Francis Thompson, Virchow’s Technique, and Bond’s Misreading

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi!
If I might wade into this discussion: I am not sold on Thompson, even if he is one of the strongest suspects based on his medical skills, but Richard is correct in that we can take many front row suspects, like e.g. Bury, Kelly, Deeming, Hyams, Maybrick, off the list since they had no skills on the level of the Ripper. The Ripper had substantial medical and surgical experience, Mitre Square would never have been happened like it did without it.
Myself I have Klosowski as prime suspect, for several reasons. Among them the fact that Klosowski studied medicine on the continent and not too far away from Virchow´s group in Berlin and he had knowledge of Antimon as a poison which was truly rare in Britain back then.

And yet there are surgeons that disagree with you.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This isn’t a debate. It’s Richard trying to twist the evidence to make Thompson fit.

[Patrick Differ]

This isn’t a debate. It’s Richard trying to twist the evidence to make Thompson fit.

No one knows who the Ripper was. There appears to be objectivity in the discussion and I dont personally see anything wrong with the argument content. Constructive counterpoint is debate. Everyone has favorite suspects but the only concrete evidence besides location are the bodies themselves. I didnt see where any of the murders were described as having a Y incision. The Virchow method would be considered as solid evidence of a medical man. That was not the case is my only point based on description and sketches.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No one knows who the Ripper was. There appears to be objectivity in the discussion and I dont personally see anything wrong with the argument content. Constructive counterpoint is debate. Everyone has favorite suspects but the only concrete evidence besides location are the bodies themselves. I didnt see where any of the murders were described as having a Y incision. The Virchow method would be considered as solid evidence of a medical man. That was not the case is my only point based on description and sketches.

The problem is when the evidence is tampered with to suit. An important example is that Richard states it as a fact that Thompson was staying at the Providence Row refuge at the time of the murders. Anyone not knowing the facts would look at that and think “hey that’s a really important point.” It’s just misinformation and i think that it should be called out. For the record we really don’t have a jot of evidence that Thompson ever stayed there. All that we have is from his writing when he said that he’d seen the men queueing outside the place. Nowhere, ever, is it stated that he went inside. He may have stayed there at some point though Patrick. No one could call it impossible or even unlikely. But ‘might have’ isn’t enough to justify Richard’s stating of it as a fact and he not only states it as a fact he even says that it was during the murders and the only reason he does this is because we know that Thompson is searching for his girlfriend in Autumn/September. We don’t know where he stayed though but we know that he did use dosshouse at times when he had the money and he often slept rough. ‘Might possibly have done’ should be stated as fact.

[Fernglas]

And yet there are surgeons that disagree with you.

Hi Herlock!
Those surgeons who disagree with me are among the old ones, who themselves had widely varying levels of competence in the surgical ward (it is telling that those who regularly operated like Brown and Phillips, were convinced the Ripper had considerable knowledge and skill) and among the modern doctors you have to search long and hard to find one who will say the Ripper was an amateur and those are mostly the contrarians for contrary´s sake.

Anyone with a bit of medical knowlege and even those without, looking at the reports can see that the Ripper was no hack. You simply cannot fake what he did under adverse circumstances. A person without the needed knowledge and skill cannot get the steps for a "coursebook 1888" like kidney extraction right, especially not in the dark and crouching/kneeling on the street.
That we still have this debate going on, shows very much the capacity of humans to deny what is pretty obvious to see when it does not fit their theories.
I personally think the Ripper added to his culpability and magnitude of guilt by using his talents for such evil! A person this fast and precise under pressure could have helped save many lifes in a hospital, instead he became a serial killer.

[Kattrup]

Patterson’s theory is grossly unfair to Bond, and consists of unsubstatiated oversimplification.

Bond was a highly experienced police surgeon and lecturer in forensic medicine. The idea that he would never have learned anything new since his student days is pretty hard to swallow, especially since it’s so easy to look up autopsies that he participated in that show him as a meticulous and thorough examiner that certainly did remove and examine internal organs. E.g. his and Larkin’s postmortem on Harriet Lane back in 1875, or his and Hebbert’s post-mortem on the torso.

Or check out Thomas Harris’ Post-Mortem Handbook, which came out in 1887, and which shows the level of expertise and the procedure followed by British forensic examiners at the time.

As per Virchow’s guide, Harris and the doctors involved in the ripper-cases start with exterior examination, describing the position of the body and visible damage, then begin examining the head, brain, neck and move further downwards.

Bond made his assessment of the murderer’s skills not because he was a complete dolt who didn’t realize that groundbreaking forensic examiners excised kidneys - ZOMG it’s unheard of!!! but because the wounds were excessive, random, did not resemble surgical cuts AND there was damage to the surrounding organs.

I am not saying he was right in that, just pointing out that Patterson’s idea of the Virchow-approach stupefying Bond is wrong.

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi Herlock!
Those surgeons who disagree with me are among the old ones, who themselves had widely varying levels of competence in the surgical ward (it is telling that those who regularly operated like Brown and Phillips, were convinced the Ripper had considerable knowledge and skill) and among the modern doctors you have to search long and hard to find one who will say the Ripper was an amateur and those are mostly the contrarians for contrary´s sake.

Anyone with a bit of medical knowlege and even those without, looking at the reports can see that the Ripper was no hack. You simply cannot fake what he did under adverse circumstances. A person without the needed knowledge and skill cannot get the steps for a "coursebook 1888" like kidney extraction right, especially not in the dark and crouching/kneeling on the street.
That we still have this debate going on, shows very much the capacity of humans to deny what is pretty obvious to see when it does not fit their theories.
I personally think the Ripper added to his culpability and magnitude of guilt by using his talents for such evil! A person this fast and precise under pressure could have helped save many lifes in a hospital, instead he became a serial killer.

Excellent post.

The parameters within which the Ripper had to work, is evidence that he had some idea of what he was doing.

[Lewis C]

Hi Herlock!
Those surgeons who disagree with me are among the old ones, who themselves had widely varying levels of competence in the surgical ward (it is telling that those who regularly operated like Brown and Phillips, were convinced the Ripper had considerable knowledge and skill) and among the modern doctors you have to search long and hard to find one who will say the Ripper was an amateur and those are mostly the contrarians for contrary´s sake.

Anyone with a bit of medical knowlege and even those without, looking at the reports can see that the Ripper was no hack. You simply cannot fake what he did under adverse circumstances. A person without the needed knowledge and skill cannot get the steps for a "coursebook 1888" like kidney extraction right, especially not in the dark and crouching/kneeling on the street.
That we still have this debate going on, shows very much the capacity of humans to deny what is pretty obvious to see when it does not fit their theories.
I personally think the Ripper added to his culpability and magnitude of guilt by using his talents for such evil! A person this fast and precise under pressure could have helped save many lifes in a hospital, instead he became a serial killer.

You're granting here that there are some modern doctors don't think that The Ripper had surgical knowledge, but by labelling them as contrarians, you're saying that their views don't count.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Patterson’s theory is grossly unfair to Bond, and consists of unsubstatiated oversimplification.

Bond was a highly experienced police surgeon and lecturer in forensic medicine. The idea that he would never have learned anything new since his student days is pretty hard to swallow, especially since it’s so easy to look up autopsies that he participated in that show him as a meticulous and thorough examiner that certainly did remove and examine internal organs. E.g. his and Larkin’s postmortem on Harriet Lane back in 1875, or his and Hebbert’s post-mortem on the torso.

Or check out Thomas Harris’ Post-Mortem Handbook, which came out in 1887, and which shows the level of expertise and the procedure followed by British forensic examiners at the time.

As per Virchow’s guide, Harris and the doctors involved in the ripper-cases start with exterior examination, describing the position of the body and visible damage, then begin examining the head, brain, neck and move further downwards.

Bond made his assessment of the murderer’s skills not because he was a complete dolt who didn’t realize that groundbreaking forensic examiners excised kidneys - ZOMG it’s unheard of!!! but because the wounds were excessive, random, did not resemble surgical cuts AND there was damage to the surrounding organs.

I am not saying he was right in that, just pointing out that Patterson’s idea of the Virchow-approach stupefying Bond is wrong.

Well said Kattrup. About time someone called out this travesty.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock!
Those surgeons who disagree with me are among the old ones, who themselves had widely varying levels of competence in the surgical ward (it is telling that those who regularly operated like Brown and Phillips, were convinced the Ripper had considerable knowledge and skill) and among the modern doctors you have to search long and hard to find one who will say the Ripper was an amateur and those are mostly the contrarians for contrary´s sake.

Anyone with a bit of medical knowlege and even those without, looking at the reports can see that the Ripper was no hack. You simply cannot fake what he did under adverse circumstances. A person without the needed knowledge and skill cannot get the steps for a "coursebook 1888" like kidney extraction right, especially not in the dark and crouching/kneeling on the street.
That we still have this debate going on, shows very much the capacity of humans to deny what is pretty obvious to see when it does not fit their theories.
I personally think the Ripper added to his culpability and magnitude of guilt by using his talents for such evil! A person this fast and precise under pressure could have helped save many lifes in a hospital, instead he became a serial killer.

Nick Warren was a practicing very modern day surgeon who didn’t think that the ripper needed any great level of skill. There’s too much mystique placed on chopping out lumps of meat. As long as you know where that organ is and you have a knife.

[Richard Patterson]

Nick Warren was a practicing very modern day surgeon who didn’t think that the ripper needed any great level of skill. There’s too much mystique placed on chopping out lumps of meat. As long as you know where that organ is and you have a knife.

Herlock,

You’ve written a careful essay,

“Summing Up And Verdict. 05-24-2025, 09:18 PM“

on how little we can know: no certainty on age, no certainty on nationality, no certainty on local knowledge, no certainty on description, no certainty on employment. And you openly admit you have “no medical knowledge.”

Yet somehow, at the end of all that uncertainty and lack of medical grounding, you confidently assure everyone that you yourself could have done what the Ripper did: remove a kidney in the dark, crouching on a street.

Do you not hear the contradiction in your own words? When experienced 19th-century surgeons like Brown and Phillips insisted the Ripper had “considerable knowledge and skill,” you brush it aside. When modern forensic surgeons like Rupp analyze the mutilations and say they required trained anatomical precision, you dismiss them too. And then—without medical training—you elevate your own armchair guess to certainty.

That isn’t “following the evidence.” That’s replacing trained eyes with your own imagination.

If the Ripper “didn’t need any great level of skill,” then explain why the only men in 1888 who did possess the right skill—former medical students trained in anatomy and dissection, carrying scalpels, with experience on hundreds of cadavers—fit the murders so uncannily. You can’t both minimize the skill and ignore the suspects who demonstrably had it.

So which is it, Herlock? Do we trust surgeons who knew the work, or the claim of someone who admits no medical knowledge but says “as long as you know where the organ is and have a knife” you can do it?

Your verdict ends up damning itself: you tell us we know almost nothing, except that somehow you know enough to play surgeon in the dark.

[Fernglas]

You're granting here that there are some modern doctors don't think that The Ripper had surgical knowledge, but by labelling them as contrarians, you're saying that their views don't count.

Hi Lewis!
Yes, I do so, because for how "easy" it was for the Ripper in Mitre Square, if he would have been an amateur, just a guy with a knife and murder on his mind. Just imagine yourself for a moment in the Ripper´s place. You are at Mitre Square, it is dark, you cannot see much at all, Kati lies dying at your feet. You want her kidney badly, so you cut it out. BUT NOT simply cutting, slashing, hacking it out, no, you follow the steps of a 1888 coursebook kidney extraction, step by step. You even circumvent the navel, something not needed when working on a corpse, but drilled into surgeons of the living.
It is still dark, you have to kneel and you have to be fast, because Mitre Square has several access points from which someone could come in and more, a police beat runs through the place, so time is of essence to not get caught.
Do you really believe some random dude, who barely knows which way to hold a scalpell and could not tell a kidney from the liver (you know suppossed amateur), could get a near textbook kidney extraction right, not seeing much at all, kneeling on the floor and still fast enough to evade the police beat? I do not and I think in your heart of hearts you do not as well.

It would have been different if Kati looked like a bomb had gone off, the kidney cut out in any orgy of blood, gore and thrown out organs, that could have been the deed of anyone with adrenaline and a knife. But that is not what happened!
Once again, The Ripper made a near 1888 coursebook kidney extraction, in the dark, on his knees and under heavy time pressure.

[GBinOz]

Nick Warren was a practicing very modern day surgeon who didn’t think that the ripper needed any great level of skill. There’s too much mystique placed on chopping out lumps of meat. As long as you know where that organ is and you have a knife.

Hi Herlock,

Your previous reference included Prosector, who thought the opposite to the opinion you attribute to Nick Warren. Is there any reason that you have dropped the Prosector opinion?

If I paraphrase your above boldened statement to "There’s too much mystique placed on slapping some paint on a bit of canvas. As long as you know where that canvas is and you have some paint and a few brushes.". Your denigration of medical skills does not enhance your argument my friend.

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

Herlock,

You’ve written a careful essay,

“Summing Up And Verdict. 05-24-2025, 09:18 PM“

on how little we can know: no certainty on age, no certainty on nationality, no certainty on local knowledge, no certainty on description, no certainty on employment. And you openly admit you have “no medical knowledge.”

Yet somehow, at the end of all that uncertainty and lack of medical grounding, you confidently assure everyone that you yourself could have done what the Ripper did: remove a kidney in the dark, crouching on a street.

Do you not hear the contradiction in your own words? When experienced 19th-century surgeons like Brown and Phillips insisted the Ripper had “considerable knowledge and skill,” you brush it aside. When modern forensic surgeons like Rupp analyze the mutilations and say they required trained anatomical precision, you dismiss them too. And then—without medical training—you elevate your own armchair guess to certainty.

That isn’t “following the evidence.” That’s replacing trained eyes with your own imagination.

If the Ripper “didn’t need any great level of skill,” then explain why the only men in 1888 who did possess the right skill—former medical students trained in anatomy and dissection, carrying scalpels, with experience on hundreds of cadavers—fit the murders so uncannily. You can’t both minimize the skill and ignore the suspects who demonstrably had it.

So which is it, Herlock? Do we trust surgeons who knew the work, or the claim of someone who admits no medical knowledge but says “as long as you know where the organ is and have a knife” you can do it?

Your verdict ends up damning itself: you tell us we know almost nothing, except that somehow you know enough to play surgeon in the dark.

Good to see you call this out Richard . The blinkered approach to Medical skill / Knowledge in regards to the way in which organs were removed has been left to fester on these boards for way to long .

[Doctored Whatsit]

Good to see you call this out Richard . The blinkered approach to Medical skill / Knowledge in regards to the way in which organs were removed has been left to fester on these boards for way to long .

As far as I am aware, there is not one single reference to medical skill or medical knowledge in any post mortem report. This repeated claim is based on an allegation that every police surgeon was either incompetent, or they all conspired together to lie.

I do realise, of course, that I will now expect to get another lecture on Virchow and the incompetence of Bond etc, but none of us know how neatly and surgically the heart was removed, or whether it was performed roughly, for example. I believe that if it was performed with anything resembling surgical neatness and precision, Bond would have noticed.