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

[FISHY1118]

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.

Why do we have to go round and round this topic again . The Inquest/s interviews where Drs were concerned were quite sufficient enough evidence when it came to Medical skill and knowledge .

[The Rookie Detective]

The question is...

Could a man with no anatomical knowledge, no surgical skill, and no skill with a knife... have been able to do what they did to the likes of... Eddowes, Chapman and Kelly?


Cutting Stride's throat and almost severing her head with one cut doesn't require any of the above, just brute strength and power.

Stabbing Tabram 39 times only requires a frenzied and ferocious attack, that could have been committed by a teenager.

Nichols and McKenzie needed some basic skill with a knife, but again could have been committed by anyone with a penchant for cutting.

But, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly?


It's not the cutting that required any knowledge or understanding, but the organ extraction under certain restrictive parameters, required someone with at the very least, an understanding of what they were doing.


Chapman is the key, because she was killed before Eddowes and Kelly.


Did the man who mutilated Chapman display any surgical skill, or anatomical knowledge?

Anyone with an evil streak has the capacity to cut someone open with a sharp knife, so the actual cutting isn't the point; it's what the killer did AFTER he had opened his victims torsos up.

Could someone with no surgical skill, but skill with a knife; ergo, used to cutting things up, have been able to extract organs in the manner that they did with Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly?

If the murders were all committed in the manner in which Tabram was murdered, then anyone with a penchant for stabbing women could have been the killer.

But Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly's deceased bodies give us literally and physical evidence that then provides us with the clues that we need to narrow down the suspect field quite considerably.

The moment that the Ripper chose to take out organs from Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly, he was telling the world... "look at what I can do."

He displayed his victims in a manner that was designed to show off his abilities as a murderer of innocent women.
He took the organs out as part of his signature...his keepsake...his trophy.

And likely consumed them afterwards.

Could the likes of Maybrick, Kosminski, Lechmere or Druitt have literally done to the victims what the Ripper actually did?

When compared to Klosowski, Thompson, Deeming and Levy... I think not.

Even Dr Barnardo, who had surgical and anatomical knowledge, demanded he was addressed as "Dr" (despite not being one initially) had a temper (assaulted a woman) was narcissistic, abducted children from their destitute unfortunate mothers and had spoken to Stride a few days before she was murdered, should be more of a suspect than the likes of Lechmere, Kosminski, Maybrick etc...


Thompson fits a lot of the criteria for having been the Ripper.

However, his "slight" frame and physically submissive appearance is something that for me at least rules him out as the killer of Stride.

He lacked the physical attributes of a dominant powerful killer, that would have been required for a strangulation technique and method of subduing each of the victims.

Ultimately, a killer who chooses to remove any organs from a victim and by doing so then displays even an ounce of skill or technique, should be evidence enough to warrant favoring a suspect with a history of using a knife in a professional capacity.

Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly weren't just evicerated by a killer in a frenzy who happened to know how to use a knife.
There were deliberate methods incorporated into at least 3 of the murders, and despite there having been restrictive time parameters, the Ripper chose to do it anyway.

The Ripper wasn't just killing women for the sake of it.

The Ripper was using his skills to show off his work and no doubt revelled in his deliberate displaying of his victims.

Like a proud child showing his teacher; his old boss, just how clever a boy he was.

The one thing that must have really annoyed the Ripper; the Coroner at MJK's inquest choosing to close it down within just a few hours; done and dusted in the same day.

By doing so, the Coroner took away the Ripper's biggest weapon; publicity for his work.

The timing of the enigmatic and elusive Hutchinson who then comes forward after the inquest had closed so abruptly, is perhaps rather poignant.

An effort to throw petrol onto the fire from the killer, or a genuine witness who saw the killer?

Well considering nobody can find him, I'd say Hutchinson was possibly a disgruntled killer who wasn't willing to have his efforts washed away so quickly by the coroner having put out the publicity fire that the killer so craved.

[Richard Patterson]

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 .

Thanks, I’ve always seen how the denigration of the Ripper being known to exhibit medical skill goes hand in hand with surgically unskilled suspects that the researcher is keen to promote.

[Fernglas]

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.

Hi Doctored Whatsit!
Sorry to single you out here, my response is also meant to others like e.g. Herlock, who have this, let´s say, non-chalant approach to the medical evidence and how much ability is suppossed to real amateurs in a difficult field of knowledge. I am interested in the Ripper case for many years and from early on it struck me, maybe because I am not located in Britain, having some distance, how many Ripperlogists simply assume that a medical amateur could have done all this, based on whatever opinion. For me as a Non-British, the renomee and name of the doctors is "sound and smoke", as we say here, meaning I go by their writings/dictates more than by their name.

And I can raise your awareness on the reports just so, by telling you that there are references to medical knowledge in the post mortem reports. For the time they made the reports, Doctors Brown and Phillips produced really nice ones. Clear, rather encompassing for the era and you can logically deduce some stuff they did not spell out but inferrenced. And some things they talked about directly. This is from Doctor Brown´s post mortem report on Kati Eddowes.
"I believe the perpetrator of the act must have had considerable knowledge of the position of the organs in the abdominal cavity and the way of removing them. It required a great deal of medical knowledge to have removed the kidney and to know where it was placed. The parts removed would be of no use for any professional purpose."

For Doctor Bond, I give him the benefit of being shocked by the Ripper´s "magnum opus", where Jack applied all the hate and evil in him, because he had time. Bond´s own report belies his opinion of the Ripper having no skill. I believe Doctor Bond recognised the skill of the Ripper even in the Kelly case, but wanted to deny to himself that a possible collegue was responsible for such a horror.
Until his death he maintained that the Ripper possessed no medical skils, even when he himself described a pericardium fenestration in his report. I say that is willful denial to himself about the Ripper´s skill set. Believe me, an amateur with "no medical skills and knowledge at all" could never have produced Mitre Square or done a pericardium fenestration in Miller´s Court.
Especially in 1888 where medical/anatomical kowledge and skill was even more rare than today. No amateur of any age si able to do a near late 19th century textbook kidney extraction in the dark, on his knees under time pressure. No amateur will do a pericardium fenestration to remove the heart, if he could just cut it out in one go.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Why do we have to go round and round this topic again . The Inquest/s interviews where Drs were concerned were quite sufficient enough evidence when it came to Medical skill and knowledge .

That medical knowledge or expertise was never recorded is a fact. That it was exhibited nevertheless is an assumption.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi Doctored Whatsit!
Sorry to single you out here, my response is also meant to others like e.g. Herlock, who have this, let´s say, non-chalant approach to the medical evidence and how much ability is suppossed to real amateurs in a difficult field of knowledge. I am interested in the Ripper case for many years and from early on it struck me, maybe because I am not located in Britain, having some distance, how many Ripperlogists simply assume that a medical amateur could have done all this, based on whatever opinion. For me as a Non-British, the renomee and name of the doctors is "sound and smoke", as we say here, meaning I go by their writings/dictates more than by their name.

And I can raise your awareness on the reports just so, by telling you that there are references to medical knowledge in the post mortem reports. For the time they made the reports, Doctors Brown and Phillips produced really nice ones. Clear, rather encompassing for the era and you can logically deduce some stuff they did not spell out but inferrenced. And some things they talked about directly. This is from Doctor Brown´s post mortem report on Kati Eddowes.
"I believe the perpetrator of the act must have had considerable knowledge of the position of the organs in the abdominal cavity and the way of removing them. It required a great deal of medical knowledge to have removed the kidney and to know where it was placed. The parts removed would be of no use for any professional purpose."

For Doctor Bond, I give him the benefit of being shocked by the Ripper´s "magnum opus", where Jack applied all the hate and evil in him, because he had time. Bond´s own report belies his opinion of the Ripper having no skill. I believe Doctor Bond recognised the skill of the Ripper even in the Kelly case, but wanted to deny to himself that a possible collegue was responsible for such a horror.
Until his death he maintained that the Ripper possessed no medical skils, even when he himself described a pericardium fenestration in his report. I say that is willful denial to himself about the Ripper´s skill set. Believe me, an amateur with "no medical skills and knowledge at all" could never have produced Mitre Square or done a pericardium fenestration in Miller´s Court.
Especially in 1888 where medical/anatomical kowledge and skill was even more rare than today. No amateur of any age si able to do a near late 19th century textbook kidney extraction in the dark, on his knees under time pressure. No amateur will do a pericardium fenestration to remove the heart, if he could just cut it out in one go.

Perhaps you should have finished the Brown quote - "Such a knowledge might be possessed by someone in the habit of cutting up animals." Brown was not totally certain of the range of skills possessed by an experienced slaughterman, but he recognised the potential. This comment removed any suggestion that it had to have been performed by a trained medical man - that it could have been, I accept.

Much has been said about the removal of Kelly's heart. That it was done from below was not significant, it was unavoidable. Access from below was all that could have been done. There is nothing known which suggests it was done neatly or surgically.

In a letter which I have quoted several times, an experienced butcher/slaughterer made it clear that in his opinion nothing had been done to any of the victims that a fellow slaughterer couldn't do almost in the dark. Experienced slaughterers would also have been much quicker than surgeons, and the speed of JtR's mutilations is an extremely crucial factor to always be considered.

I, and many others, are not wholly convinced that Kelly was a victim of JtR.

[Doctored Whatsit]

That medical knowledge or expertise was never recorded is a fact. That it was exhibited nevertheless is an assumption.

My rewording of this entry has mysteriously disappeared.

It should have read something like - Knowledge or expertise that could only have been that of trained medical men, was never recorded as a fact. That it was exhibited nevertheless is an assumption.

[The Rookie Detective]

That medical knowledge or expertise was never recorded is a fact. That it was exhibited nevertheless is an assumption.

There was either medical and surgical knowledge, or there wasn't.

It's a binary answer.

If medical or surgical knowledge was never recorded as fact, that leaves only one answer; that the Ripper had no knowledge or expertise in the medical/clinical/surgical world.

Which is impressive since the Ripper managed to extract various organs from multiple victims, within a relatively tight time frame, in the dark, in the wet, and with a high probability of being either seen or heard due to exposure out in the open.

It's like giving a random homeless guy a large sharp knife, qnd telling him to go and approach a woman, overpower her, subdue her, strangle her, drag down to the floor, cut her throat, wait for her to bleed out, cut open her torso, and then ask him to extract a random organ....all within a few minutes and without being able to see much, and telling him there's a policeman coming around his beat shortly.
Oh and he has to do it all silently without drawing attention.
No pressure.

... and then the guy manages all of this sucessfully without having ever done it any of it before.

If the Ripper had no anatomical knowledge, surgical skill or ability to use a knife proficiently, then he is the luckiest killer on the planet for managing to achieve what he did.


Or...


He didn't feel the pressure because he knew what he was doing.

He knew how to use a knife, he knew how to cut, he had some idea and where to find what he wanted, and he had some idea of how to get it.


What's more likely?

NO knowledge, understanding or expertise, meaning he just got lucky to inflict the wounds he did.

Or a killer who had the confidence to do what he wanted, to cut, evicareate and take what he wanted, and to get away unseen and unheard, because it was all familiar to him?


It doesn't have to be officially recorded to be true, it just takes a bit of common sense and courage to look at exactly the killer did literally to those poor women.

And to realise that chasing suspects that had no knowledge, understanding, skill or capability to commit those murders, is a fruitless exercise.


The Ripper left the evidence upon the bodies that he obliterated.

Bodies of evidence


Quite literally.


The Ripper had at least some idea what he was doing when he chose to cut those women open.


Or else, he wasn't even human.

[Fernglas]

Perhaps you should have finished the Brown quote - "Such a knowledge might be possessed by someone in the habit of cutting up animals." Brown was not totally certain of the range of skills possessed by an experienced slaughterman, but he recognised the potential. This comment removed any suggestion that it had to have been performed by a trained medical man - that it could have been, I accept.

Much has been said about the removal of Kelly's heart. That it was done from below was not significant, it was unavoidable. Access from below was all that could have been done. There is nothing known which suggests it was done neatly or surgically.

In a letter which I have quoted several times, an experienced butcher/slaughterer made it clear that in his opinion nothing had been done to any of the victims that a fellow slaughterer couldn't do almost in the dark. Experienced slaughterers would also have been much quicker than surgeons, and the speed of JtR's mutilations is an extremely crucial factor to always be considered.

I, and many others, are not wholly convinced that Kelly was a victim of JtR.

Hi again!
Suddenly you do know medical inferrences in the post mortem reports. The thing is even an experienced butcher has skills which denies the often thrown around words "the Ripper was an amateur". And more, the experienced(!) butcher/slaughterer is also a job description in very short supply among the prime suspects. Brown hedged in his report less than others did. Post mortem doctors back then had far less "toys" to use than today, so they had to give some more leeway in their reports.

But Brown´s main point in his report on Mitre Square is defintely that he is more convinced of the Ripper having considerable anatomical/medical konwledge and skill. An experienced butcher/slaughterer is possible, but less so, "might be possessed".
That is far more in the conjunctive than "I believe the perpetrator of the act must have had considerable knowledge of the position of the organs in the abdominal cavity and the way of removing them. It required a great deal of medical knowledge to have removed the kidney and to know where it was placed."
The good doctor sounds vey much to me like that a few rare(!) butchers/slaughterer might, just might, possess comparable knowledge, but that it is far more likely that direct medical/anatomical knowledge and skill was there from the start.

As for the heart extraction you miss the point here. The Ripper could have cut out the heart from below by cutting it out still sheated in the pericardium. For an amateur this would have been the easier way! But the Ripper did not do it the easy way, just like he did not go the easy way at Mitre Square, he opened up the pericardium, carefully taking/cutting/pulling the heart out of it´s place, because taking the heart this way means fiddling it out like in a surgery where the heart will be put back where it belongs.
Tell me why? He could have simply cut the pericardium holdings and arteries and taken out the heart together with the pericardium around it. He already made a horror show with Kelly, no need to showboat that he can extract the heart like a doctor would. It is telling that Bond simply states the pericardium was cut open from below, hoping and succeeding in many cases it will fly over their heads that a heart extraction done with a pericardium fenestration is a lot more difficult than simply cutting it out complete with the pericardium still around it.
I will not tell my life story on the net, so just let me say that I know how to read reports and between their lines and have a humble small bit of knowledge of medical stuff. Bond obfuscates like it goes out of fashion in his report. He went on and on on the mutilations done, but when it comes to the "meat" of the report he goes on quickly. Just one sentence on the heart extraction, where it was clearly done via a pericardium fenestration, something no amateur will ever do, is either complete incompetence (which I do not believe he was) or a willful fogging up of the situation.

Btw. I have a theory on Kelly (or whoever the person was since we will never be able to say for sure it was her) being "wetwork" done by the Ripper. A win win for him.

[Kattrup]

As Virchow is so heavily invoked in this thread, I thought it interesting to include this part of his treatise on postmortems:

For all ordinary purposes of pathological dissection I now grasp the handle of the knife in the palm of my hand, so that when I stretch out my arm the blade appears as a direct prolongation.

I fix then, relatively, if not absolutely, the joints of the fingers and hand, and making the cutting movements with the entire arm, so that the principal movements occur in the shoulder joint, the secondary ones in the elbow joint.

In this way I am able to make long and useful incisions, and smooth ones as well, for I can utilize the whole force of the arm, and especially of the muscles about the shoulder ; and it is only on surfaces produced by such incisions as these that we are able to see anything really satisfactory.

After I had got so far, I then perceived that in many roundabout ways I had reached the point
which our predecessors in dissection, the butchers, had so long ago attained.

I was not a little astonished when, one day, not very long ago, I went into a slaughter house and watched the men at their work.

I then learned something else, which I have since brought into practice, viz : that the knife should be wider and longer than that commonly used.