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

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi again!

I have to disagree on the pointlessness, on the contrary I find our discussion fruitful. It allows us to hone our theories better and that is great! In your case for example you see the possibility that Sequeira and Bond talked rubbish for whatever reason, because the Ripper simply was not a random guy. In my case I might have partly too much counted on modern medical knowledge and procedures.
While I still find it more likely that the Ripper was a person who had learned his skills mostly on the medical track, after Klosowski, who is my prime suspect one, the other suspect I find highly likely to be the Ripper, my prime suspect two, is the butcher/slaughterer(!) Robert Sagar had a special interest in. Sagar had some solid medical knowledge himself and was regarded as a very talented investigator.

I am quite certain one of those two was the Ripper, since they are the only ones who fit several important criteria about Jack, had the needed medical/anatomical knowledge to be the Ripper and the series of "Ripperlike" murders ended forever when both (in the same timeframe) went away. Klosowski moved to America for a short time and Sagarīs suspect came into an asylum.

Hi, yet again,

I have no problem with the fact that we disagree, and the word "pointless" was used because we have such clear ideas of our own, and fresh information is extremely unlikely, so we are not expecting to change our minds.

I think that Sequiera was simply not sufficiently experienced for the value of his views to be compared with those of Brown and Phillips. Bond is a somewhat confusing character. Having been involved for the first time in the Ripper series with only the last in the canon, he expressed a view applying to all five, without having been present at the earlier four post mortems, and contadicted two very experienced police surgeons who had probably evidenced rather more knife deaths than he had. Then, in the Mylett case, he seemed to have confirmed the view that she had been garrotted, and then changed to the idea that the mark on the throat had been caused by the pressure from her jacket collar. I would rather ignore his opinions altogether than use them as part of my ammunition in a debate!

I don't have a suspect - as Conan Doyle wrote, "insufficient data"! But there is nothing wrong with having a suspect, and researching his known record, as long as it is done diligently, and honestly, genuinely recognising both the plus points and the minus points, and not stressing the former but concealing the latter, as some have done.
That last comment is a general one, and isn't aimed at this thread in particular.

[Fernglas]

Hi, yet again,

I have no problem with the fact that we disagree, and the word "pointless" was used because we have such clear ideas of our own, and fresh information is extremely unlikely, so we are not expecting to change our minds.

I think that Sequiera was simply not sufficiently experienced for the value of his views to be compared with those of Brown and Phillips. Bond is a somewhat confusing character. Having been involved for the first time in the Ripper series with only the last in the canon, he expressed a view applying to all five, without having been present at the earlier four post mortems, and contadicted two very experienced police surgeons who had probably evidenced rather more knife deaths than he had. Then, in the Mylett case, he seemed to have confirmed the view that she had been garrotted, and then changed to the idea that the mark on the throat had been caused by the pressure from her jacket collar. I would rather ignore his opinions altogether than use them as part of my ammunition in a debate!

I don't have a suspect - as Conan Doyle wrote, "insufficient data"! But there is nothing wrong with having a suspect, and researching his known record, as long as it is done diligently, and honestly, genuinely recognising both the plus points and the minus points, and not stressing the former but concealing the latter, as some have done.
That last comment is a general one, and isn't aimed at this thread in particular.

Hi again!
Great post by you, sad that you do not have a prime suspect would have been interesting to know, but that is your choice and I respect that. For me, Klosowski and Sagarīs suspect are the top suspects since they fit many critical criteria the Ripper must have possessed.

Take Klosowski for example
- proven serial killer (they are thankfully rare, so this alone is a special point among the main suspects)
- studied medicine and surgery in Warschau
- no possible Ripper murder predates his arrival in England, no possible Ripper murder after he went to America for a time. Also gaps like the one between the double event and MJK fit with e.g. family obligations of him and was long enough in Whitechapel to gain area knowledge, esp. if proactive
- had normal jobs (like the Ripper must have had)
- the Tabram murder site is literally a stonethrow away from his shop at the time
- misogyn, abusive sadist and murderer
- fits the general descriptions of the Ripper (e.g. not too tall) and Hutchinsonīs description fits him really well. Might be a story there.
- a Janusface. Could be charming and really nice if he wanted to, but was a violent sadist
- nearly killed one of his wifes with a knife in anger, only prevented by a customer coming in. Interesting in that he was not risk averse until the mid 1890s
- was known to be out until the morning hours e.g. on weekends
- lived in Whitechapel during the Ripperīs reign and until he went to America for a time (end of all possible murders), after coming back did not return to Whitechapel (but his poison murder series started)
- prime suspect of Abberline, one of the few capable contemporary investigators on the case
- very high sexual drive
- unlike the frailer Thompson would have been easier able to "handle" Stride on the night of the Double Event

[Herlock Sholmes]

Can I just re-post from Trevor’s post #50. He quotes the opinion of Dr. Michael Biggs who is a modern day forensic pathologist. Trevor had provided him with copies of the post mortem results from Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly:

"It’s interesting how, over the years, many different murders have produced comments along the lines of the perpetrator having “medical” or “anatomical” knowledge in order to perform the “dissection” that was undertaken – although in reality the dissection is usually little more than mutilation.

Once you open up a body, it is relatively easy to cut, pull and tear bits and pieces out – the tricky bit is getting through the skin. So it would be feasible for someone without specific, pre-existing knowledge or skill to whip away certain trophies during the process of mutilation, and I wouldn’t deduce that the person had anatomical or medical knowledge, simply because there are missing bits. In fact, I would really only be suspecting anatomical/medical / surgical proficiency if everything were neat and tidy.”

and,

”The Virchow “method” isn’t really a specific technique for removing the heart in particular, but it refers more generally to the principle of removing organs one-by-one for individual examination. My preference for most cases is to remove all the organs together as a single “block”, and then place them onto a dissection bench for systematic examination. However, in certain cases (e.g. stabbings) I will adopt the one-organ-at-a-time (Virchow) approach, as this makes it easier to follow stab wound tracks through the body (whereas removing them all together distorts measurements and makes it easier to lose track).

Getting back to the reports you sent, where it says things like, “…the Pericardium was open below & the Heart absent…” this is what you might expect if the heart has been removed on its own (i.e. the “Virchow” method). For better access and to allow us to see the various vascular attachments, we tend to open the pericardium (fibrous sac enclosing the heart) using an inverted T-shape incision, so if the pericardium really was just “open below” then that implies that someone either didn’t know (or care) what they were doing, or didn’t have time to do it “properly”. So it goes against the person having anatomical skill/knowledge... but only very slightly…”