The name's Bond

[Wickerman]

As I noted in my reply to Ben, Annie Chapman's intestines were removed, a procedure that would have been totally unnecessary in order to access the uterus:.......

Hi John.
So is it possible we have all missed something here?
Hasn't it been observed elsewhere that with Eddowes the removal of the intestines was to access the kidney?
If this is true, or even merely likely, then was this the reason Chapman's intestines were thrown aside, he intended to take the kidney, but for some reason was unable to?

[John G]

Hi John.
So is it possible we have all missed something here?
Hasn't it been observed elsewhere that with Eddowes the removal of the intestines was to access the kidney?
If this is true, or even merely likely, then was this the reason Chapman's intestines were thrown aside, he intended to take the kidney, but for some reason was unable to?

Hi Wickerman ,

That's an interesting observation which I hadn't considered. I don't know whether removing the intestines would make it easier to access the kidney, but it's clearly a point worth considering and, as you suggest, it would presumably help to explain why Chapman's intestines were removed.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Michael,

As I noted in my reply to Ben, Annie Chapman's intestines were removed, a procedure that would have been totally unnecessary in order to access the uterus: see, for example, the opinion of Dr Calder (Marriott, 2015.) Therefore, I cannot see how it can be reasonably concluded that "everything the killer did in terms of cutting was to facilitate removal of the organ he eventually took."

Dr Phillips expressed no opinion as to the specific profession of the perpetrator, therefore I don't see how a medical student can be ruled out; and Dr Brown seemed to think that Eddowes killer was possibly a medical student. And, interestingly, Dr Calder concluded that Eddowes killer, "would not only to have knowledge of anatomy, but experience in applying it" (Marriott, 2015).

I don't care what a Dr Calder said, but Dr Phillips said "I think I can guide you by saying that I myself could not have performed all the injuries I saw on that woman, and effect them, even without a struggle, under a quarter of an hour. If I had done it in a deliberate way, such as would fall to the duties of a surgeon, it would probably have taken me the best part of an hour. The whole inference seems to me that the operation was performed to enable the perpetrator to obtain possession of these parts of the body. "

As far as Eddowes injuries, Sequeira 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", and Brown said that his skill level was that of someone who cuts up animals.

There is a marked difference in how Chapmans killers skill and Eddowes killers skills were interpreted.

I think its reasonable to state that no murder after Chapmans created the impression that the killer was a skilled medical practitioner, and that is supported by the fact that only in September did they target or seek out that type of individual.

[John G]

I don't care what a Dr Calder said, but Dr Phillips said "I think I can guide you by saying that I myself could not have performed all the injuries I saw on that woman, and effect them, even without a struggle, under a quarter of an hour. If I had done it in a deliberate way, such as would fall to the duties of a surgeon, it would probably have taken me the best part of an hour. The whole inference seems to me that the operation was performed to enable the perpetrator to obtain possession of these parts of the body. "

As far as Eddowes injuries, Sequeira 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", and Brown said that his skill level was that of someone who cuts up animals.

There is a marked difference in how Chapmans killers skill and Eddowes killers skills were interpreted.

I think its reasonable to state that no murder after Chapmans created the impression that the killer was a skilled medical practitioner, and that is supported by the fact that only in September did they target or seek out that type of individual.

When did Dr Phillips say that Chapman's killer was "a skilled medical practitioner"? And why should his opinion necessarily be given priority over other medical professionals who have commented on these cases? Why were Chapman's intestines removed if "the operation was performed to enable the perpetrator to obtain possession of these parts of the body"? And, in any event, how could he possibly know what the perpetrators intentions were? He was never caught so such observations can only be speculative. I would also point out that Dr Phillips was a Victorian GP, not a modern forensics expert. As for Dr Calder, who is a modern expert, he concluded that it was doubtful that her organs were removed at the crime scene, given the apparent level of skill demonstrated,which supports Trevor Marriott's arguments.

As for Dr Brown, as I've noted before he seemed to ultimately conclude that Eddowes killer was probably a medical student, or someone who had been a medical student.

[Michael W Richards]

When did Dr Phillips say that Chapman's killer was "a skilled medical practitioner"? And why should his opinion necessarily be given priority over other medical professionals who have commented on these cases? Why were Chapman's intestines removed if "the operation was performed to enable the perpetrator to obtain possession of these parts of the body"? And, in any event, how could he possibly know what the perpetrators intentions were? He was never caught so such observations can only be speculative. I would also point out that Dr Phillips was a Victorian GP, not a modern forensics expert. As for Dr Calder, who is a modern expert, he concluded that it was doubtful that her organs were removed at the crime scene, given the apparent level of skill demonstrated,which supports Trevor Marriott's arguments.

As for Dr Brown, as I've noted before he seemed to ultimately conclude that Eddowes killer was probably a medical student, or someone who had been a medical student.

I did quote you what Brown said about Eddowes, " someone who cuts up animals", but why in hell would I defer to an opinion of someone who never saw the deceased or the wounds? Phillips said that even he would have a tough time doing all that was done in half an hour, and he did say the killer had anatomical knowledge despite the fact that he obviously worked quickly. Wynne Baxter said "His anatomical skill carries him out of the category of a common criminal, for his knowledge could only have been obtained by assisting at post-mortems, or by frequenting the post-mortem room. Thus the class in which search must be made, although a large one, is limited."

I dismiss Bonds contention that none of the victims showed that the killer had anatomical knowledge and knife skills since he saw only Mary Kelly in death. In my opinion he was capable of making that observation for only Canonical victims he himself had examined, which is Kelly, so why would I entertain an opinion from someone 100 plus years after the fact with only the same notes we have to review?

[John G]

I did quote you what Brown said about Eddowes, " someone who cuts up animals", but why in hell would I defer to an opinion of someone who never saw the deceased or the wounds? Phillips said that even he would have a tough time doing all that was done in half an hour, and he did say the killer had anatomical knowledge despite the fact that he obviously worked quickly. Wynne Baxter said "His anatomical skill carries him out of the category of a common criminal, for his knowledge could only have been obtained by assisting at post-mortems, or by frequenting the post-mortem room. Thus the class in which search must be made, although a large one, is limited."

I dismiss Bonds contention that none of the victims showed that the killer had anatomical knowledge and knife skills since he saw only Mary Kelly in death. In my opinion he was capable of making that observation for only Canonical victims he himself had examined, which is Kelly, so why would I entertain an opinion from someone 100 plus years after the fact with only the same notes we have to review?

And why would you necessarily, and unquestionably, accept the opinions of 19th C GPs? Do you seriously believe that forensic science hadn't moved on since 1888? And Dr Phillips said that it would have taken him around a quarter of an hour to perform the injuries he saw.

Regarding Eddowes, please refer back to my post 154. Dr Brown appears to have subsequently concluded that Eddowes killer was, or had been, a medical student, as well as a butcher. And Report of Chief Inspector Donald Swanson, 6 November 1888, which refers to Dr Phillips and Dr Brown, doesn't rule out the killer being "A student in surgery or a properly qualified surgeon"! Therefore, clearly no occupation was being ruled out.

[Michael W Richards]

And why would you necessarily, and unquestionably, accept the opinions of 19th C GPs? Do you seriously believe that forensic science hadn't moved on since 1888? And Dr Phillips said that it would have taken him around a quarter of an hour to perform the injuries he saw.

Regarding Eddowes, please refer back to my post 154. Dr Brown appears to have subsequently concluded that Eddowes killer was, or had been, a medical student, as well as a butcher. And Report of Chief Inspector Donald Swanson, 6 November 1888, which refers to Dr Phillips and Dr Brown, doesn't rule out the killer being "A student in surgery or a properly qualified surgeon"! Therefore, clearly no occupation was being ruled out.

Phillips said he could not "have performed all the injuries I saw on that woman, and effect them, even without a struggle, under a quarter of an hour". He also said " If I had done it in a deliberate way, such as would fall to the duties of a surgeon, it would probably have taken me the best part of an hour". Since we have evidence the killer did not have over an hour with the body, and since Phillips still was impressed with the skill shown, seems to extrapolate to someone with equal or better knife skills than Phillips himself.

As to "forensic science", just what is being examined by these modern medicos... scientifically...published reports? The same reports everyone has? I would never dismiss a professional opinion that was based on first hand observation over 1 that is formed by reading someones summary. Unless of course you have a reason for assuming Phillips wasn't perfectly capable of judging the wounds?

[John G]

Phillips said he could not "have performed all the injuries I saw on that woman, and effect them, even without a struggle, under a quarter of an hour". He also said " If I had done it in a deliberate way, such as would fall to the duties of a surgeon, it would probably have taken me the best part of an hour". Since we have evidence the killer did not have over an hour with the body, and since Phillips still was impressed with the skill shown, seems to extrapolate to someone with equal or better knife skills than Phillips himself.

As to "forensic science", just what is being examined by these modern medicos... scientifically...published reports? The same reports everyone has? I would never dismiss a professional opinion that was based on first hand observation over 1 that is formed by reading someones summary. Unless of course you have a reason for assuming Phillips wasn't perfectly capable of judging the wounds?

But it seems to me that if it's to be suggested that the perpetrator was a medical professional, rather than say a medical student or even a butcher, you end up in a catch-22 situation. Thus, how would he have had enough time to carry out the procedure, exercising the level of care and skill you would expect of, say, a surgeon? In fact this is something you allude to yourself,with Dr Phillips's comment that it would have taken him the best part of an hour if done in a "deliberate way". And that, presumably, doesn't even taken into account the poor lighting conditions the perpetrator had to work with.

This was therefore, Dr Calder's point, leading to a conclusion that the uterus must have been removed elsewhere, I.e. the mortuary. However, I would refer back to my earlier point:If the perpetrator was a medical professional, whose primary intention was to remove the uterus, then why were the victims intestines removed? Because even a butcher would know that it is unnecessary to remove the intestines in order to access the uterus.

[Michael W Richards]

But it seems to me that if it's to be suggested that the perpetrator was a medical professional, rather than say a medical student or even a butcher, you end up in a catch-22 situation. Thus, how would he have had enough time to carry out the procedure, exercising the level of care and skill you would expect of, say, a surgeon? In fact this is something you allude to yourself,with Dr Phillips's comment that it would have taken him the best part of an hour if done in a "deliberate way". And that, presumably, doesn't even taken into account the poor lighting conditions the perpetrator had to work with.

This was therefore, Dr Calder's point, leading to a conclusion that the uterus must have been removed elsewhere, I.e. the mortuary. However, I would refer back to my earlier point:If the perpetrator was a medical professional, whose primary intention was to remove the uterus, then why were the victims intestines removed? Because even a butcher would know that it is unnecessary to remove the intestines in order to access the uterus.

The small intestines were removed and placed over the shoulder, and the reside in the lower abdomen just as the uterus does. Ive been reviewing abdominal removal of the uterus in some medical journals and it seems to me that may have been simply a matter of clearing the field.

Heres the thought...if you gave a professional archer a single arrow to make a bulls eye with from 200 yds away, without time constraints, he would likely accomplish that with some ease. Now ask him to hit the bullseye with just 3 seconds to sight and launch the arrow. With luck he might hit it, but in practical terms he would likely be unable to be as accurate without taking the time he customarily would get to be still, get the target in his sights, and then release the arrow. He would have a process that through trial and error was most effective for him/her, and the disruption in that process would lead to less than "professional" results.

I think that's what Phillips was saying.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

Quite simply because of the dozens, possibly scores, of other witnesses who identified suspicious people to the police, none could claim to have seen anything incriminating.

Exactly, so it makes precious little sense, then, to argue that the witnesses who didn't see "anything incriminating" are more likely to have seen the real murderer than those who were considered by the police to have witnessed something very incriminating.

The other factor in calling on Lawende in later years is very likely that he was the only witness who's whereabouts was known.

Very unlikely, Jon, unless Anderson was a big fat liar when he described his Jewish witness, popularly assumed to be Lawende, as "the only person who ever had a good view of the murderer". If you're suggesting that his convictions with regard to the identity of the most notorious criminal in history rested entirely on an identification provided by "the only person we weren't clumsy and stupid enough to lose track of", then there is no more vociferous critic of Anderson than you!

Time and proximity are commonly used as persuasive factors in including Stride in the canon, more the result of emotion than the application of medical experience.

Still not sure what you're getting at here.

If time and proximity are considered by some to be "persuasive factors in including Stride in the canon", that would amount to a basic assessment of the evidence rather than "emotional" outpouring, surely? We have no idea if Bond factored either of these things into his overall judgment, although the likelihood is that he restricted himself to the medical evidence.

So resistance was noted, and resistance is "struggle", so Bond was in error.

No, he wasn't.

Bond was obviously defining a "struggle" as a physical altercation as opposed to measures taken - in this case strangulation - to ensure the prevention of such an altercation. What else could he possibly have meant - that the women willingly permitted the cutting of their throats?

Regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi JohnG,

At the very least, the degree of care taken suggests that the perpetrator had significantly more skill than, say, a butcher or slaughterman.

But Dr. Bond said precisely the opposite - that the perpetrator did not even possess the knowledge of a butcher. There can be no doubt that Phillip's oft-quoted opinion that the killer "had such knowledge of anatomical or pathological examinations as to be enabled to secure the pelvic organs with one sweep of the knife..." cannot possibly be correct, since two cuts are obviously required to liberate the pelvic organs from the body, and almost certainly not as the result of a single "sweeping" motion. The top cut evinced no expertise at all, merely hacking through the bladder, and I’ve addressed the lower cut in an earlier post half-expecting to be told I’m mistaken, although that hasn’t happened yet. I don’t know if Dr. Calder took the misleading “one sweep of the knife” comment at face value, but it simply isn’t true that "the pelvic organs appear to have been removed skilfully without damage to adjacent tissues.”. The pelvic organs are very much “adjacent” to the bladder, and the latter was very much damaged.

And what adds to the confusion is that Dr Phillips stated at the inquest that, "the whole inference seems to me that the operation was performed to enable the perpetrator to obtain possession of these body parts."

But if that was the case then why remove Chapman's intestines?

Exactly, and why attempt - and fail - to remove Chapman's head if his sole purpose was to “obtain possession of body parts”?

Another fallacy that does the rounds occasionally is that Bond’s conclusions on the other victims are somehow invalid because he only saw “notes”. It is possibly overlooked that Phillips would have written clear and accurate descriptions of the injuries inflicted on the women, as befitting his experience and ability. Any insistence, therefore, that the conclusions derived from these are faulty is as much a criticism of Phillips’ ability to convey his findings in written format as it is of Bond’s medical ability.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Hi JohnG,



But Dr. Bond said precisely the opposite - that the perpetrator did not even possess the knowledge of a butcher. There can be no doubt that Phillip's oft-quoted opinion that the killer "had such knowledge of anatomical or pathological examinations as to be enabled to secure the pelvic organs with one sweep of the knife..." cannot possibly be correct, since two cuts are obviously required to liberate the pelvic organs from the body, and almost certainly not as the result of a single "sweeping" motion. The top cut evinced no expertise at all, merely hacking through the bladder, and I’ve addressed the lower cut in an earlier post half-expecting to be told I’m mistaken, although that hasn’t happened yet. I don’t know if Dr. Calder took the misleading “one sweep of the knife” comment at face value, but it simply isn’t true that "the pelvic organs appear to have been removed skilfully without damage to adjacent tissues.”. The pelvic organs are very much “adjacent” to the bladder, and the latter was very much damaged.




Exactly, and why attempt - and fail - to remove Chapman's head if his sole purpose was to “obtain possession of body parts”?

Another fallacy that does the rounds occasionally is that Bond’s conclusions on the other victims are somehow invalid because he only saw “notes”. It is possibly overlooked that Phillips would have written clear and accurate descriptions of the injuries inflicted on the women, as befitting his experience and ability. Any insistence, therefore, that the conclusions derived from these are faulty is as much a criticism of Phillips’ ability to convey his findings in written format as it is of Bond’s medical ability.

All the best,
Ben

Hi Ben!

I will not go into any debate with you - I avoid it nowadays. I will make one point and one point only, and then I will leave you to it.

Have you noticed how you first dissed Phillips´ judgment and professionalism by pointing out how he would have been totally wrong about the procuring of the pelvic organs with one sweep of the knife (the amateur!), only to then move on to telling us how the exact same medico would have provided Bond with an exact, skilled and truly professional report: "clear and accurate" as you eloquently put it.

Now, I have lost interest of this as of now, but maybe you owe John G an explanation as to why we should diss a medico one second and invest in him in the next...?

[John G]

Hi JohnG,



But Dr. Bond said precisely the opposite - that the perpetrator did not even possess the knowledge of a butcher. There can be no doubt that Phillip's oft-quoted opinion that the killer "had such knowledge of anatomical or pathological examinations as to be enabled to secure the pelvic organs with one sweep of the knife..." cannot possibly be correct, since two cuts are obviously required to liberate the pelvic organs from the body, and almost certainly not as the result of a single "sweeping" motion. The top cut evinced no expertise at all, merely hacking through the bladder, and I’ve addressed the lower cut in an earlier post half-expecting to be told I’m mistaken, although that hasn’t happened yet. I don’t know if Dr. Calder took the misleading “one sweep of the knife” comment at face value, but it simply isn’t true that "the pelvic organs appear to have been removed skilfully without damage to adjacent tissues.”. The pelvic organs are very much “adjacent” to the bladder, and the latter was very much damaged.




Exactly, and why attempt - and fail - to remove Chapman's head if his sole purpose was to “obtain possession of body parts”?

Another fallacy that does the rounds occasionally is that Bond’s conclusions on the other victims are somehow invalid because he only saw “notes”. It is possibly overlooked that Phillips would have written clear and accurate descriptions of the injuries inflicted on the women, as befitting his experience and ability. Any insistence, therefore, that the conclusions derived from these are faulty is as much a criticism of Phillips’ ability to convey his findings in written format as it is of Bond’s medical ability.

All the best,
Ben

Hello Ben,

Philip Harrison, who assisted Dr Calder, made this interesting observation about the Chapman evisceration:

"To remove the appendages, the uterus, the fallopian tubes, and ovaries in one frenzied attack and one slice of the blade would be almost impossible. It is a very difficult and skilled undertaking to remove there organs carefully even by today's methods, especially as the comment is that they were cleanly cut and the cut missed the rectum." (Marriott, 2013). In fact, Dr Calder concluded that the organs could not have been removed at the crime scene, in these circumstances, which accords with Trevor's theory.

However, I wonder if there may be an issue of misinterpretation of the surviving medical reports. For instance Dr Biggs, a forensic pathologist consulted by Trevor, takes a contrary view, and although he doesn't comment in any detail about Chapman, he does opine that, in respect of Eddowes' reports, "much of the description is vague and potentially ambiguous" (Marriott, 2013.)

[Michael W Richards]

Hi JohnG,






1. Exactly, and why attempt - and fail - to remove Chapman's head if his sole purpose was to “obtain possession of body parts”?

2.Another fallacy that does the rounds occasionally is that Bond’s conclusions on the other victims are somehow invalid because he only saw “notes”. It is possibly overlooked that Phillips would have written clear and accurate descriptions of the injuries inflicted on the women, as befitting his experience and ability. Any insistence, therefore, that the conclusions derived from these are faulty is as much a criticism of Phillips’ ability to convey his findings in written format as it is of Bond’s medical ability.
All the best,
Ben

Hi Ben,

On the above I differ with your conclusions;

On the first point, who says that the nicks automatically convey the message that the killer attempted to remove the head, they could be a result of very forceful cuts that were intended to sever both arteries for certain. Conversely, who is to say that someone wanting organs might not also want a head?

On point 2, there is no way, in my opinion of course, that mere notes are adequate replacement for first hand, hands on review. Philips saw 4 Canonicals, and as such, is the best source for comparative analysis.

Bonds confused comments concerning his original review of those same notes, while assessing the comparison with Alice McKenzies wounds, is enough to put his opinion in question.

[SirJohnFalstaff]

One question

Are there any documents that were available at the time and have disappeared since then?

Meaning: is there anything that a modern medico legal expert couldn't have access to?

btw, if any of you are interested, I translated a Arthur MacDonald's report (1893) from a Lacassagne thesis (1899) where he seems to agree with the American criminologist.

Both men were medical expert and criminologists. Of course, none of them had direct access to the bodies, but maybe they saw documents that were lost other time.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=367102#post367102