|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 306
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 10:05 am: |       |
I took a college course in Anatomy and Physiology this summer. I have come away with three conclusions.
1. He had no idea, nor any equipment for getting through bone tissue. He never got inside anybody's skull. When he wanted to get Mary's heart, he had to tunnel upward from her abdomen. He hadnt a clue as to how to get through her sternum. He may have tried it when he broke Tabram's sternum but he did not succeed. Even a butcher knows how to get through bone.
2. His cuts were not those of a surgeon (they're trained to cut a certain way). If I found a pile of jaggedly cut cloth and a five year old in the middle with scissors in his hand, I would not immediately label the child a tailor.
3. Knowledge of general mammalian anatomy would be a great asset. The dissection of a rat taught me that they have almost exactly the same organs, in almost exactly the same places, with almost exactly the same shape. I studied human abdominal and thoracic viscera from a book. I studied a rat dissection from internet pictures. When we opened the rat, almost everything was recognizable. This suggests that someone who had gotten a familiarity with the viscera of animals would have had no trouble finding a kidney or a uterus. I had no trouble finding the rats kidneys and little trouble with the uterus.
Whereas I was formerly in the "I'm not sure if he was or was not a doctor" camp. I am now firmly in the "He was not a doctor" camp. I'm not even sure he could have been a butcher. |
Scott Nelson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 82
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 6:45 pm: | |
Diana, that was also the opinion of Dr. Thomas Ind, who used to post on the boards. Dr. Ind was a Gynecologist who performed numerous hysterectomies. Another doctor/surgeon posting at the same time, Mike Villa, was pretty adamant that JtR possessed medical/surgical skills. |
Scott Nelson
Detective Sergeant
Username: Snelson
Post Number: 83
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 8:08 pm: | |
Sorry Diana,
I remember you were around back then and probably well remember these doctors interesting discussions (now archived). |
Howard Brown
Sergeant
Username: Howard
Post Number: 31
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 9:02 pm: | |
Dear Diana......Briefly,would you feel it is possible to remove a kidney,in the dark,with the "clock running",from the front, without any medical acumen?
Scott has mentioned a gynecologist's opinion on this series of evisceration murders. No doubt Dr. Ind has a lot of experience with the , er, vagina...
How many people back then were able to remove specific organs,unless they were at least marginally versed in anatomy, remembering that there were different organs removed and not just the "slash and grab the first thing I see " type of eviscerations?
Thanks.... |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 307
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 10:08 pm: | |
A lot would depend on how many times he did it with animals. It might be possible to do it by feel or with very dim light, if he had had enough practice in good light or even just watched someone else a lot. I also questioned my brother in law a few years ago. He is a veterinery pathologist. He said any farmboy who had ever butchered a hog could do it. |
Brad McGinnis
Inspector
Username: Brad
Post Number: 181
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2004 - 11:40 pm: | |
The point here, if its the kidney we're talking about, is why from the front? My take on this is Jack took out his rage on the front of the body to quench what ever drove him. If it was a kidney extraction that was the goal he merely would have flipped her over and removed it from the back.
Diana is quite right about mammels having similar organs, especially hogs. However if youve ever disected a fish it makes you wonder how these creatures exist with such few entrails. A fish porter couldnt have the knowledge. Even a butcher...cows have 4 stomaches, deer have 2. Humans have one. Anyway I have to consider the frontal removal of the kidney as a happy accident. Brad |
Maria Giordano
Detective Sergeant
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 53
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 9:40 am: | |
I have to agree with Brad.
I would be more likely to think there was anotomical knowledge involved if the killer had gone after the same organ every time (I wish he had--that would give us a lot of insight into his though processes!). As it is, it soes seem more like a "slash and grab" kind of thing to me.
Mags |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 315
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 11:50 am: | |
I agree with Brad and Mags here. My view is that – among other things - he was curious about the female body and that he just did what felt good to him at that time. In Eddowes case he went deeper into the body in the direction of the back, with Kelly he went deeper into the body in the direction of the chest.
Frank
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1297
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 12:11 pm: | |
Guys,
Do you this there is a possibilty that Jack was attracted by the colour of the organ ??
Or has Ol' Monty gone coo-coo again ?
Monty
Im off to see the Psy-chia-taay........just to see if Im de-men-taaay. Kiss my bad self.
-Aaron Kosminski. |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 155
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 1:57 pm: | |
I concur with Howard & Brad.
I think taking the fact that Dr Ind never worked in the conditions that we believe 'JtR' had to overcome, and given that Dr Villa see's more 'professional' experience in the wounds, something akin to the remarks made by Dr Phillips concerning the wounds on the body of Chapman, that the lack of apparent technique is, "in consequence of haste". Although we will forever remain uncertain, it certainly appears to me that we have a villian with more relative knowledge than the average 'Joe' (no pun intended).
Speaking from my own experience, removing a kidney from inside the fatty membrane, not to mention identifying the organ in the first place, is a task and betrays ability which does not come without *some* "relative" experience.
Relative to what though, is the big question.
Regards, Jon |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2783
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 2:49 pm: | |
Hi all
While we're on forensic matters, does anyone go along with Shannon's argument that Kelly was killed after sunrise because otherwise the blood would have had time to dry?
Robert |
Maria Giordano
Detective Sergeant
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 54
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 3:12 pm: | |
Good point, Robert.
As much as I want to believe that Kelly was killed in the wee small hours, the testimony and forensics are making me start to doubt it.
Someone a while ago-was it Natalie?- made a comment about the "oh, murder" cry;that it might have been Kelly herself coming back and finding the body on the bed and that this would account for the witnesses who saw her later that morning.
I've never quite been able to get that senario out of my mind.
Mags |
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 157
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 4:13 pm: | |
The cry of "oh, murder" certainly has a melodramatic feel to it.
I find it hard to envisage a victim resorting to dramatic cries of "oh, murder" while her life is in immediate danger, a hundred other more applicable phrases come to mind, but not that one.
It is though, as Maria already expressed, quite an appropriate exclamation for a passer-by to exhort on discovering, either the crime in progress, or the corpse on the bed.
But it doesn't quite fit the facts as we know them.
Regards, Jon
|
Jeff Hamm
Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 432
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 5:06 pm: | |
Hi,
I recall some suggestions that Mary must have been killed just before discovery because the blood in her room was wet. Problem is, nowhere is the blood in her room described as being either wet or dry. Also, if the blood was wet, I would suggest this would indicate a death at night, rather than at 9:30ish (early morning). Here's why:
Remember, the room wasn't entered until some hours after discovery. She's discovered at 10:45, and the door was forced at 1:30 (from the inquest testimony). That's 2 hours 45 mins. So, the killer must have left the room with enough time to avoid being seen by Boyer. But that would just be a couple minutes probably (it can't take that long to just walk out of the court and get past the store after all). As a minimum amount of time to commit the killing and mutilations, let's go with 20 min as an absolute minimum. That means, before the room is even examined, we have at the very least 3 hours and 7 minutes since the blood flowed. That's over 3 hours of drying time.
Dry completely? No, but it would be well clotted, sticky and tacky in the deeper pools, but quite accurately described as dry where it was spread thin. In other words, even if the time of death was the least amount of time possible, the blood in the room would be described as "dry" (just not completely dry, but it's certainly not "wet" in the flowing liquid state kind of way). The deeper pools, however, might have "skinned over", so they could still be clotted and wet underneath. I know it doesn't take over 3 hours for blood to dry on my shirt when I cut myself shaving! or skin my knee. 3 hours is plenty of time for blood to "dry".
Now, obviously, if the killing occured around 4 am, the blood would also be in a state considered "dry". The deeper pools would have dried over the surface, keeping the liquid underneath quite wet, while again, the thinly spread blood would be dry. Much like the earlier time.
In other words, no matter when the killing occured (between 4 am and 9:30 am ish), the blood would be expected to be in a state described as "dry".
However, nowhere official is the blood actually described as being "dry". At the same time, it is nowhere official described as being "wet" either.
But what if it was "wet"? Since we don't know, let's cover that base as well.
If the blood was wet, then the killing must have happened while the police were waiting for the dogs to arrive, which is absurb. How else could the blood still be wet?
We would have to suggest the blood froze during the night (the fire went out, it got cold, ice crystals formed in the blood) and then as the temperature went up as the day went on while waiting for the dogs, the ice melted and the blood became wet again. That would require 1) proving that the night was cold enough to form ice, and that it warmed up enough to melt the ice shortly before entering the room (otherwise, things would just dry out again). In otherwords, wet blood would probably suggest a night time murder (like 4 am). Of course, nowhere does it actually say the blood was wet!
But all of this is just conjecture. There is nothing that actually says the blood was wet or dry. Just that it was splashed around, and in pools, etc. Nothing about it's state of liquidity. We have every reason to believe the blood was relatively dry no matter when the murder occurred, and some ideas as to what "wet blood" might mean should evidence turn up to suggest the blood was actually wet. Without that direct evidence, we would have to conclude the blood was probably mostly dry, which does not differentiate the time of death. And given that even the morning murder suggests dry blood.
- Jeff |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 308
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 5:20 pm: | |
I dont think Jon and I are that far apart. I think he had to have seen animals butchered or done it himself. I dont think he had to be a Dr. In fact, as I stated before, wouldnt a Dr know how to get thru bone and have the implements to do it with? |
Alan Sharp
Chief Inspector
Username: Ash
Post Number: 643
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 7:47 pm: | |
Diana
Without giving too much away, I have in my book a letter written to an Irish newspaper by an anatomy lecturer of the day who said much the same thing. His opinion was, in a nutshell, that if the Ripper was a skilled anatomist, then he was a damned incompetent one!
"Everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise." |
Howard Brown
Sergeant
Username: Howard
Post Number: 32
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 8:39 pm: | |
Good posts and opinions all...I concur with Jon 100 percent, about the cry of "Oh ,murder..."- Me too,Jon, I've never been able to digest that one.
In any event....Going back to the thread starter,Ms. Diana and her recent experiences with academic classes in anatomy/physiology....
I am sure that you will agree that any "hands
on" activity at the campus [ or at anyone's campus ] are done within a controlled environment...risk free and relaxed atmosphere....good lighting...and adequate time to perform whatever required.
This can't be said of the eviscerations of Nichols,Chapman,and Eddowes..
To me it appears that the Ripper knew in advance of the time necessary [ in murders, seconds are like minutes,needless to say...] to perform an evisceration,judging by the fact that he left no clues and had the presence of mind not to step in blood and leave any footprints. He certainly was at a disadvantage,regarding the lighting...He certainly was compounding the actual risk of committing murder [ as police presence was increased and the populace increasingly more on edge]by going after different organs in the eviscerations....He was either inordinately lucky to not have stepped in blood and leave any prints or had acute awareness of the kill site...He did display precision in not leaving any clues that were noteworthy to mention.....and appeared to be a really cool customer to do so.
Jeff's points about the blood are noteworthy,in that nothing about footprints are mentioned,a fact that Diana herself mentioned years ago ,which I remember having found on the fantastic Casebook CD-Rom...
With all due respect to Alan's reference to the Irish anatomist's opinion, some surgeons at the scene in Whitechapel would have differed with him. Not that one is "wrong" or one is "right"..
But neither opinion giver was committing murder then,were they?
|
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 158
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 10:16 am: | |
Jeff.
The only mention relative to the condition of the blood, wet or dry, that I remember was that given by Walter Dew, in his memoirs he tells us that he slipped in the blood on the floor.
Well, if it was thick and clotted, the 'skin' could still have been dry but jelly-like underneath.
Also, if you remember Bond's report mentioning blood smears on the partition wall?.
Then you may also recall the Illustrated News article showing several doctors around the bed, and one doctor positioned between the bed and the wall.
If the blood splashes were still wet, a person brushing against it would smear any blood still on the wall.
But, we don't know if the sketch true-to-life or not.
Things to ponder I guess.
Regards, Jon |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 309
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 3:30 pm: | |
hands
on" activity at the campus [ or at anyone's campus ] are done within a controlled environment...risk free and relaxed atmosphere....good lighting...and adequate time to perform whatever required.
I concede the controlled environment. I wasnt worried that a policeman would come along any minute and arrest me for cutting up a dead rat.
On the other hand, whereas Jack mightily enjoyed it I did not. Juxtaposed against his fear of capture was my revulsion and stress which had to be dealt with. While the fear in him might have been stronger than the revulsion in me, the unpleasantness of my task had no small effect. Risk free -- yes. Relaxed -- no. I concede good lighting and since I had never cut up a rat before (having no inclinations along those lines) I needed it. But I still think that if I had cut up many animals in good light I eventually would have reached the place where I could do it almost by feel. If a blind person can read with their fingertips, distinguishing little patterns of bumps on a paper, why would "surgery" be that much harder. In fact blind people will tell you that as long as things are kept in the same location, and they can learn that location, they'll be fine. The locations of the organs vary very little from one mammal to another.
I wasnt watching the clock but I think we got the rat open and found the kidneys in the first 15 - 20 minutes. If we had done it before it would have gone a lot faster.
In all fairness the one area where my rat experience has less value is in terms of the size of the animal. It would probably have taken more time to open the abdomen of a human being, simply because the tissues are thicker. (Also the rat wasnt wearing clothes.)}
|
Dan Norder
Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 201
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Friday, August 06, 2004 - 7:34 pm: | |
(Diana, you didn't dress your rat in clothes before you dissected it? Shame on you, LOL.)
On the kidney: There's no indication that it was specifically chosen beforehand as something he'd take, so asking what are the odds that someone with no training could successfully seek it out in the dark is trying to base a conclusion upon an unproven assumption. If he just dug in and grabbed whatever felt interesting, light and training aren't issues.
On MJK's blood: Not only is there no indication whatsoever that the blood was wet, but the few things Shannon tries to present as proof are wholly unreliable. He says the blood was described as a "pool" and that pools are wet... except in other cases in which the blood is explicitly mentioned as dried it is still referred to as pools. He says Dew slipped on the blood, so it must have been wet, yet there's no indication that Dew was even actually present that day, and every indication that he was making stuff up decades after the fact to sound more important than he really was. And if he was actually there and fell down, Dew could have slipped on anything: bits of stray fecal matter, flesh, whatever. He could have fainted from the sight and decided to call it "slipping" later.
Dan Norder, editor, Ripper Notes |
Simon Owen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, August 05, 2004 - 11:19 am: | |
I think this is a very important thread , we have made progress here ! A refreshing change after reading through all that Diary stuff...
The killer was almost certainly not a surgeon , and almost certainly not a butcher , but they knew about cutting up animals. That certainly explains the lack of finesse of the murders.
A farmer , a slaughterman or a hunter then. Maybe a soldier as an outside possibility. Somebody who had quite a bit of experience at cutting up things as well , or someone who was guided by a medical man.
There is also another profession that would know about human anatomy : artists... |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 2787
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 4:25 am: | |
Given the wet conditions on Nov 9th, I suppose it's also possible that anyone entering the room with wet boots on could have re-liquidised any dried blood that was on the floor.
Robert |
Howard Brown
Sergeant
Username: Howard
Post Number: 37
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 11:06 am: | |
Diana,you state above....
" But I still think that if I had cut up many animals in good light I eventually would have reached the place where I could do it almost by feel. If a blind person can read with their fingertips, distinguishing little patterns of bumps on a paper, why would "surgery" be that much harder.
I agree. It would be "second nature" to someone who had done either butchery or surgery prior to an eventual evisceration
Maybe I am misunderstanding you. It would appear that you felt, originally,that it was not necessary for the Ripper to have any experience in surgery or butchery,due to your experiences in college.
However,in the latest post,the paragraph I copied from your post seems to indicate that experience would ,in fact, be necessary,in your opinion, to perform eviscerations from rote memory..Correct me if I am in error...Thanks,Diana ! |
Howard Brown
Sergeant
Username: Howard
Post Number: 38
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 11:11 am: | |
Mr Owen:
Re the amount of finesse displayed in the eviscerations:
" or someone who was guided by a medical man."
Would this not be at least a modicum of anatomical knowledge and/or awareness of the organ locations?
|
Jon Smyth
Inspector
Username: Jon
Post Number: 159
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 6:17 pm: | |
Dear Mr Norder.
"The peritoneal lining was cut through..(thats the fatty membrane containing the kidney)..on the left side and the left kidney carefully taken out and removed - the left renal artery was cut through - I should say that some one who knew the position of the kidney must have done it."
Now, we can always second guess a trained professional who was present, and who obviously viewed more details than were captured in the brief report. But, the very fact that the professional opinion determined the perpetrator 'knew' the position of the kidney, and that it was 'carefully taken out', strongly suggests 'he' did not rummage around and grab anything that came to hand.
We either accept the facts as they are stated, along with the medical deductions as they are provided, or we create our own little 'virtual reality' based on armchair logic, 118 years too late.
Regards, Jon
(Message edited by Jon on August 07, 2004) |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 311
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 8:10 pm: | |
I'm sorry if i was misleading. I did have pictures to look at ahead of time. In place of that Jack would have had to watch a butcher or work in a slaughterhouse or something. But I dont think he rises to the level of doctor. |
Howard Brown
Sergeant
Username: Howard
Post Number: 39
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, August 07, 2004 - 11:18 pm: | |
Dear Diana...You weren't misleading at all. Far from it.Your honesty in restating your opinion is laudable.
|
Kevin Braun
Detective Sergeant
Username: Kbraun
Post Number: 116
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 08, 2004 - 4:16 pm: | |
Howard,
I know you are trying to be nice, (baby steps?) but...
"Honesty in restating your opinion"
My God, she took a course in Anatomy and Physiology and dissected a rat. She then comes to the conclusion, "He was not a doctor", later " I dont think he rises to the level of doctor". Give me a break! Next step he wasn't Michael DeBakey.
"The peritoneal lining was cut through..(thats the fatty membrane containing the kidney)..on the left side and the left kidney carefully taken out and removed - the left renal artery was cut through - I should say that some one who knew the position of the kidney must have done it."
Jon Smyth's, August 07, 2004, post is possibly the bottom line.
Take care,
Kevin
|
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 312
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, August 08, 2004 - 5:01 pm: | |
What would it take to know the location of the kidney? Suppose you saw kidneys removed from animals, 2 times, 3 times, five times? How many times would it take? |
Howard Brown
Sergeant
Username: Howard
Post Number: 42
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, August 08, 2004 - 8:13 pm: | |
Kev...
I hear you,brother. In all honesty,on my part, I just wanted Diana to re-examine what she originally posted and then just maybe revise that original premise,as she eventually did, after other posters eventually pitched in,as Jon did,with on-the-scene medical examiners' opinions.
They ain't baby steps,Kev...its like walking on stilts !
How |
Diana
Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 314
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 09, 2004 - 7:47 am: | |
I guess where I am is that he had to have some kind of knowledge but not much. I went into the dissection having studied diagrams and pictures in my book and on the internet. I located and identified organs quite easily. I admit that without the diagrams and pictures I would have been at sea. Jack could have achieved the same level by hanging around slaughterhouses. (I dont envision him poring over anatomy books but I suppose anything is possible). His lack of ability to get through bone, his attempt to cut off Chapman's head which failed because he couldnt get thru the vertebral cartilage, and his jagged cuts all point to limited knowledge. A good butcher could defeat bone and cartilage. |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
