it difficult for many people to consider the possibility that a member of another occupation, which had the same basic knowledge, might have committed the murders. If any hint of anatomical knowledge was attributed to Eddowes' mutilations, following so closely on the heels of two previous accounts, the BMA would have had a snowball's chance in hell of salvaging their professional reputation, or protecting themselves from mob violence.
You also wrote: "The doctors who testified in the case no doubt saw it was in their interest not to rock the boat and even hint at medical expertise on the part of the killer".
I agree. Since reprisal was a real possibility (See John Pizer), it is likely that after the Chapman inquest, some member(s) of the BMA hierarchy pointed out that unguarded testimony could jeopardize the safety of all doctors, including those giving inquest depositions. Dr. Fredrick Brown's testimony at the Eddowes inquest clearly shows that the BMA had managed to impress someone at the coroner's office with this last point.
Page 231, in Evans and Skinner's The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion, shows that Dr. Brown's statement was edited. The passage reads: "It required a great deal of ["medical" – deleted] knowledge to have removed the kidney and to know where it was placed". Both Dr. Brown and Dr. Sequeira (Evans and Skinner :231 & 232) avoided using the word anatomical during their testimony at Eddowes' inquest, as did Dr. Phillips at Mary Jane Kelly's inquest.
Thank you for your time Mr. George.
Best regards,
Mephisto
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1334
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 3:32 pm: |
|
Hi Mephisto
Doing well even if supremely busy on different projects in addition to my regular work as a medical editor in Washington D.C., where I obtain my anatomical knowledge and surgical skill.... no, not really, but I can run a mean word processor! 
Mephisto, your excellent timeline of facts relating to the British medical establishment's shock in regard to the revelations at the inquests is neatly and I think realistically charted. I also think there was a wide perception that Wynne Baxter grandstanded at the Chapman inquest which probably unnerved both the police and the medical establishment, and this helps explain the more abbreviated and circumspect inquest on Mary Jane Kelly: neither the medical establishment nor the police leadership wanted another circus so they tightly controlled the enquiry.
Best regards
Chris George
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 525
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 1:33 pm: |
|
But wouldn't they take comfort in the fact that none of them had had training in throat slitting, a skill at which Jack seemed proficient? |
Mephisto
Police Constable
Username: Mephisto
Post Number: 1
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 4:29 am: |
|
Hello Mr. George,
Thank you for your kind comments. I'm glad to hear that you're doing well.
You wrote: "I also think there was a wide perception that Wynne Baxter grandstanded at the Chapman inquest".
I agree with your assessment. Wynne Baxter certainly had a knack for attracting attention, but based on what I've read about him so far, I don't think he was excessively egotistical; just very self-aware.
After reading a few of the books that described Baxter's conduct during the hearings (Begg, Evans and Skinner, Sugden, et. al.,), I got the impression that he was a shrewd political animal, which must have served him well as an elected public official. Clearly, during Whitechapel murders, he took advantage of every opportunity to polish his image as an astute coroner. It goes without saying that his politics affected his work ethic, but I think there is more to it than just political ambition; I think he actually wanted to know the answers, because he was naturally inquisitive.
Baxter's curiosity not only shaped his resolute style of cross-examination, but also compelled him to press reluctant or evasive witnesses until they told him what he wanted to know, or he was satisfied that they were clueless. However, curiosity and tenacity are not a fair exchange for attention to detail and critical thinking.
During the Nichols, Chapman, and Stride inquests, Baxter failed to resolve the subtle conflicts in the victim's character references, and the obvious timing contradictions between the witnesses' testimony; i.e., the sightings and movements of the victims and the police officers walking their beats, and the medical examiner's report regarding the approximate time of death. He was either unaware of these discrepancies, or purposely ignored them. Furthermore, he failed to ask the witnesses important follow-up questions on a number of vital issues; evidently, his natural curiosity only went so far. In fairness, I should point out that Baxter's performance during this period is preferable to Roderick Macdonald's travesty during the Kelly inquest, or the lackadaisical effort by deputy coroner George Collier at Martha Tabram's hearing.
To his credit, Baxter didn't hesitate to coerce his peers or challenge dubious answers; i.e., when he recognized them as such, and he was professional enough to forgo his usual self-promotion and cooperate with the authorities when he felt it would benefit the investigation.
In this limited sense, I think Wynne Baxter did an adequate job.
Thanks for your time Mr. George.
Best regards,
Mephisto
|
Liz Stride.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2005 - 1:57 pm: |
|
Did 'Jack' have anatomical knowledge. Maybe, but I don't think it's a certainty. All you have to do is look at the likes of Ed Kemper, Jeffrey Dahmer Ed Gein and Dennis Nilson. None of these (and many others too numerous to mention)had medical backgrounds, but they dissected and butchered without a problem. Where there's a will there's a way. |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 8:08 pm: |
|
Mr. Norder wrote:
1. “Hi Mercury, Well, you sure have a diversity of opinions there. Be aware that the facts as presented in those three books contradict each other, so they can't all be right.”
>>I would disagree with this assessment, insofar as serious books written after 1987 are concerned. The facts we have are the facts we have; I’ve read a plethora of serious Ripper books carefully, and I don’t know of any, and I’m including Begg, Fido, Evans, The Diary, Knight, even Cornwell, that contradict one another seriously on the facts. If you want to read books just for the facts, pace interpretations of the facts, I’d recommend all of these books to you.
2. “One of the unfortunate aspects of this field is that you can grab five books out of the library and get five completely different views, not even just on opinions on who the Ripper was, but also on the facts of the case.”
>>Again, I’d agree concerning interpretations and viewpoints on the facts, but not on the facts themselves to any significant degree.
3. “There a lot of them that just use very poor research, and they often are the ones packaged by the book publishers to appear to be trustworthy.”
>>Since 1987 or so, Ripperlogical research has refined and perfected itself. It is anything but poor in nature. This doesn’t mean that the viewpoints expressed concerning it are rationally justified, however.
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1967
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 5:13 pm: |
|
I can't seriously be the only one who is beginning to find this a little tedious can i?
"We're so incredibly, utterly devious, Making the most of everything."
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 532
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 5:46 pm: |
|
Hi David,
Key words being "facts as presented" -- I don't know if you read the Diary and the Cornwell book recently, but there are several things in each that are presented as if they are factual that clearly are not. It's not just a matter of interpretation, it's that things are wrong.
I think your desire to endlessly argue with me on countless threads must be making you overlook obvious problems just so you can complain. In fact, considering how much scorn you regularly dish out on the field of Ripperology, it's bizarre for you to now be saying that Ripperological research has refined and perfected itself.
Certainly Ripper research in general is much better off then it used to be, but you would not know it at all from reading the Diary or Portrait of a Killer, which are both by outsiders to the field in any event.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Mephisto
Police Constable
Username: Mephisto
Post Number: 4
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 10:19 pm: |
|
Jen,
Do you intend to disparage every thread that taxes your attention span, and to ridicule all the posters whose interests differ from yours?
(Message edited by mephisto on February 20, 2005) |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 535
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 11:54 pm: |
|
Hi Mephisto,
You've apparently misread Jen's comment. It's clear in context with a similar comment elsewhere that she was not disparaging the thread in general or "all the posters" with differing interests, just one particular poster whose well-known personal vendetta gets really old.
And I have to say, the whole plea for good behavior would appear more sincere if you didn't try to insult Jen's attention span in the same breath.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1980
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 3:14 am: |
|
Hi again JT,
did i mention I knew i would be glad that you had registered?
This really is quite amusing.
I'm touched by your concern.
see here
../4920/16222.html"#C6C6B5"> |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, February 21, 2005 - 11:05 am: |
|
Mr. Norder,
You specifically stated in your post of Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 10:36 pm that the "facts of the case" are being mis-presented in recent books. You then repeated this assessment in your post of Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 5:46 pm.
As usual, you make statements that would oblige you to quote specifically concerning what you are referring to from these books, but then you make no quotations. What books do you mean? What facts are mis-presented? Please provide page numbers so we can compare what these books say to the established evidentiary records of the case.
Thank you.
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1993
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 9:53 am: |
|
Hi everyone,
David,
have you never had the pleasure of reading Cornwell?
Jenni
(Message edited by jdpegg on February 23, 2005)
"Pick up the pieces and make them into something new, Is what we do!"
|
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 785
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 8:37 pm: |
|
Hi David
I’ve read a plethora of serious Ripper books carefully, and I don’t know of any, and I’m including Begg, Fido, Evans, The Diary, Knight, even Cornwell, that contradict one another seriously on the facts.
Didn't read Cornwell all that carefully then did you? Or do you mean she was pretty much on the button when she mentioned the fact that Mrs Mortimer saw a man rushing from Dutfields Yard towards Commercial Street carrying a black bag after Liz Strides body had been found. Does that not contradict what Begg, Fido or Evans say? (p271)
Or the fact that Pearly Poll took her soldier to Angel Court over a mile away from George Yard rather than Angel Alley, which is about 20 feet away? Did Begg, Fido and Evans get that one wrong as well. (p26)
That's just a couple of facts picked at random from Cornwell's book which is filled with similar such facts. Probably need to read it a bit more carefully next time, eh?
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me" - Hunter S. Thompson (1939-2005)
Visit my website - http://www.ashbooks.co.uk/
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 538
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 9:13 pm: |
|
Hi David,
The errors in both the Diary and Portrait of a Killer have been noted several times on these boards, and you've been here long enough to know this. In fact you pointed out some of Cornwell mistakes yourself here in the past.
The Diary has errors in the sense that it says things we now know to be wrong so that its supporters try to explain why Maybrick really did it but was confused about the facts of the killings he supposedly did. There are the "he was on drugs and forgot and took the facts he wrote down from the papers" and "he had multiple personalities and the one writing the diary didn't have complete access to the memories" arguments, as two examples. It's well established even by Maybrick supporters that the Diary has errors, or else they wouldn't need to try to explain them. (And of course there are the others they don't admit so readily, but this thread has already veered off course as it is without getting into the whole Diary flamefest.)
And Cornwell's book is littered with errors. The letters page of the October issue of Ripper Notes, which I know you received because you commented on another article in it, points out a few. Alan provided a couple of more noteworthy ones above, but there is an incredibly long list of others, as you should be well aware.
If your memory is going bad, perhaps it would be better to use this site's search engine to look for these things instead of asking me to waste my time repeating what's already been done over and over on these boards.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1355
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 3:46 pm: |
|
Hi all
Returning to the theme of whether the killer had anatomic knowledge, it would seem to me that notions that the killer might have had some sort of expertise are bandied about loosely in Ripper-type or mutilation case by police and doctors. Almost like, ahem, supposed expert opinions on watch scratchings, but that is another story, excuse the diversion. 
There is a case of murder mutilation being discussed now inthe case of a Brooklyn, New York City 19-year-old African American who was found in various pieces at a couple of locations. See
Body Was Cut Up Expertly, Police Say
The following is a quote from the article:
"The investigators believe that the cuts are clean, and it may have been done by someone with some medical knowledge, or certainly anatomical knowledge and the ability to do some sort of refined work," Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly said.
Obviously, "someone with some medical knowledge, or certainly anatomical knowledge and the ability to do some sort of refined work" can cover a multitude of sins. Similar broad and ill-defined statements were bandied about in 1888 which shows that in police work, despite the advent of DNA and other modern scientific techniques, some things remain much the same in terms of various theories and opinions about who might have committed the crime.
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 582
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 4:34 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
In today's New York Times there was an article that they believe the killer of the young man in Brooklyn had anatomical or medical knowledge.
Jeff |
Jeffrey Bloomfied
Chief Inspector
Username: Mayerling
Post Number: 583
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 11:28 pm: |
|
Hi again all,
After thinking about it, I am of the opinion that the Brooklyn killer is not so much like the Ripper as like killers such as James Greenacre or the Thames Torso killer. He is cutting up the body and distributing parts of them all over the borough of Brooklyn (at least so far he deposited the victim's legs in one spot and his torso in another spot). Greenacre did the same with the body of his victim Hannah Brown. Apparently so did the Thames Torso killer (portions of the body turning up in the Thames).
Jeff |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 9:31 pm: |
|
Mr. Norder wrote:
1. “The errors in both the Diary and Portrait of a Killer have been noted several times on these boards, and you've been here long enough to know this. In fact you pointed out some of Cornwell mistakes yourself here in the past. The Diary has errors in the sense that it says things we now know to be wrong so that its supporters try to explain why Maybrick really did it but was confused about the facts of the killings he supposedly did. There are the "he was on drugs and forgot and took the facts he wrote down from the papers" and "he had multiple personalities and the one writing the diary didn't have complete access to the memories" arguments, as two examples. It's well established even by Maybrick supporters that the Diary has errors, or else they wouldn't need to try to explain them. (And of course there are the others they don't admit so readily, but this thread has already veered off course as it is without getting into the whole Diary flamefest.) And Cornwell's book is littered with errors. The letters page of the October issue of Ripper Notes, which I know you received because you commented on another article in it, points out a few.”
>>I received the issue, therefore I read a particular page in it. The premise doesn’t lead to the conclusion.
2. “Alan provided a couple of more noteworthy ones above, but there is an incredibly long list of others, as you should be well aware. If your memory is going bad, perhaps it would be better to use this site's search engine to look for these things instead of asking me to waste my time repeating what's already been done over and over on these boards.”
>>Generally, Ripperology nowadays suffers from an excess of British empiricism and an insufficiency of rational thinking. Cornwell and the Maybrick-oriented books are good representatives of the age we’re in. Here you can supposedly find solutions of the Whitechapel murders based solely on forensic science and a real diary of the perpetrator, respectively. Nothing is supposedly fictionalized, there are no myths, just the facts. The problem is, there isn’t any reason to believe these solutions are connected to the case evidence either; the whole notion of what anyone can rationally accept as true is trivialized to nothing. Truth itself vanishes. Once you have a fact-based standard of Ripperology, as was historically established by Whittington-Egan, Cullen, Rumbelow, Begg, Fido, Evans et al, you are going to get the Bell Tower, the Diary and Cornwell too. On the bright obverse of the coin of Ripperology is a bust of Paul Begg, and on the tarnished reverse that of Patricia Cornwell. But both sides of this coin are one of a bigger coin.
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2006
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 06, 2005 - 6:08 am: |
|
David,
really - you have lost me.
So anyway anatomical knowledge
Jenni
"We womble by night and we womble by day,Looking for litter to trundle away"
|
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 452
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 06, 2005 - 9:56 am: |
|
Jen,
No, you are there but someone else is quite lost. But, as you suggested, anatomical knowledge anyone?
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 331
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, March 06, 2005 - 11:03 am: |
|
Man, do I feel encumbered by British empiricism! All day long, it's British empiricism THIS and British empiricism THAT until I could just explode!!
And don't even get me started on coin collecting!!
Mags
|
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 453
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 06, 2005 - 2:25 pm: |
|
Mags,
I am so glad that, unlike most other Americans, you have come out of denial and admitted that we DO have a problem with British Empiricism and have had one since early in the 17th Century when British Empiricists first settled at Jamestown.
Of course, the Boston Tea Party was a reaction to the English tea merchants emblazoning each tea bag sold in America with an example of British Empiricist thought. The War of 1812 was a direct result of the British trying to im-press our sailors with empiricist notions, and so on to this day. Indeed, it was not the British Empire from which colonies around the globe sought freedom but British Empricism!
Nor are we at all safe even now. No one wants to talk about it, but there are literally thousands of British "sleeper" empiricists scattered around the country just waiting for the signal to wreak their diabolic havoc upon innocent minds. When will our leaders awaken to the danger?
By the way, I thought it was an image of a bison, not Patricia Cornwell, that is on the new five cent piece. Oh well, live and learn.
And I don't feel in the least guilty to be writing off topic because no one has bothered to address that subject in more than two weeks.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 562
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, March 06, 2005 - 3:14 pm: |
|
Ooh, yeah, dang those British Empiricists. They unleashed such horrors as inductive reasoning (yikes!) and the scientific method (gasp!) on the world. We really have to put a stop to that, don't we? After all, David Radka will never be recognized as the revolutionary genius he knows he is unless we forget all that nasty logical positivism and the need for providing evidence to support one's conclusions nonsense.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 540
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 06, 2005 - 3:21 pm: |
|
Imperialism is the effort of one country to take over and run another country.
Empiricism is a philosophy which says that the only things we can be sure of are those proved by experience.
If I understand the history books correctly the United States has not been the object of British imperialism since 1812. Since none of us was alive then, and both our countries have changed significantly in the intervening two centuries (almost) I think that discussions of British imperialism have little if any relevance for us today. |
D. Radka
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, March 11, 2005 - 9:05 pm: |
|
Mr. Souden wrote:
1. “Mags, I am so glad that, unlike most other Americans, you have come out of denial and admitted that we DO have a problem with British Empiricism and have had one since early in the 17th Century when British Empiricists first settled at Jamestown.”
>>British empiricism is an intellectual foundation. Continental rationalism is a counter example. These have to do with how one considers truth. They don’t have anything in particular to do with the settlers of Jamestown.
2. “Of course, the Boston Tea Party was a reaction to the English tea merchants emblazoning each tea bag sold in America with an example of British Empiricist thought. The War of 1812 was a direct result of the British trying to im-press our sailors with empiricist notions, and so on to this day. Indeed, it was not the British Empire from which colonies around the globe sought freedom but British Empricism!”
>>British empiricism is epistemological, not ordinarily political thought.
3. “Nor are we at all safe even now. No one wants to talk about it, but there are literally thousands of British "sleeper" empiricists scattered around the country just waiting for the signal to wreak their diabolic havoc upon innocent minds. When will our leaders awaken to the danger?”
>>Why complain about your British empiricism? It’s good for what it’s good for. It made the scientific revolution possible. You don’t know how good you have it.
4. “By the way, I thought it was an image of a bison, not Patricia Cornwell, that is on the new five cent piece. Oh well, live and learn.”
>>The five-cent piece has Thomas Jefferson on the obverse and Monticello on the reverse. Jefferson used continental rationalist thought, taken straight from the French (and Swiss) Enlightenment, for his 1776 “Declaration of Independence of the United States of America.” Strange that you use the nickel for your alliterative purposes.
|
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 459
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 5:08 pm: |
|
David,
In fact, the new United States nickel has a bison on the back. Otherwise, shouldn't you be worrying about clients' taxes at this time of year?
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 345
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 5:20 pm: |
|
Don- shall I tell him? Your call.
Mags
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3264
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 5:37 pm: |
|
No Mags - let me! Please.
(Just kidding... be my guest.  )
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 346
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, March 12, 2005 - 5:55 pm: |
|
David--
It's a joke.
J-O-K-E
Sarcasm
Satire
Tongue in cheek
Having some fun with it.
I'll let Glenn explain further while I join AP in some brandy.
Mags
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2020
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 5:50 am: |
|
I would add something but i am an idiot.
I don't think JTR had anatomical knowledge necessarily. or necessarily had to have it should i say. But that doesnt mean he didn't i guess. we can't just rule out people who did by saying that.
Jenni
"People don't notice us, they never see,Under their noses a Womble may be"
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1547
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 7:35 am: |
|
Hi Jenni,
Good point.
And because it's impossible to know what anatomical knowledge someone living in 1888 could not have had, I can't see how we could rule anyone out on such a basis.
In other words, if all experts today were agreed that Jack must have had some anatomical knowledge, it would rule in every man without an alibi known to have had some knowledge, and every man without an alibi who could have had some knowledge without the fact ever reaching the historical record. In fact, if Jack had gained this knowledge partly or wholly as a means to an end - ie his murderous ends - it would have behoved him (is 'behoved' a word?) to gain it with as few people as possible being the wiser.
And, as you say, even if everyone agreed that no anatomical knowledge had been necessary - and none displayed - we still couldn't rule out men who made no secret, in the accountable part of their lives, of possessing some.
I guess this sounds a bit negative, but in writing this I'm beginning to wonder how we can usefully apply either opinion to the case itself.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 347
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 9:25 am: |
|
Jenni and Caz, you're both right,of course, we can't rule OUT anyone who did have anatomical knowledge.
And I'm still not comfortable with the level of knowledge that JTR would have had to have. It seems to hinge on the removal of the kidney.
Apparently doctors think that one needs to have some knowledge to find the kidney but we still have to allow for blind chance, I think.
Very frustrating.But at this late date I doubt we'll ever get a definitive answer.
Mags
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3277
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 9:48 am: |
|
This has of course been said before, but the notion that there was kind of medical knowledge (anatomical knowledge to a certain degree could have been displayed by people from a large number of different occupations, so that is not really such a difficult issue) involved in the Eddowes murder, is mainly based on the belief that he was deliberately looking for the kidney especially -- something there is no evidence of whatsoever; Eddowes was the only one having her kidney taken out.
But as Mags says, it is doubtful that we will ever get a definitive answer to that million dollar question.
All the best
G. Andersson, author
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 555
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 3:35 pm: |
|
My anatomy course helped me to understand a lot last summer. Yes the kidney is at the back of the abdominal cavity and it is covered by the peritoneal membrane.
But the interesting thing is that it is a little like the old mysteries that revolved around a desk drawer with a false bottom. The brilliant detective looks at the drawer from the side, sees that it is 6 inches deep, but the false bottom is only four inches deep. Voila! He fools around until he locates a hidden spring, the false bottom is removed and the evidence to solve the mystery is revealed.
When you have opened the abdomen, and taken out a goodly number of the organs, as Jack did, you finally come to this membrane at the back. But the kidneys are not shrink wrapped against the posterior wall of the abdomen. There is a lot of connective tissue in there. When you get to the peritoneum you know you are maybe 2/3 of the way to the back wall. It's obvious there's more under there because you aren't in deep enough to have gotten to the back. I hope I'm not grossing everyone out and I hope I'm making this clear. |
Brad McGinnis
Inspector
Username: Brad
Post Number: 235
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 13, 2005 - 11:21 pm: |
|
This is an interesting argument. Once again it all hinges on his motive. If indeed he was after a kidney, then going through the front is absurd. I get the feeling that the kidney wasnt what he was after and his later attacks showed it was female organs that caught his fancy. It was dark, he was working quickly and we arent sure what he was after. I tend to dismiss the idea that he may have been a hunter or slaughterman. The placement of organs in a human is way different than in sheep or cattle. Also if you ever gutted a fish you wonder how a creature could live with so few internal organs. I get the feeling that our boy had some knowledge about the human body but not the female body. In his haste he took a kidney when he really wanted the uterus or ovary. In the light of day he discovered his mistake. Then again, I could be totally wrong. Brad |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3282
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 4:03 am: |
|
"I get the feeling that our boy had some knowledge about the human body but not the female body."
Which is exactly why he could have been a slaughterman, Brad.
It is a huge exaggeration -- in this particular context and considering the purpose of the killer -- to say that the placements of the organs in a human is way different than in cheep or cattle. The point is that the Ripper did not really need to have full knowledge of the human body, and in my mind there is very little that shows he had. A slaughterman's knowledge of how to cut up animals in a rapid and efficient speed -- in combination with some obsessive or sexual curiosity with the female body -- would, as I see it, be quite enough. Slaughtermen also are used to working fast and during the 19th century they were used to work under poor lighting conditions.
But an interesting fact is, that he didn't even need to have this kind of anatomical knowledge. In a number of similar modern cases, with mutilations that corresponds more or less with the ones made by the Ripper, the perpetrators have generally been quite young and they've had no anatomical or medical knowledge whatsoever.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on March 14, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Brad McGinnis
Inspector
Username: Brad
Post Number: 236
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 14, 2005 - 11:31 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn, you miss my point. Cattle, sheep and humans do have a very different set of guts. Cattle have 4 stomachs, sheep have 2. Deer have 2. The closest thing to a human is a pig, which is why we can use pig valves in a human heart. A human has a very long intestinal tract, 6 feet (2 meters) of large intestine and 26 feet (12 meters) of small intestine. Most herbivoures have fewer intestines because they regurgitate their food as part of the digestive process(chewing their cud). Actually the slaughtermen of Whitechappel were very different from the gutmen. Slaughter men were often Rabbis, to make a Kosher killing, the gutmen were workers who cut the abdominal cavity and let the guts spill out.This process involved slicing innerstistial connecting tissue rather than disection. I work as a med tech, though both my GF and Ex's family raise beef cattle. Ive been around for both human opperations and butchering. Trust me, the guts ARE way different. My position is JTR had some knowledge of the human body, more than a butcher, but less than a doctor. I feel that rage for some reason directed his need. But then again thats MHO.
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3287
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 3:19 am: |
|
Hi Brad,
Again, that argument is only valid if you believe that the Ripper were set on certain organs from the start.
If he only ripped them open, and then (although mainly focusing on the genitalia, perhaps for reasons of sexual gratification) just grabbed what he found interesting, maybe without even knowing what it was, I see no reason why he couldn't have been a butcher or why he should have possessed anatomical knowledge beyond the common man.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
Jack's Proficiencies