The kidney removal of Catherine Eddowes.

[Patrick Differ]

Macnaghten first gives us the name "Kosminski" in a list of 3 men who he submitted to counter the suggestion that the American Cutbush was the Ripper.

Over 15 years later, Anderson then gives us a scenario whereby he implies that the Ripper was known all along; yet chooses not to name him.

Subsequently, Swanson then appears to clarify Anderson's claim, by once again mentioning the name "Kosminski."

Therefore; on the face of it, it would appear that Swanson is verifying Macnaghten's original mention of Kosminski.

But the question is; why does Macnaghten make no mention of anything later stated by Anderson?

It's clear that Macnaghten has no idea about anything that Anderson claims occurred regarding Kosminski.

Macnaghten also refers to Kosminski in the past context.

In fact, Macnaghten and Swanson both refer to Kosminski as though he's already dead.
Anderson does the same, except he doesn't name the suspect.

Aaron Kosminski was still alive when all 3 men made their respective written contributions.


There are scores of variations of the name "Kosminski"


It's clear that something just doesn't add up.

Accepting Aaron Kosminski as the "suspect" is simply misleading and wrong.



But what has any of this got to do with Eddowes and her Kidney?


Well, absolutely nothing really.




So.... let's get back on the right track...

Could an openly mentally unstable man who drank from the gutter, have had the charm to convince Eddowes he wasn't the Ripper?
And could a lunatic have had the mental acuity, awareness and stability, to carry out a relatively advanced procedure to remove a kidney in the dark in a matter of a few minutes, and then leave the scene without being seen?


Unlikely.

Lewis and RD- it is possible that the London and Metro police had no idea who any of these supposed Jewish suspects were and what their names actually were. I think you have to keep in mind that these predominantly Jewish areas that Charles Booth illustrates were known to be close knit. Robert Sagar talks about the Police having to use disguises just to get Jewish people to talk on Butchers Row. In this case they suspected a Jewish Butcher, not a tailor or a hairdresser or a doctor or medical student.

It is possible that Swanson, Anderson, etc. Wouldnt know a Kosminski, Cohen, or Kaminski from a Levy or Barnett. They likely knew local business owners on some level but a Constable on a beat was walking and not stopping to talk. Their job was regimented.

At some point I think you have to consider the testimony of the Doctors, post mortem and the bodies of the victims as the evidence. Along with the Eddowes Apron and possibly Graffito at Goulston Street. I think supposed Diaries and anything else are at best not as relevant.

To answer your point Lewis I personally believe the Killers signature reveals a man that was experienced with a sharp knife and experienced with cutting either human or animal bodies. Not Kosminski. The kill windows should tell us that a novice- someone who never cut an animal or human- would not have that experience to achieve these kills in this manner. The kills mirror what a butcher might do, Stun- Cut throat and gut. It would be a low probability for any other profession to perform the repitition within the kill window. There was a reason the Doctors mentioned Butcher, why Sagar had one under surveillance, and the signature of this killer, in my mind, reveals his profession.

If these women were throttled first then whoever stunned these women by strangling had to be relatively strong with upper body strength. That could fit many. However cutting the throat is the 2nd step in the butchers profession. Gutting is the next and skinning is the last. Was there any indication of skinning? Yes on Mary Kelly. However this killer learned that unlike and animals skin which is loose , human skin is tight and skinning almost impossible.

i think the bodies tell a story. I think the Eddowes aftermath and apron show a man living between Mitre Square and Goulston. A man who disappears and reappears and disappears again right under the Police noses within a 2 hour window. Middlesex Street??

[Lewis C]

Could an openly mentally unstable man who drank from the gutter, have had the charm to convince Eddowes he wasn't the Ripper?
And could a lunatic have had the mental acuity, awareness and stability, to carry out a relatively advanced procedure to remove a kidney in the dark in a matter of a few minutes, and then leave the scene without being seen?


Unlikely.

Aaron Kosminski probably wouldn't have had what it took to be the killer after he had been confined to a lunatic asylum, which is when we have most of our info about what he was like. However, it's possible that at the time of the murders, he wasn't as far gone as he was later on.

[Lewis C]

Lewis and RD- it is possible that the London and Metro police had no idea who any of these supposed Jewish suspects were and what their names actually were. I think you have to keep in mind that these predominantly Jewish areas that Charles Booth illustrates were known to be close knit. Robert Sagar talks about the Police having to use disguises just to get Jewish people to talk on Butchers Row. In this case they suspected a Jewish Butcher, not a tailor or a hairdresser or a doctor or medical student.

It is possible that Swanson, Anderson, etc. Wouldnt know a Kosminski, Cohen, or Kaminski from a Levy or Barnett. They likely knew local business owners on some level but a Constable on a beat was walking and not stopping to talk. Their job was regimented.

At some point I think you have to consider the testimony of the Doctors, post mortem and the bodies of the victims as the evidence. Along with the Eddowes Apron and possibly Graffito at Goulston Street. I think supposed Diaries and anything else are at best not as relevant.

To answer your point Lewis I personally believe the Killers signature reveals a man that was experienced with a sharp knife and experienced with cutting either human or animal bodies. Not Kosminski. The kill windows should tell us that a novice- someone who never cut an animal or human- would not have that experience to achieve these kills in this manner. The kills mirror what a butcher might do, Stun- Cut throat and gut. It would be a low probability for any other profession to perform the repitition within the kill window. There was a reason the Doctors mentioned Butcher, why Sagar had one under surveillance, and the signature of this killer, in my mind, reveals his profession.

If these women were throttled first then whoever stunned these women by strangling had to be relatively strong with upper body strength. That could fit many. However cutting the throat is the 2nd step in the butchers profession. Gutting is the next and skinning is the last. Was there any indication of skinning? Yes on Mary Kelly. However this killer learned that unlike and animals skin which is loose , human skin is tight and skinning almost impossible.

i think the bodies tell a story. I think the Eddowes aftermath and apron show a man living between Mitre Square and Goulston. A man who disappears and reappears and disappears again right under the Police noses within a 2 hour window. Middlesex Street??

I would say that all else being equal, a suspect who had experience or training with cutting either human or animal bodies would tend to be a stronger suspect than someone that we don't know of having that experience or training. However, since it is reasonable to believe that a person didn't have to have had that experience or training to do what the Ripper did, and because a person could have that without us knowing it, I'm opposed to eliminating a suspect from consideration just because we don't know of him having that kind of training or experience.

[Patrick Differ]

I would say that all else being equal, a suspect who had experience or training with cutting either human or animal bodies would tend to be a stronger suspect than someone that we don't know of having that experience or training. However, since it is reasonable to believe that a person didn't have to have had that experience or training to do what the Ripper did, and because a person could have that without us knowing it, I'm opposed to eliminating a suspect from consideration just because we don't know of him having that kind of training or experience.

Hi Lewis- i understand your point of view. I try to look at it logically if at all possible. The fact that these murders mimic a stepwise method of a certain profession and the Doctors thought this profession could pull this off gives me pause. Then Sagar, who was studying to be a Doctor himself, had a butcher under surveillance who he was convinced was the killer. Sagar, the liason from City to Metro on the Ripper murders would have had a daily picture. Who tipped them off is the question. My guess is someone who knew him.

I ask myself whether anyone could have done this taking the evidence provided by the Doctors and the bodies combined with location out of the equation. To your point. Also keeping in mind that in metro the Police beat took 30 minutes and in London 15 minutes. Since the killer achieved these kills within these constraints, then what does it say?

Stabbing was frequent in the East End. Strangling to a lesser degree but garroting was well known. I think anyone could have throttled these women. Throat cutting after laying the woman down was not seen nor does it show up in Old Bailey Court records for several years before and after these murders. It just did not happen. I consider this unique. However it was a daily occurence in the Butcher trade.

Does that prove anything? Maybe not but it does show a known fact. That Butchers cut animal throats. With Kosher Butchers it was a Religious Act. The Jewish Butchers on Butchers Row where Kosher and in fact the Board Members. They would grant licenses so Sagars story narrows this field of type of Butcher. The Jewish Butcher Theory should be called the Jewish Kosher Butcher Theory.

For sake of argument lets say a man with just knife skills throttled these women, layed them on the ground and then cut their throats. We he have understood bleeding out would minimize blood in the abdomen? Here again Doctors testified that the killer by bleeding out would have little blood on themselves. Would you call that dumb luck ? Compared to Butchers who already knew that bleeding out made the abdomen less bloody and organs more visible.

Could anyone after taking those first two steps then Rip open the abdomen and do what was done in a minimum amount of time and at least with some awareness of the Police beat timing? Again would luck be involved. The man ripping out the organs, slashing away in a silent controlled rage? I guess thats possible but the Doctors did not think that to be the case. The comparison they used was their own skill set. That to me is directed more at the mutilation in the abdomen then anything else.

Serial killers are known to have transitioned from killing animals to humans. Butchers in this case is a no brainer. There is a lean by Doctors and some police to this profession in this case for a reason. But as you point out Lewis, the killer could have been anyone,,but I would add that they likely transitioned from animal. Otherwise i dont think they could have repeated the mutilations repetitively as they did. They cut before.

Peace

[Lewis C]

Hi Lewis- i understand your point of view. I try to look at it logically if at all possible. The fact that these murders mimic a stepwise method of a certain profession and the Doctors thought this profession could pull this off gives me pause. Then Sagar, who was studying to be a Doctor himself, had a butcher under surveillance who he was convinced was the killer. Sagar, the liason from City to Metro on the Ripper murders would have had a daily picture. Who tipped them off is the question. My guess is someone who knew him.

I ask myself whether anyone could have done this taking the evidence provided by the Doctors and the bodies combined with location out of the equation. To your point. Also keeping in mind that in metro the Police beat took 30 minutes and in London 15 minutes. Since the killer achieved these kills within these constraints, then what does it say?

Stabbing was frequent in the East End. Strangling to a lesser degree but garroting was well known. I think anyone could have throttled these women. Throat cutting after laying the woman down was not seen nor does it show up in Old Bailey Court records for several years before and after these murders. It just did not happen. I consider this unique. However it was a daily occurence in the Butcher trade.

Does that prove anything? Maybe not but it does show a known fact. That Butchers cut animal throats. With Kosher Butchers it was a Religious Act. The Jewish Butchers on Butchers Row where Kosher and in fact the Board Members. They would grant licenses so Sagars story narrows this field of type of Butcher. The Jewish Butcher Theory should be called the Jewish Kosher Butcher Theory.

For sake of argument lets say a man with just knife skills throttled these women, layed them on the ground and then cut their throats. We he have understood bleeding out would minimize blood in the abdomen? Here again Doctors testified that the killer by bleeding out would have little blood on themselves. Would you call that dumb luck ? Compared to Butchers who already knew that bleeding out made the abdomen less bloody and organs more visible.

Could anyone after taking those first two steps then Rip open the abdomen and do what was done in a minimum amount of time and at least with some awareness of the Police beat timing? Again would luck be involved. The man ripping out the organs, slashing away in a silent controlled rage? I guess thats possible but the Doctors did not think that to be the case. The comparison they used was their own skill set. That to me is directed more at the mutilation in the abdomen then anything else.

Serial killers are known to have transitioned from killing animals to humans. Butchers in this case is a no brainer. There is a lean by Doctors and some police to this profession in this case for a reason. But as you point out Lewis, the killer could have been anyone,,but I would add that they likely transitioned from animal. Otherwise i dont think they could have repeated the mutilations repetitively as they did. They cut before.

Peace

Hi Patrick. The only thing that I would really challenge here is that you seem to be implying that all the doctors of the time were of one mind. So I just want to mention that there was diversity of opinion among the doctors. Some thought that the mutilations required skill, but some did not.

[Patrick Differ]

Hi Patrick. The only thing that I would really challenge here is that you seem to be implying that all the doctors of the time were of one mind. So I just want to mention that there was diversity of opinion among the doctors. Some thought that the mutilations required skill, but some did not.

I think the Doctors relied on their own knowledge when trying to articulate what they witnessed first hand. They had not seen this type of murder and even by todays standards these kills are still rare. It seems to me their first inclination was to compare the mutilations with their own method of post mortem. There was then a comparison to other professions and the type of knife used. This seems logical to me. While conflicted in their own mind with their owm profession they appeared to be objective in ruling out certain potential weapons by trade. They did not rule out butcher or their tools although they did appear to rule out tools by other trades. They went on to discuss who might be able to perform the murders and specifically called out slaughterers tools well ground down. Does this tell us anything?

I believe it tells us they were trying to draw some distinctions in terms of what the victims bodies revealed. Who could perform it and how and with what. Trained in observation as medical professionals. Yes they were conflicted by made telling comments through their observations.

For me there was one stark observation. That was that " a person used to cutting up animals could have possibly killed these women". A classic serial killer trait not known in 1888. Yet clearly observed. Does that mean it was a butcher? Maybe also a hunter ? Some anatomical knowledge? These Doctors were trying to put it together. Something in the mutilations made them think about skill. ⁷

[Doctored Whatsit]

For me there was one stark observation. That was that " a person used to cutting up animals could have possibly killed these women". A classic serial killer trait not known in 1888. Yet clearly observed. Does that mean it was a butcher? Maybe also a hunter ? Some anatomical knowledge? These Doctors were trying to put it together. Something in the mutilations made them think about skill. ⁷

I believe that this is probably the only real clue we have as to the true identity of JtR. The police surgeons were quite specific with the earlier victims with comments about the size of the knife, knife skills, accustomed to removing innards with one sweep of the knife etc. Conan Doyle reported some years later that he was told that JtR made the cuts of a butcher. The reference to persons used to cutting up animals was made, and the comments on anatomical knowledge were clear. "Anatomical knowledge" was mistaken by some, and confused with "medical knowledge", but that was clearly incorrect.

Bond didn't think so, but he didn't see the earlier victims.

The police were obviously advised accordingly, because Swanson reported to the Home Office on the investigation of butcher slaughterers which followed.

[The Rookie Detective]

I believe that this is probably the only real clue we have as to the true identity of JtR. The police surgeons were quite specific with the earlier victims with comments about the size of the knife, knife skills, accustomed to removing innards with one sweep of the knife etc. Conan Doyle reported some years later that he was told that JtR made the cuts of a butcher. The reference to persons used to cutting up animals was made, and the comments on anatomical knowledge were clear. "Anatomical knowledge" was mistaken by some, and confused with "medical knowledge", but that was clearly incorrect.

Bond didn't think so, but he didn't see the earlier victims.

The police were obviously advised accordingly, because Swanson reported to the Home Office on the investigation of butcher slaughterers which followed.

One of the best posts I've read on this forum for a long time.

Exquisite and brilliant

[GBinOz]

"Anatomical knowledge" was mistaken by some, and confused with "medical knowledge", but that was clearly incorrect.

"Anatomical knowledge" and "medical knowledge" are theoretical concepts. Very few doctors of the time had surgical and dissection experience. Removal of organs while crouching on the ground in the dark implies muscle memory derived from repeated experience.

[Doctored Whatsit]

"Anatomical knowledge" and "medical knowledge" are theoretical concepts. Very few doctors of the time had surgical and dissection experience. Removal of organs while crouching on the ground in the dark implies muscle memory derived from repeated experience.

As in the case of someone who regularly eviscerated an animal carcass as part of his job, you mean?

[The Rookie Detective]

"Anatomical knowledge" and "medical knowledge" are theoretical concepts. Very few doctors of the time had surgical and dissection experience. Removal of organs while crouching on the ground in the dark implies muscle memory derived from repeated experience.

Ergo, a killer who had cut up bodies before.

Like the Torso killer.