anatomical knowledge learned from a book?

[Thomas Schachner]

hello there,

this might be interesting to consider (again...?) the possibility that jtr might have learned his basic anatomical knowledge from medicine books. the book i scanned those pages from also shows how to dissect a heart and how to open the abdomen without too much damage (although i personally think that opening an abdomen is damage enough...sorry, but i couldn't resist to make that joke)....

btw..the book is from 1888 but might have been on the streets way earlier because it includes a learning-schedule starting in 1883.

have fun and learn! .-))

greetings from germany
thomas.
http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/aph_kidneys_169.jpg
http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/aph_kidneys_170.jpg
http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/aph_kidneys_172.jpg
http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/aph_kidneys_172-1.jpg
http://i908.photobucket.com/albums/ac287/HowieNina/aph_kidneys_173.jpg

[Chris G.]

Hi Tom

Thanks for posting this. If I might say so, while such a text as you have posted might give a layman the basic physiology and, as it were, layout within the human body of where the organs are located, actual dissection and cutting into viscera, sinews, etc., is another skill entirely. It would seem to me that the murderer probably had some sort of practice in cutting, either as a doctor, a medical worker of some kind, a slaughterer or a butcher.... although as always it does occur to me why anyone would have a "lust" to do that sort of thing if you did it on a day-to-day basis!!! :rolleyes:

Chris

[Thomas Schachner]

hi chris,

of course you don't become a doctor while only reading medicine books - that ain't the intention of the book, but they mention over and over again, that you should try the things you have read on animals to get a better understanding on what they are trying to "teach".
i didn't intent to state a fact with my posting, but just give another possibility how the ripper might have gained some rudimental knowledge in the first place.

take care
thomas.

[Howard Brown]

Hey Tom !

Not a bad idea buddy...

The uniqueness of the kidney removal of Eddowes is how it was extricated. Yes...the rest of her body was just a mischmasch and gory...

...but it was specifically mentioned that the kidney's extraction required know how....which means

A. He did it before somewhere on a human

B. He was one awfully lucky son of a gun

Thanks for this contribution,mein herr....

:thumbsupbud:

Anyone else?

[Chris G.]

Hey Tom !

Not a bad idea buddy...

The uniqueness of the kidney removal of Eddowes is how it was extricated. Yes...the rest of her body was just a mischmasch and gory...

...but it was specifically mentioned that the kidney's extraction required know how....which means

A. He did it before somewhere on a human

B. He was one awfully lucky son of a gun

Thanks for this contribution,mein herr....

:thumbsupbud:

Anyone else?

Hi Tom and Howard

Indeed I know you were only suggesting the medical book as a possibility that Jack may have learned anatomy from such a book, and certainly that is a valid speculation and it could have happened that way.

Howard, the "uniqueness of the kidney removal of Eddowes" is that he went in from the front, through the abdomen rather than from the back, which is the usual procedure that a surgeon would use, and which does show he might not have been a medical man after all. You probably know this already, but I thought I would point it out.

All my best

Chris

[Howard Brown]

Yes sir,I am aware...

Still...the extrication was considered,not only by contemporary medical people,but modern day ones like Cyril Wecht,as requiring some finesse in extrication....

Thanks C.G. !

[Magpie]

I was wondering if public or semi-public dissections were still held in London in 1888. Could our Ripper have sat in on a lecture or dissection to see first hand what the book was describing?

[Howard Brown]

Never saw that idea posited...

Good one Magpie.:thumbsupbud:

[Magpie]

Thanks How :)

From what I've been able to find out, "Public" autopsies and dissections were no legal by 1888, but that doesn't rule out a determined non-student from being able to sneak into a lecture or dissection in a teaching hospital to observe. Even in the 1990's it was easy to wander into lectures if the class was large enough.

Does anyone know if the times/locations for such lectures or dissections were readily available?

[Debbie D]

Thanks How :)

From what I've been able to find out, "Public" autopsies and dissections were no legal by 1888, but that doesn't rule out a determined non-student from being able to sneak into a lecture or dissection in a teaching hospital to observe. Even in the 1990's it was easy to wander into lectures if the class was large enough.

Does anyone know if the times/locations for such lectures or dissections were readily available?

Perhaps public dissections were not legal in 1888 but depending on the age of JtR he may have seen it years before? How far back were they legal?

[Magpie]

I believe the last public autopsy in England was performed in 1867. I don't have my sources with me--I will double check later this evening:)

[Magpie]

I believe the last public autopsy in England was performed in 1867. I don't have my sources with me--I will double check later this evening:)

Okay, so I was wrong. The last public autopsy was performed in 1830's.

Here's an interesting article about a resurrection of the practice in Whitechapel in 2002 :rolleyes:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/20/world/main530223.shtml

[STRAMBO]

...but it was specifically mentioned that the kidney's extraction required know how....which means

A. He did it before somewhere on a human

B. He was one awfully lucky son of a gun

Anyone else?
Patricia Cornwell (her book got me interested in this case) was an assistant coroner and she went on television calling the removal of the kidney a "Slash and Grab"--that would be a variation of the old Smash and Grab of a looter--even going so far as to demonstrate on a bag of entrails....
Someone else involved in the case said exactly the same thing, albeit with regard to the uterus. That was Dr. Morgan Davies. The uterus would be the first fairly hard or malleable thing you'll find.
So I tend to agree with Mr. Schachner.

[Tutto]

...but he doesn't needed to be a doctor.

"Any butcher could do what has been done in any of the cases, this trunk case included. One does not necessarily require to be a doctor or a medical student to be able to dismember a body. I think there has been rather too much made of this point in connection with the murders.":judge:

Pall Mall Gazette, Sept. 13, 1889 (Interview with a London Hospital Surgeon)


I think you can't learn easily in a book how to open an abdominal cavity, take the uterus out-this is why he made a frontal access- and then go to the retroperitoneus and extirpate left kidney...almost without light and spending only a few minutes.

Yours truly;

Tutto :mob:

"This is not the truth, it's just my opinion"

[Debbie D]

...but he doesn't needed to be a doctor.

"Any butcher could do what has been done in any of the cases, this trunk case included. One does not necessarily require to be a doctor or a medical student to be able to dismember a body. I think there has been rather too much made of this point in connection with the murders.":judge:

Pall Mall Gazette, Sept. 13, 1889 (Interview with a London Hospital Surgeon)


I think you can't learn easily in a book how to open an abdominal cavity, take the uterus out-this is why he made a frontal access- and then go to the retroperitoneus and extirpate left kidney...almost without light and spending only a few minutes.

Yours truly;

Tutto :mob:

"This is not the truth, it's just my opinion"

Tutto,
I agree in part that it isn't easy to learn how to do what he did. I do think Jack may have been an audience to autopsys, surgery or maybe some type of slaughterer. However I just don't think he was a DR. or in the medical profession. I do believe that if he were of a legitimate medical background and had knowledge to do extractions they would have been alot neater and not as messy and frenzied as they were. I really like the excerpt you quoted.:judge:

[tel]

I am not a Doctor, nor do I play one on TV, I have never removed a human kidney ... BUT .... I would have no trouble locating and removing one in far less time than most people think. As both a sporting shooter who has dressed out considerable amounts of game, and as a home slaughterer of domestic animals I can assure you there is no great trick to it. The kidneys are located in roughly the same place in all vertebrates. Jack could just as easily learn what he needed to know by peering in a butcher's window.

[Debbie D]

Jack could just as easily learn what he needed to know by peering in a butcher's window.

...Or by hunting and preparing animals on his own (not necessarily the usual slaughterer or butcher theory).

[Tutto]

and...two more comments

Debbie; I like your Jack the hunter (i.e. deer hunter) theory.:judge:

You can find the complete reference of the interview here http://www.rippernotes.com/lusk-kidney-revelation.html

I have never removed a human kidney ... BUT .... I would have no trouble locating and removing one in far less time than most people think.

Tel: Probably you're right, but... I'm getting afraid...:p

[Debbie D]

Okay, so I was wrong. The last public autopsy was performed in 1830's.

Here's an interesting article about a resurrection of the practice in Whitechapel in 2002 :rolleyes:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/20/world/main530223.shtml


This is what happens when I post most of my replies in the wee morning hours:offinhead: .

In my reply to Tutto, I said that Jack may have been an audience to autopsy but I need to correct myself... I think he was not necessarily an "audience" as this wasn't a common practice during the time frame in which he lived and I don't believe he paid for a ticket to watch a show. But rather I think he may have been an assistant, or perhaps the person left to clean up after everyone else left. While left to his own devices and alone, "who would know or care" if got curious with the remains as Tim has suggested.

Than again he could have been the one who slaughtered the pigs or other animals on a small family farm or something similar. I have many friends who hunt and can gut a deer or hog in record time with the only blood being on their hands (not on their clothes!).

This is part of what makes this so interesting to me... there are so many possibilities to explore.;)

[Adam Went]

Hi everyone,

What do you all think about the possibility that while Jack wasn't a doctor himself, he came from a medical background? Say, for example, his father was a doctor?

I know a couple of people who have parents or family members who are quite well known doctors/specialists, and while they couldn't care less about the medical trade themselves, because they have a close relative who does that kind of work, they actually know a fair amount about it. They don't even have to be interested, they just pick it up in the course of day to day conversations.

So perhaps it's possible that Jack's dad, or a close relative, was involved in the medical world in some way, and that's where Jack picked up enough information to be able to know what he was doing when it came to mutilating his victims?

As for him actually reading medical textbooks to pick up his info, I think that's a pretty touchy idea to say the least, as we don't even know if Jack could read!!
If any of the letters were really from him, then obviously he was literate, but what if they weren't? And even if they were, and he could read and write, would he have been able to mutilate in the way he did simply from reading books? Either he was a very quick learner...or, more likely, he and/or his family had some sort of past in the medical world.

As you said, Debbie - so many possibilities!!

Cheers,
Adam. :confused:

[Howard Brown]

Good points Adam...and ones gone over previously,but are always good to rehash.

Cyril Wecht,the American pathologist,told me around two years ago that the only aspect of the eviscerations ( on Chapman and Eddowes....remember,there were only two eviscerations....Kelly's murder was a slaughter ) is that in the case of Mrs.Eddowes, the removal of the kidney was the ONLY occurrence which showed a modicum of 'finesse' or awareness according to Wecht as well as contemperaneous sources.

[Tutto]

Hello everybody;

As a medical man but not a surgeon, How, I agree with Dr.Wecht about that the kidney removal-in a few minutes and in the dark- needed a fair amount of skill, not necessarily medical in the academical sense...but he also took off the uterus of Annie Chapman & Kate Eddowes avoiding damage to this organ, and you have to know human or animal (i.e primates) anatomy to do it properly .

And; about Debbie Jack may have been an audience to autopsy but I need to correct myself... I think he was not necessarily an "audience" as this wasn't a common practice during the time frame in which he lived and I don't believe he paid for a ticket to watch a show. But rather I think he may have been an assistant, or perhaps the person left to clean up after everyone else left. :judge:

& Adam

So perhaps it's possible that Jack's dad, or a close relative, was involved in the medical world in some way, and that's where Jack picked up enough information to be able to know what he was doing when it came to mutilating his victims? :judge:

Reading a spanish version of Tom Cullen's Autumn of Terror; he remarks that Montague John Druitt's father (William Druitt); grandfather, uncle and cousin were all surgeons...so Macnagten number one suspect is back !!

And my last thoughts :offinhead: about Debbie's words
I do believe that if he were of a legitimate medical background and had knowledge to do extractions they would have been alot neater and not as messy and frenzied as they were.

I think it's not necessarily so, because if you are a serial killer surgeon murdering a woman in a hurry and eviscerating her in the dark and over the ground to get some trophys, you probably won't show all your academic skill since the first cut (in Y when you are doing an autopsy...) but only when it helps you to save time or get the entire organ you want...so you shall rip over the abdomen and take the bowels off, and then go to the kidney's place to extract it carefully. The same for the killing MO; if you know about medicine you can conclude easily that suffocate the victim before you cut big vessels of the neck was clearly an advance to avoid noise, struggle and bloodstains. For Kelly's slaughter in this same way I only can think about three explanations;
1. if you are a serial killer surgeon, when you got a chance you will demostrate that above all you are a serial killer, so you will get as much pleasure:confused: as you can take. You can do it better (neater and not as messy and frenzied); but why ?
2. if you are a cold serial killer surgeon, searching for notoriety, you will try to make up the most dreadfull crime scene possible; and of course you will try to hide your skill as a surgeon, by the way
2. if you are a ritualistic murderer surgeon, all this bloody mess should have sense for your ritual play...and this one could be your own ritual and not a established known one.

Sorry again for my English; I'm learning...

[Adam Went]

Hi everyone,

How:

Interesting opinion from Dr. Wecht.
I think the other thing that needs to be taken into account though is that, whether Jack was or wasn't a doctor/medically trained, he would basically have been working in the dark when he was killing and mutilating the women (unless of course he was carrying a lantern of some sort, but that doesn't seem too likely), so he must have known where to find everything - different story if he was working in full light. Therefore, he did need some skill to do what he did. Plus he was working in a very short time frame with some of the killings, so he didn't have the time to be fumbling around. So he must have known exactly what he was doing and where he was cutting...right? Or is there some other possibility we haven't thought of yet?

Tutto:

Ah, good old Monty! He would be a very good suspect...except he was playing cricket on the same day Annie Chapman was killed. While that doesn't completely rule him out, it does put a serious dent in the case against him.
Viciously killing a woman at dawn, playing a game of cricket a couple of hours later...it just doesn't sound right.
I wonder if any of M.J.'s team-mates ever made any mention of him acting strangely or different to normal on that day?
Does anyone know?

Cheers,
Adam.

[Robert Linford]

“Viciously killing a woman at dawn, playing a game of cricket a couple of hours later...it just doesn't sound right”

I dunno….one or two Aussie fast bowlers spring to mind.:)

[Adam Went]

Robert:

The only fast bowler going around at the moment that can be described with words including "woman", is Steve Harmison. Infact, "my Grandma could bowl better than him" is perhaps a bit more accurate.

See you in November.
Cheers,
Adam. :p

[Robert Linford]

Adam's Granny. They make the Sheilas tough in Australia!:D

[Adam Went]

Unfortunately, that's Gran after her glory days were over. Check her out in full flight! I tried to find her punch up with Javed Miandad, but I guess a photo of her pinning another batsman - probably a Pom - LBW is good enough.

By the way, Robert, she's available! You interested??

Cheers,
Adam. :clap:

P.S. Robert, Steve Harmison's figures at one stage of the last ODI against us: 2.1-0-30-0. What class! What skill! What.... IS he doing?

P.P.S. Wow, the subject of this topic has certainly changed...:rolleyes:

[Just Curious]

Viciously killing a woman at dawn, playing a game of cricket a couple of hours later...it just doesn't sound right.
I wonder if any of M.J.'s team-mates ever made any mention of him acting strangely or different to normal on that day?
Does anyone know?

Cheers,
Adam.

Myra Hindley and Ian Brady drank tea, laughed and joked and would have been quite prepared to go to work *as normal* after the horrific axeing of a 17 year-old in their own living room.

More often than not, friends, family and work colleagues of apprehended murderers all testify to their *normality* ... some even denying the possibility that such a *nice/normal* person would be capable of such a crime.

I doubt if anything was different back in 1888.

:-)

[Robert Linford]

Hi Adam

We'd better save the cricket for later.

[Wickerman]

... Therefore, he did need some skill to do what he did....

Precisely, but as has been mentioned elsewhere, the killer need not be a surgeon. A practicing surgeon of the time would have been too slow.
One trained on the battlefield though is another matter, but this is all speculation. The "who was Jack the Ripper" question doesn't really interest me as much as "why did he do it?"
One thought that was tossed about some years ago was that after Chapman's murder and all the theories that spilled out about medical men and lunatics. We discussed the extraction of the kidney being more technical as opposed to extracting the uterus. Therefore, possibly the kidney extraction was only done to send a message to the medical men, "I know what I'm doing".
I think Phillips instantly recognised a trained hand at work. We can pacify ourselves with all kinds of "slash & grab" theories for all the rest of the mutilations, but extracting a kidney from inside a membrane in poor light is a move aimed at disquieting the medical experts.
I think it had the desired effect.

[Howard Brown]

From WickerMan:

"We discussed the extraction of the kidney being more technical as opposed to extracting the uterus. Therefore, possibly the kidney extraction was only done to send a message to the medical men, "I know what I'm doing"."

In my opinion, an excellent view,sir.

Remembering the kidney is closer to one's back....the effort that this extraction is based on may be indicative of what you propose WM.

[Magpie]

Hi all.

to give my standard cautionary disclaimer whenever the kidney/skill question comes up:

When Mr Wecht and other hold up the kidney removal as proof that the killer had surgical/anatomical knowledge, they are basing that opinion on a plausible but totally unproven assumption that the kidney was the killer's objective.

What they should say is: If the killer intended to remove Eddowes kidney, then he certainly did a bang-up job of it, which indicates he knew what he was doing.

If however, Jack simply stuck his hand into a steaming pile of offal and took the first lump that took his fancy, then it's no evidence of anything except dexterity with a knife.

[Howard Brown]

Hi Magpie !

"What they should say is: If the killer intended to remove Eddowes kidney, then he certainly did a bang-up job of it, which indicates he knew what he was doing.

No offense,sor....but regardless of whether the murderer intended to extricate the kidney or not,its not so much that he found the kidney ( which most of us would have a little difficulty in doing unless we had an idea of the location )....but how it was removed. In short, with intent or not, the extrication was as you say a "bang up" job.

I had an email from Wecht,now lost,where this point...the manner in which the clean extrication was performed.....indicated to Wecht,as it did Doc Brown at the Inquest, that prior knowledge appeared to be evident. The rest of the act he stated was a mess and not indicative of any prior experience whatsoever.



If however, Jack simply stuck his hand into a steaming pile of offal and took the first lump that took his fancy, then it's no evidence of anything except dexterity with a knife.

Of course this comment is correct,sor. Again,we aren't sure if that at some point, the clumsy carnage ceased for a moment and the application of delicacy ( if that word is apropos' ) was employed.

[Adam Went]

Hi again everyone,

Robert:

Good idea. You'll know about it soon enough anyway. *cough* 5-0 *cough*.;)

Just Curious:

You raise some very good points there, but the difference in that could simply be that whoever Jack the Ripper was, he almost certainly worked alone, as opposed to partners in crime such as Myra Hindley and Ian Brady. If they had killed together, it might somehow be easier for them to act normal around each other, whereas it might stay more on the mind of someone who had worked alone. Of course that's just a guess.

It also should be noted that IF M.J. Druitt was Jack the Ripper, just as a hypothetical for a moment, since he killed Annie Chapman at around 5:30 AM, it's fair to say that he must have been up and about for most of, if not all night prior to that. If that was the case, Monty's performance in that cricket game should have been quite poor. His team-mates should have noticed, if nothing else, that he was tired, seemed off in another world and wasn't performing as he normally did.

I've seen the scorecard from the cricket match that he played on that day, and I think I've posted it on these forums before. Monty was the opening bowler (therefore, almost certainly a fast bowler) for his team, and also batted at #4 or #5 from memory. If you don't know what any of that means, then basically he would have needed a lot of energy to perform well in that match because he played a very important role in the team. If he was tired and hadn't slept at all the night before, his performance almost certainly would have suffered. Perhaps worth checking out again exactly how he performed that day? I'll give it a go...

WickerMan:

Again, some more good points you raise there.
I agree that Jack was probably sending messages in some of the things he did in his killings. He certainly must have known what he was doing, because anyone else probably would have been walked in on because he took too long. That or he would have completely botched the job.

Maybe the former medical student idea isn't such a bad idea, then? Or even a science student? One of the topics you cover in ordinary science is dissection - and while that's usually only dissection of small animals or small parts of animals, it may have given him the idea on how to approach the mutilations.

I think we can all be fairly sure that, whoever Jack was, he just wandered out on the street one night and picked up how to mutilate women straight away without any past experience or knowledge. He did know something, and the something he knew was good enough to carry out the mutilations he did and, literally, get away with murder.

Just as an out there suggestion....perhaps he had a mentor? Perhaps he had someone close to him, like a doctor, who told him/showed him what to do and how to do it? That is, someone who knew he was killing people and was like an accomplice who never went with him, just showed him what to do.
Thoughts, anyone?

Cheers,
Adam.

[Tutto]

Hi everyone;

This thread is getting hot...be carefully, something terrible could happen (again) next 9th of november (ask How's cat if you don't believe me).

Let's go to Dr. Phillips' statement about Annie Chapman mutilations we can find in Mr. Sugden reference book;

An unsigned piece in the Lancet of 19 September set down the gist of Dr. Phillips' description of the injuries to the abdomen and indicated why he thought he had detected professional skill in their execution.

It tells us that 'the abdomen had been entirely laid open; that the intestines, severed from their mesenteric attachments, had been lifted out of the body, and placed by the shoulder of the corpse;whilst from the pelvis the uterus and its appendages, with the upper portion of the vagina and the posterior two-thirds of the bladder, had been entirely removed. No trace of these parts could be found, and the incisions were cleanly cut, avoiding the rectum, and dividing the vagina low enough to avoid injury to the cervix uteri. Obviously the work was that of an expert- of one, at least, who had such knowledge of anatomical or pathological examinations as to be enabled to secure the pelvic organs with one sweep of a knife ..." :judge:

...and we didn't have seen him extracting a kidney yet !!:eek:

WM; Good idea, "you medical men are denying I knew what I was doing...thake that kidney to shut you big mouth":mad:

Magpie; I agree with How, a kidney is not something you find easily into an abdominal cavity, believe me...:offinhead:

Adam; talking about your old friend Druitt, How do you know he didn't got up at 4 o'clock in the morning, had murder for breakfast and, after a good shower, went to play cricket in a fair enough way? :thumbsupbud:

How;
Remembering the kidney is closer to one's back....the effort that this extraction is based on may be indicative of what you propose WM.

As can be read in some of my previous posts here; I think in Eddowes murder Jack, first of all, wanted to take the uterus out and this is why he made a frontal access to the abdominal cavity and then went down to the retroperitoneus and extirpate left kidney...almost without light and spending only a few minutes. :smoker:

[Adam Went]

Hi Tutto!

"Adam; talking about your old friend Druitt, How do you know he didn't got up at 4 o'clock in the morning, had murder for breakfast and, after a good shower, went to play cricket in a fair enough way?"

That's always a possibility, but look at it this way: What if he had indeed just left his home and went looking for a victim shortly before he found Annie, but instead he wasn't able to find any possible victims, or atleast not anyone he felt safe in attacking? Remember, it was just starting to get daylight at the time she was killed, so he was running short on time. And you only have to read Elizabeth Long's testimony to be able to tell that the Hanbury Street area wasn't exactly swarming with people at that hour.
So, what if Jack hadn't been able to find a victim? It would have been a waste of time for him. Isn't it far more likely that he'd been out for most of the night, if not all night, searching for a suitable victim in a suitable place?
If that was the case, and IMO that seems more likely, then he would have been up pretty much all night.

So, back to his performance in that cricket match on September 8th. I've checked the scorecard again, and...

Blackheath batted first against the Brothers Christopherson. Out of a team total of 115, Druitt, batting at #4 out of 11 players, made just 2. A batsman, curiously enough as I've mentioned on here before, named "G.R. Hutchinson" (I wonder... ;) ) top scored with 44.
That means that Druitt performed poorly with the bat that day.

However, with the ball, he claimed 3 wickets, and Blackheath won after bowling out the opposition for 93. That also means Druitt knocked over basically a third of the opposition.
That equals a very good effort by him.

So, what can we tell from that? Was Druitt just unlucky with the bat and was actually quite energised that day, claiming those 3 wickets? Or, perhaps, if he'd had not much sleep the night before because he'd been "out and about", maybe he was still exhausted when batting which is why he only made 2, but by the time he had to bowl, he had recovered and performed better.
Maybe he was just a better bowler than a batsman.

What does everyone think?
In my opinion, Druitt isn't the Ripper, therefore he was just having an off-day with the bat, which happens often in a game like cricket, but I still believe that IF he was the killer, he would have been acting different to normal and his team-mates would have noticed. Just a hunch.

Cheers,
Adam. :)

[Robert Linford]

Hi Adam

I haven't yet read Leighton's book, but wasn't Druitt mainly a bowler with some batting talent thrown in? I've seen him bat at 10 or 11 in one or two college/univ matches.

Do you know if Druitt opened the bowling? Does his name appear often for taking the wickets of openers?

Robert

[Adam Went]

Hi Robert,

I haven't read Leighton's book yet either, but it's interesting that you mention he was mainly a bowler. That'd make sense, because as we know, generally fast bowlers aren't exactly Bradman with the bat.

I'm 99% sure Druitt opened the bowling, because in the 2 scorecards I've seen, his name is always mentioned in the first 2 in the bowling list, which as I'm sure you know means they're one of the opening bowlers. It could always be a mistake, though.

Anyway, these 2 scorecards come from Cricinfo, so here's the links to the 2 of them for you and anyone else that's interested:

Gentlemen of Bournemouth VS. Parsees (3-4 August, 1888):
http://www.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1880S/1888/OTHERS+ICC/PARSEES_IN_ENG/PARSEES_GENTLEMEN-BOURNE_03-04AUG1888.html

(Druitt had a pretty good game here - he was equal top scorer with 12 in in GoB's first innings (although that in a team total of just 56) and also picked up 5 wickets bowling in Parsees first innings. He hade a duck (0) in GoB's second innings, and then for some reason, he didn't bowl in the second innings. Perhaps an injury?)

Blackheath VS. Brothers Christopherson (September 8, 1888)
http://www.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/1880S/1888/ENG_LOCAL/OTHER/BLHTH_BROTH-CSON_08SEP1888.html

(This was only a one-day match, so there was just the 1 innings.)

Hope that helps!
Cheers,
Adam. :)

[Robert Linford]

Thanks Adam. Another indication of the nature of Druitt's bowling might be, the number of stumpings. If. given a large number of matches, he got no one out stumped, then that might suggest he at least wasn't a spinner, whereas if he did, then he was, if you know what I mean.:)

[Adam Went]

Hi Robert,

No problems!
You raise another very good point there about Druitt's dismissals. Perhaps it'd be a good idea as well to try and find out if any of Druitt's victims (didn't want to use that word, but...) were out "hit wicket." If they were, then I think we can be certain he was a pace bowler, as not many batsman get out hit wicket to spinners! Apart from Inzamam, of course... ;)

Another thing that should be considered - if he was a pace bowler, what style? Was he out-and-out fast, fast medium, medium...? Was he left arm or right arm? Was he a seam or swing bowler?
That'll be even tougher to find out, but interesting nonetheless.

Cheers,
Adam. :thumbsupbud:

[Tutto]

Hello all;

Adam, In my opinion, Druitt isn't the Ripper, therefore he was just having an off-day with the bat, which happens often in a game like cricket, but I still believe that IF he was the killer, he would have been acting different to normal and his team-mates would have noticed.

I agree about Druitt, I don't think he was the Ripper, but my reasons are diferent of yours; I can't see no relation between the murders and Mr. Druitt who was only guilty of suicide in the perfect day !!

But, going back to the murderer;

So, what if Jack hadn't been able to find a victim? It would have been a waste of time for him. Isn't it far more likely that he'd been out for most of the night, if not all night, searching for a suitable victim in a suitable place?

Well this is what it take to be a serial killer...ejem, but also it could be an advantage extra to kill a drunk & tired woman if you are a sober man, recently awakened...

Serial killers are predators, so...

[Wickerman]

Re: Extracting a kidney to 'send' a message.

I wasn't trying to be over melodramatic. My point was that the locating of that organ (the kidney) may not have had any connection with the motive.
I think we are all in agreement that the killer left his victims 'on-view' intentionally. Most of the murder sites were close to secluded spots where he could have deposited the remains if he chose to do so. He chose to leave them on display, for either the public or the authorities, or both. Either way he put them on display. This was his exhibition.
Chapman's hand was laid across her abdomen, as was Kelly's. In no way could the killer have performed the mutilations with the hands placed where they were found. So, ergo, the killer 'posed' them in this fashion intentionally. He was sending a message.
The bits and pieces found around Chapmans body did not appear to have fallen there indiscriminantly therefore they were placed there.
The organs and body parts scattered around Kelly were not thrown around the floor, they were placed where they were found.
Once again, this was his exhibition, whatever the messages were, they were there for all to see. Messages that indicate his thought processes at the time of the killings.
The killer was deliberately creating order out of his chaos, this is still a means of sending messages.
Just prior to the murder of Eddowes much theorizing had been posed about Mad Doctors and lunatics. Locating and carefully extracting a kidney from a slice through the peritoneum, presumably, without making undue mess, suggests he was saying "I'm not a madman".

[Adam Went]

Hi again everyone,

Tutto:

"I agree about Druitt, I don't think he was the Ripper, but my reasons are diferent of yours; I can't see no relation between the murders and Mr. Druitt who was only guilty of suicide in the perfect day !!"

He may not have even been guilty of suicide...not that I believe in it, but have you by any chance ever heard of the theory that Druitt didn't committ suicide, but was rather...err..done away with? ;)

"Well this is what it take to be a serial killer...ejem, but also it could be an advantage extra to kill a drunk & tired woman if you are a sober man, recently awakened..."

That's a good point, he was most likely targeting women who wouldn't put up as much of a struggle. Probably part of the reason why Mary Kelly is the only victim out of the Canonical 5 that was under 40. Then again, the good thing is that, IIRC, there was signs on a couple of the victims that they had put up a decent struggle against their killer - I really hope they did.

WickerMan:

Well, to use Jack's own words...
"Don't mind me giving away the trade name. They say I'm a doctor now. Ha ha!"

That is if you believe in any of the Ripper letters, of course...what's your opinion, and everyone's opinion on those?
If he really did say that, it seems to be yet another fact that points towards him NOT being a doctor/surgeon.

If he was literate, then I really think he was problably responsible for atleast a couple of those letters (Most notably "Dear Boss", "Saucy Jack" and "From Hell") - we know he didn't mind toying with the cops, and it's not as if they had the sort of science police have today where they could have tracked him down through a letter like that.
Anyway, just my opinion!

Cheers,
Adam.

[Just Curious]

That is if you believe in any of the Ripper letters, of course...what's your opinion, and everyone's opinion on those?



After 40+ years of study ... and modern day knowledge of other serial murderers, my gut tells me the killer didn't write the letters.

:-)

[Adam Went]

Hi Just Curious,

OK, so just out of curiousity (pun intended ;) ), where do you think the kidney that was with the From Hell letter came from? Was it really a medical student just playing a sick prank - or something else?

Cheers,
Adam.

[Tutto]

Re: Extracting a kidney to 'send' a message.

I wasn't trying to be over melodramatic. My point was that the locating of that organ (the kidney) may not have had any connection with the motive.
I think we are all in agreement that the killer left his victims 'on-view' intentionally. Most of the murder sites were close to secluded spots where he could have deposited the remains if he chose to do so. He chose to leave them on display, for either the public or the authorities, or both. Either way he put them on display. This was his exhibition.
Chapman's hand was laid across her abdomen, as was Kelly's. In no way could the killer have performed the mutilations with the hands placed where they were found. So, ergo, the killer 'posed' them in this fashion intentionally. He was sending a message.
The bits and pieces found around Chapmans body did not appear to have fallen there indiscriminantly therefore they were placed there.
The organs and body parts scattered around Kelly were not thrown around the floor, they were placed where they were found.
Once again, this was his exhibition, whatever the messages were, they were there for all to see. Messages that indicate his thought processes at the time of the killings.
The killer was deliberately creating order out of his chaos, this is still a means of sending messages.
Just prior to the murder of Eddowes much theorizing had been posed about Mad Doctors and lunatics. Locating and carefully extracting a kidney from a slice through the peritoneum, presumably, without making undue mess, suggests he was saying "I'm not a madman".

Amen, Jon !!:bowdown:

Adam;

I liked your comments, and about your last questions...I´m thinking :offinhead:

[Magpie]

Hi Magpie !

"What they should say is: If the killer intended to remove Eddowes kidney, then he certainly did a bang-up job of it, which indicates he knew what he was doing.

No offense,sor....but regardless of whether the murderer intended to extricate the kidney or not,its not so much that he found the kidney ( which most of us would have a little difficulty in doing unless we had an idea of the location )....but how it was removed. In short, with intent or not, the extrication was as you say a "bang up" job.
.


Sorry How, I didn't express this clearly. I didn't mean it as "if the killer intended to remove the kidney" (as opposed to somehow removing it by luck) but rather "if the killer intended to remove the kidney" (ie the kidney, specifically the kidney, and nothing but the kidney, as opposed to the first organ that came to hand).

The other part of the caveat that I neglected to mention is that the argument for the kidney as proof of skill presupposes that the absent kidney was removed in one neatly excised package. This is not known for sure--it's possible that the killer came away with something that looked like steak and kidney pie filling.

[Just Curious]

The other part of the caveat that I neglected to mention is that the argument for the kidney as proof of skill presupposes that the absent kidney was removed in one neatly excised package. This is not known for sure--it's possible that the killer came away with something that looked like steak and kidney pie filling.

Oh my, Magpie, the picture that statement gave me was not pleasant! :eek:

teehee

Adam Went Hi Just Curious,

OK, so just out of curiousity (pun intended ), where do you think the kidney that was with the From Hell letter came from? Was it really a medical student just playing a sick prank - or something else?

Cheers,
Adam.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the writing of letters by murderers is really rare; Jacks murders were rare unto themselves (hence why we are all doo-dahing about them 118 yrs later) ..... for him to have written the letters, sent the kidney etc and committed the crimes .. he would be a double-whammy rare-rare, which is still conceivably possible ..... but is it likely?

The kidney/letters could have been sent by anyone .. a subordinate police officer taking the proverbial bladder water? A medical student trying to be clever? Or just some idle dim-shit who wanted to confuddle, as in the Yorkshire Ripper case here in the UK? (1970's)

I have no proof, as I said, just a gut feeling. :)

Love the pun by the way! :clap:

[Tutto]

Hello everybody

Reviewing Mr. Marriott-JTR The 21st century...book which from page 29 to 75recovers the whole Chapman Inquest; in page 52 we find;:guns:

Coroner: Was there any anatomical knowledge displayed?
Dr. Phillips: I think there was. There were indications of it. My own impression is that anatomical knowledge was only less displayed or indicated in consecuence of haste. The person evidently was hindered from making a more complete dissection in consecuence of the haste.

And dedicated to Magpie, it's possible that the killer came away with something that looked like steak and kidney pie filling.

in same book page 132, Eddowes Inquest, Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown:
"The peritoneal lining was cut through on the left side and the left kidney carefully taken out and removed. The left renal artery was cut trought. I would say that someone who knew the position of the kidney must have done it"

...So "the killer intended (and successfully did) to remove the kidney"

Adam; I do think "From Hell" letter is perhaps y the only one (if any) to be from the Ripper, because the kidney piece could really be Eddowes one, IMHO.

[Wickerman]

Hi Just Curious,
OK, so just out of curiousity (pun intended ;) ), where do you think the kidney that was with the From Hell letter came from? Was it really a medical student just playing a sick prank - or something else?



Ok, let me just throw this out for consideration.
Over the past decade or so, since '98 at least, this question has been explored by amateurs & professionals alike on the Casebook.
If I'm not mistaken professional opinions have been presented in support of the kidney "possibly" belonging to Eddowes, or, "not likely" belonging to Eddowes.
I think it end's up as a matter of choosing which evidence to believe.

The question I would throw in for consideration is this.
Could it have been both a genuine kidney from Eddowes AND a prank at the same time?
How is this possible?

Without digging up specific references here I think we are told that the body of Eddowes was conducted to Golden Lane Mortuary by ambulance about 2:30 am Sunday morning.
We are also told that the post-mortem was conducted by Dr Gordon-Brown at 2:30 pm that Sunday afternoon.
Apart from undressing the body at its arrival at the mortuary, the body appears to have been left alone for almost 12 hrs.

Whitechapel & Spitalfields, as part of Metropolitan London had no official mortuaries. The places used as mortuaries in many cases were staffed by workhouse inmates, not regular professional staff.
This was not the case in the City, the Golden Lane Mortuary had a permanent staff.

"What member of the City mortuary staff was available "with" the body during those essential 12 hrs that the body was left in the mortuary?"

Professional staff would, I presume, have enough medical & anatomical knowledge to help in post-mortems, or assist in the clean-up following a post-mortem. Do you get where I am going with this?

Obviously, Dr Brown could only notice the kidney was missing 'after' the body had laid unattended for 12 hrs.
We would like to think a P.C. would have been assigned to stand on duty with the body. But that does not mean he sat at the side of the body for 12 hrs, also obviously, no P.C. is going to question a member of staff when seen 'attending' the body for any reason.

Something to consider?

[Howard Brown]

Wick:

Its more than just something to consider since many feel the kidney was a hoax.

Tom wrote a piece on that in Ripper Notes around two years ago and it made me think about the possibility of someone other than the Ripper sending the kidney.

To me,at present,its not so much a question of if this kidney was Mrs.Eddowes' or not.....but a question of why would a prankster send it to Lusk and not the police? I guess this is the wrong thread for that,so I'll drop it.

I know it sounds frivilous,but I try and put myself in the place of someone "prankstering" a phony or even the real Eddowes' kidney as a prank after its been sitting around the mortuary and just shake my head. Its really disturbing to imagine someone being a prankster and going that far. But as they say,live and learn.

Good thinking,as usual, Wick :thumbsupbud: . I dig where you are coming from and it could well be true. An inside prankster and not necessarily a kidney from the outside.

[Wickerman]

WickerMan:

Well, to use Jack's own words...
"Don't mind me giving away the trade name. They say I'm a doctor now. Ha ha!"

That is if you believe in any of the Ripper letters, of course...what's your opinion, and everyone's opinion on those?
If he really did say that, it seems to be yet another fact that points towards him NOT being a doctor/surgeon.



Much has been written about the various letters purported to have been sent by JtR. I don't know of any serious researcher who believes any came from the killer, with the exception of 'From Hell', the Lusk Kidney letter. If any correspondence is genuine, this is the only one that is considered by some.
Myself, I am not so sure. Primarily because I consider that the kidney may have been extracted while at the mortuary, its possible, only just but still, its possible.
So, perhaps the letter came with the kidney, the kidney did belong to Eddowes, but it may not have been the killer that removed it. Hence, the killer did not write the letter. Just something I have to keep in mind.

[Magpie]

And dedicated to Magpie,

in same book page 132, Eddowes Inquest, Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown:
"The peritoneal lining was cut through on the left side and the left kidney carefully taken out and removed. The left renal artery was cut trought. I would say that someone who knew the position of the kidney must have done it"

...So "the killer intended (and successfully did) to remove the kidney"



Hi Tutto.

With respect, but Dr Brown's testimony has two major faults:

1) Since the kidney was missing, it's impossible to say what it's condition was when removed. There's no proof that it was removed in one piece or undamaged in any way. However competent Brown was, speculating on the state of an organ that was missing was beyond his skills.

2) "The kidney was missing therefore for the killer intended to take the kidney" is an inductive fallacy--the fact that Brown is a Dr doesn't make it any less false.

Also, both Dr Sequiera and Dr Philips disagreed with Brown, saying that the killer showed no particular skill. Sequeira in particular said: "I think that the murderer had no design on any particular organ of the body. He was not possessed of any great anatomical skill.

Brown contradicted himself regarding the kidney--forcefully asserting that great knowledge of anatomy would be required to find the kidney, before admitting that a butcher would have the necessary skill. He also admitted that there was absolutely no professional purpose to the removal of the kidney--in other words, a doctor would likely not have removed a kidney that way, no matter how much skill it would have taken.

[Howard Brown]

Magpie:

You're right old bean...someone,whether a schochet or fledgling surgeon or an experienced surgeon, could have extricated the kidney. Its all a matter of the act of extrication,isn't it?

Had a brute, a random psychotic, or a psychotic been behind the knife's handle,the extrication would not have been noteworthy in the first place.

[Magpie]

You're right old bean...someone,whether a schochet or fledgling surgeon or an experienced surgeon, could have extricated the kidney. Its all a matter of the act of extrication,isn't it?

Had a brute, a random psychotic, or a psychotic been behind the knife's handle,the extrication would not have been noteworthy in the first place.


True How:)

I just want for folks to keep the possibility in mind that the removal of the kidney is not 100% absolutely incontrivertible evidence that the purpose of the mutilations was to aquire a kidney, or even that the killer was aware that what he had acquired was a kidney.
:)

[Tutto]

True How:)

I just want for folks to keep the possibility in mind that the removal of the kidney is not 100% absolutely incontrivertible evidence that the purpose of the mutilations was to aquire a kidney, or even that the killer was aware that what he had acquired was a kidney.
:)

Hi, Magpie

I think eveyone will agree with your statement :thumbsupbud: because NOTHING but DEAD and TAXES are "100% absolutely incontrovertible".

But...

I'm a doctor too and the only way I may understand Dr. Brown's words (left kidney carefully taken out and removed. The left renal artery was cut trought) refereed to an autopsy is exactly that kidney, the whole kidney and nothing but the kidney was extracted from its place.

So

1) Since the kidney was missing, it's impossible to say what it's condition was when removed. There's no proof that it was removed in one piece or undamaged in any way. However competent Brown was, speculating on the state of an organ that was missing was beyond his skills.

Dr. Brown was performing an autopsy and could see the place where that kidney was (in medical words, inside the capsule of the kiney, which is mainly grease, and easy to damage) and the conditions of the flesh around. For instance, if you get a boiled egg (say so ?), that is congealed, and take out the yellow core, we can see afterwards if you extracted it damaging the white part around...even when yellow core is not there!!

And, by putting things together, he stated how Kidney was extracted (carefully), not its state after been extracted...:judge:

2) "The kidney was missing therefore for the killer intended to take the kidney" is an inductive fallacy--the fact that Brown is a Dr doesn't make it any less false.

Not necessarily false, Magpie, if you see what Dr. Brown did and wrote down ("The peritoneal lining was cut through on the left side and the left kidney carefully taken out") it's the logical medical consecuence and, of course, could be erroneous, but is not false, IMHO. And he had to obtain conclusions of the autopsy, this is why autopsies are made for.

Brown contradicted himself regarding the kidney--forcefully asserting that great knowledge of anatomy would be required to find the kidney, before admitting that a butcher would have the necessary skill. He also admitted that there was absolutely no professional purpose to the removal of the kidney--in other words, a doctor would likely not have removed a kidney that way, no matter how much skill it would have taken.

I agree again with Dr. Brown, you don't need to be a surgeon to do it...but you need to know where Kidney are, how to get there and how to extract it. It's not a medical skill, it's knowledge of anatomy and how to use the knife in this exact place.:D

And, last but not least...

Also, both Dr Sequiera and Dr Philips disagreed with Brown, saying that the killer showed no particular skill. Sequeira in particular said: "I think that the murderer had no design on any particular organ of the body. He was not possessed of any great anatomical skill.

Dr. Sequeira is one more opinion since he was not a police surgeon, and Dr. Phillips statement (if it was this way) is particularly odd, because himself stated exactly the opposite when talking about Chapman's uterus, whose extraction is very easy when compared to kidney's one. :offinhead:

And, Wick,

Primarily because I consider that the kidney may have been extracted while at the mortuary, its possible, only just but still, its possible.


This is exactly Mr. Marriott theory about Jack's mutilations, I have to know more before I give an opinion, man.

Thank you all !

[Wickerman]

Hi, Magpie

I'm a doctor too and the only way I may understand Dr. Brown's words (left kidney carefully taken out and removed. The left renal artery was cut trought) refereed to an autopsy is exactly that kidney, the whole kidney and nothing but the kidney was extracted from its place.


Maybe I assume too much but I think Magpie does not understand how the kidney is retained or supported in the body. If you picture a cherry within Jelly (Jello) where you can see it suspended but not supported by anything except the Jelly. This may give some idea as how a kidney is placed. The renal artery connects the kidney to other organs, if some Neanderthal reached in and took hold of the kidney he could simply lift it out not knowing that a slender artery was attached to it.
Only someone with medical (anatomical?) knowledge would know that there's something to cut through. BUT there was no need to cut through the renal artery, there's no resistance on the connection of this link to the body. A Neanderthal wouldn't even know he had ripped the artery by pulling out the kidney, someone with medical knowledge would.
It's a matter of giving care and attention to something that didn't need it, therein lies the clue that the killer (if it was he who removed the kidney) knew more about anatomy than the ordinary man in the street.

You said your command of English was not the best, you are doing just fine my friend !!:clap:

[Tutto]

Much has been written about the various letters purported to have been sent by JtR. I don't know of any serious researcher who believes any came from the killer, with the exception of 'From Hell', the Lusk Kidney letter. If any correspondence is genuine, this is the only one that is considered by some.
Myself, I am not so sure. Primarily because I consider that the kidney may have been extracted while at the mortuary, its possible, only just but still, its possible.
So, perhaps the letter came with the kidney, the kidney did belong to Eddowes, but it may not have been the killer that removed it. Hence, the killer did not write the letter. Just something I have to keep in mind.

Wick;
This is one of my favourite topics about the Ripper...and after reading again your-really accurate IMHO-post number 42, I realize why don't you think this murderer did send letters (even with kidneys, when available...) like From Hell's one? :confused:

As you have said there I think we are all in agreement that the killer left his victims 'on-view' intentionally. Most of the murder sites were close to secluded spots where he could have deposited the remains if he chose to do so. He chose to leave them on display, for either the public or the authorities, or both. Either way he put them on display. This was his exhibition.

Jack the Ripper was probably the first modern serial killer and one of the reasons is mass media implications of his murders; I think sending letters to the authorities fits the bill of the psychological profiling of this murderer.:judge:

I am not saying that Jack send From Hell letter, only that I think it's easier to think so that the wired (pun intended) idea of a real kidney and a hoax letter.

Thanks again, Jon

...and Just Curious

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the writing of letters by murderers is really rare; Jacks murders were rare unto themselves (hence why we are all doo-dahing about them 118 yrs later) ..... for him to have written the letters, sent the kidney etc and committed the crimes .. he would be a double-whammy rare-rare, which is still conceivably possible ..... but is it likely?

The kidney/letters could have been sent by anyone .. a subordinate police officer taking the proverbial bladder water? A medical student trying to be clever? Or just some idle dim-shit who wanted to confuddle, as in the Yorkshire Ripper case here in the UK? (1970's)

I have no proof, as I said, just a gut feeling.

Love the pun by the way!

Precisely is the bizarreness of the Ripper case what increases the odds ratio for more strange things in it (i.e. if you are in a alien flying saucer, the probability of finding a time machine is greater that been into an Irish Pub :eek: ). And (gut feelings aside) as said before, I think sending letters to the authorities fits the bill of the psychological profiling of this murderer.:offinhead:

And...I Just like gut Curious jokes in Ripperology :D :clap: :D

[Wickerman]

Wick;
This is one of my favourite topics about the Ripper...and after reading again your-really accurate IMHO-post number 42, I realize why don't you think this murderer did send letters (even with kidneys, when available...) like From Hell's one? :confused:

My doubts about whether the killer wrote anything, be it letters or graffiti, is because I am not sure 'we' have yet recognised his true motive.
I've said elsewhere that I am more interested in the 'why' than the 'who'.
I don't care much for theories which attempt to identify the killer, I do care for interpretations of aspects of these crimes which attempt to identify the motive.
That said, I have a gut feeling that the 'American Doctor' theory, and his enquiries about organs are what initiated the Ripper murders. Not that this doctor was Jack the Ripper, but that having repeatedly failed to get anyone to fulfill his request, and we have two refusal's on record, he went 'underground' as it were.
(I'm hoping Stewart & Don's new book will throw some more light on this aspect)
Someone offered to get him what he wanted, by way of a "whisper in the dark", so to speak. Whoever that someone was, that was Jack the Ripper.
This is my speculation, and if this be somewhere near the truth then the motive for these crimes was money. If that is the case then there was no challenge to authority as we might expect from a crazed killer. Any challenge came by way of a secondary aspect, once the object of the murders was accomplished the 'showman' side of his personality came to the front, hence my post #42.
Trying to make sense of the few facts we have, as has been pointed out before, when you have eliminated all other possibilities, whatever you are left with, however bizarre must be the truth.

[Magpie]

Dr. Brown was performing an autopsy and could see the place where that kidney was (in medical words, inside the capsule of the kiney, which is mainly grease, and easy to damage) and the conditions of the flesh around. For instance, if you get a boiled egg (say so ?), that is congealed, and take out the yellow core, we can see afterwards if you extracted it damaging the white part around...even when yellow core is not there!!


That's one of the best analogies I've ever seen for this--thank you:)



And, by putting things together, he stated how Kidney was extracted (carefully), not its state after been extracted...:judge:


Thanks Tutto:) That's basically my point--Brown's comments about how the kidney was removed should not be taken as evidence that the kidney was in one piece after removal. However for over a century a long line of Ripper researchers have assumed just that.



Not necessarily false, Magpie, if you see what Dr. Brown did and wrote down ("The peritoneal lining was cut through on the left side and the left kidney carefully taken out") it's the logical medical consecuence and, of course, could be erroneous, but is not false, IMHO. And he had to obtain conclusions of the autopsy, this is why autopsies are made for.


My apologies Tutto. By "fallacious argument" I was not suggesting that Brown was incorrect or that he was lying. I was referring to the argument itself from a logical point of view. It's possible that his conclusions are correct--I'm just trying to nudge people to avoid thinking that they are the only conlusions and narrowing their options wrongly based on that.


Dr. Sequeira is one more opinion since he was not a police surgeon, and Dr. Phillips statement (if it was this way) is particularly odd, because himself stated exactly the opposite when talking about Chapman's uterus, whose extraction is very easy when compared to kidney's one. :offinhead:


Phillips statement is not odd at all, since he believed that Eddowes was killed by an unskilled copycat, rather than the Ripper:) As for Dr. Sequeira, there is no reason to believe that he was any less qualified than Brown, or that Brown's position as a Police Surgeon gives his opinion any more or less weight. As far as I understand, a Police Surgeon was simply a qualified surgeon that the police could call on at any time of the day or night when required--it is not a specialized job with the forensic or expert connotations that it would have today.

[Magpie]

Maybe I assume too much but I think Magpie does not understand how the kidney is retained or supported in the body. If you picture a cherry within Jelly (Jello) where you can see it suspended but not supported by anything except the Jelly. This may give some idea as how a kidney is placed.

You are right:) I've never had occasion to view a kidney in it's natural state:)

Thank you for another excellent analogy. You and Tutto have in two posts provide possibly the best tools for visualization Eddowes kidney removal that I have ever seen. Kudos to you both :clap:

[Magpie]

I know it sounds frivilous,but I try and put myself in the place of someone "prankstering" a phony or even the real Eddowes' kidney as a prank after its been sitting around the mortuary and just shake my head. Its really disturbing to imagine someone being a prankster and going that far. But as they say,live and learn.




Hi How.

Several years ago I did a story about Victorian medical students and some of the things they used to get up to at our local University. Absconding with a kidney and mailing it to someone doesn't surprise me in the least:rolleyes:

[Wickerman]

You are right:) I've never had occasion to view a kidney in it's natural state:)


I struggled with that analogy, what I was trying to discribe was that the kidney is in essence floating, not attached to anything that you could detach it from with any force. On the one hand it floats freely but on the other it is held in place by muscle structure, organs and, I think, the peritoneal lining. You can see in this diagram how it is attached by the renal artery, like a balloon on a string.
http://www.mamashealth.com/organs/dsystem.asp

Believe me, I am no doctor but I have removed hundreds of kidney's.
I served 3 years as a butchers apprentice after leaving school.
The location of sheeps kidney's are not too much removed from human kidney's. In fact some of the internal anatomy of a sheep is often used for study in place of a human subject, or at least it was back in the 1970's.

[Wickerman]

Whitechapel & Spitalfields, as part of Metropolitan London had no official mortuaries. The places used as mortuaries in many cases were staffed by workhouse inmates, not regular professional staff.
This was not the case in the City, the Golden Lane Mortuary had a permanent staff.


I know I have a legitimate reference to this somewhere, I thought it was in one of the books Rumbelow like 'I Spy Blue' but I couldn't find it.
Nevertheless in 'Summing up and Vertict' by Wilson & Odell, Colin Wilson relates about a letter he received from a Mr A. L. Lee from Torquay who told Wilson that his father had been employed by the City of London Corporation at the City Mortuary in Golden Lane in 1888 at the time of the murders. That Mr Lee senior had the responsibility to bring bodies which had died in the City to the City Mortuary and prepare them for a post-mortem by Mr Spilsbury (father of Sir Bernard Spilsbury). Mr Lee's immediate superior was Dr Cedric Saunders, the Coroner of the City.

Unfortunately the letter dwells on the Dr Stanley theory suggesting he was an associate of the Coroner.
I think most of us are aware how stories become distorted and convoluted over time, I just thought it uncanny that here was some suggestion associating the killer with the City Mortuary, or perhaps someone posing as the killer?
There are some very strange people around..

[Tutto]

My doubts about whether the killer wrote anything, be it letters or graffiti, is because I am not sure 'we' have yet recognised his true motive.
I've said elsewhere that I am more interested in the 'why' than the 'who'.
I don't care much for theories which attempt to identify the killer, I do care for interpretations of aspects of these crimes which attempt to identify the motive.
That said, I have a gut feeling that the 'American Doctor' theory, and his enquiries about organs are what initiated the Ripper murders. Not that this doctor was Jack the Ripper, but that having repeatedly failed to get anyone to fulfill his request, and we have two refusal's on record, he went 'underground' as it were.
(I'm hoping Stewart & Don's new book will throw some more light on this aspect)
Someone offered to get him what he wanted, by way of a "whisper in the dark", so to speak. Whoever that someone was, that was Jack the Ripper.
This is my speculation, and if this be somewhere near the truth then the motive for these crimes was money. If that is the case then there was no challenge to authority as we might expect from a crazed killer. Any challenge came by way of a secondary aspect, once the object of the murders was accomplished the 'showman' side of his personality came to the front, hence my post #42.
Trying to make sense of the few facts we have, as has been pointed out before, when you have eliminated all other possibilities, whatever you are left with, however bizarre must be the truth.

Good idea, Jon. I would like to do a pair of comments;

I absolutely agree with you about the importance of the motive behind the crimes; this was exactly my first post here: http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?p=13372#post13372.

On the other hand, in your theory of "business first and pleasure later" , the murderer could be in "showman killer phase" when From Hell letter was written, didn't him?

An strange idea of mine about the letters is... that Dear Boss & Saucy Jacky letters (hoaxes) were an inspiration for the real killer, who sending "two messages in only one" send the Lusk letter that was the real one, with the real "half kidney" of Eddowes. He enjoyed the reactions and afterwars send the Openshaw Letter, very similar in its handwriting to Lusk Letter...:eek:

Perhaps I have taken too much wine for dinner (In vino veritas, you know...) :clap:


And, Magpie

First of all, thank you for your kindness with me, I'm happy to be useful.

Phillips statement is not odd at all, since he believed that Eddowes was killed by an unskilled copycat, rather than the Ripper As for Dr. Sequeira, there is no reason to believe that he was any less qualified than Brown, or that Brown's position as a Police Surgeon gives his opinion any more or less weight. As far as I understand, a Police Surgeon was simply a qualified surgeon that the police could call on at any time of the day or night when required--it is not a specialized job with the forensic or expert connotations that it would have today.

Dr. Phillips;
Copycat or not, it has nothing to do with the fact that removal of a kidney is far harder that extracting the uterus, and he sure know it. I can think many reasons to explain that press show a different opinion for Dr. Phillips against Dr. Gordon Brown.

Dr. Sequeira;
I wasn't thinking about the weight of his opinions but about the implications of his words, far beyond when you are the police surgeon (an official source, then). If you have nothing to win with an adjusted statement, you should better defence your fellows and colleagues.

Thanks to everyone:thumbsupbud: