The name's Bond

[Wickerman]

It seems that the experts are divided on this issue. Phillip Harrison, for instance, opined that "Even for a highly skilled medical man given all the circumstances it would have been a daunting task." (Marriott, 2013). And the Lancet referred to the work of an expert. The question therefore is whether it was possible for anyone to remove the organs at the crime scene- and Dr Calder clearly answered that question in the negative.

For myself, I am not sure modern surgeons can accurately interpret the sometimes vague descriptions of the mutilations captured in writing by the court recorders, or the press at the inquests.
If we still had the original autopsy reports from all the murders, then perhaps modern surgeons would have a clearer idea, but that is not the case. Dr. Bond's post-mortem notes hardly qualify as anything more than a brief summary of his observations.

For those reason's I am more inclined to go with the conclusions of the doctors who did see and did quantify those mutilations at the time.

Which brings me to Dr. Bond, yes he did read the autopsy notes of the murders previous to Kelly, yet right at the outset he makes a claim that is more the result of emotion than medical expertise.
He writes: "All five murders were no doubt committed by the same hand...". A conclusion he cannot possibly arrive at from reading autopsy notes alone.

Also, why Bond would think no more than three hours could have elapsed between the murders and discovery of the bodies of Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes, is a mystery.
Both Llewellyn and Brown suggested "not more than half an hour", for their respective victims, Nichols & Eddowes.
Only Dr. Phillips showed reservations over Chapman's hour of death, a time window of approx. two hours or so.

Then Dr. Bond concludes that in all the cases there was no evidence of struggling, yet Dr. Phillips had made specific mention of evidence of strangulation, as reported in the Lancet:
"There could be little doubt that he first strangled of suffocated his victim, for not only were no cries heard, but the face, lips and hands were livid as in asphyxia,..". In addition to that Phillips recorded that her fingernails were turgid, as would be the case when fingers are used in self defense.
Bond himself took note of cuts to the hands & arms of Kelly, which he must have been aware are an indication of defensive wounds.

So given the contrary nature of Dr. Bonds conclusion above, I have to wonder just how much reliance we can place on his further conclusions about there being a lack of medical skill or knowledge in the method of mutilations.

Dr. Bond has a track record of not seeing what his peers see.

[Wickerman]

Hi Ben.

Hi Jon,

What do you mean they had "no choice"? Unless you're suggesting that none of the other potential witnesses could possibly have seen the killer, the reality is that the police did make a "choice" in the form of the Lawende over other potential ripper-spotters.......

Hobson's Choice is no choice.

It was Lawende, by all accounts, who was requested to give the once-over to Sadler and Grainger, with a view to comparing them with his red-neckerchief wearing suspect. They didn't ask "Mrs. Kennedy", shockingly enough, nor did they entreat Thomas Bowyer to measure the collar-length of Sadler's shirt to determine whether or not he was Mr. Scary Long-Collar from his bogus, non-existent Wednesday sighting. But I suppose the police missed a trick there, according to you?

They can hardly use Kennedy, for the obvious reason the authorities could not satisfy themselves as to the actual time of death for Mary Kelly.
You appear to have forgotten that.

Bowyer's sighting was two days before the murder, so what use is Bowyer as a definite witness?

For all your protestations, I see you finally got there...

I am not, for moment, suggesting that Lawende's sighting represents quality eyewitness evidence in and of itself; on the contrary, it is problematic insofar as the witness expressed doubt as to whether or not he would recognise the suspect again, and because it only involved a rear-view sighting of the alleged victim. That does not, however, prevent it from being the best of a bad bunch, which, according to the police, it clearly was.

Exactly, "the best of a bad bunch", AKA = Hobson's Choice.

"Others" have written informative posts, yes, and I intend to address them. I don't see much evidence of dissent regarding my "questioning of the anatomical knowledge issue", however.

Well, in trying to present thee most qualified opinion, Dr. Phillips, to the equivalent of a voice in the wilderness, and then confusing Chapman with Stride, it is easy to see why you arrive at the erroneous conclusion that there was no anatomical knowledge.

The question is actually, what degree of anatomical knowledge was evident, not whether any anatomical knowledge existed at all.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

Apparently Ben, you hold Lawende's testimony to a higher degree that either McWilliams or Swanson did at the time.
The fact the police had no choice but to use him at a later date is no qualification that he was the star witness for the police.

What do you mean they had "no choice"? Unless you're suggesting that none of the other potential witnesses could possibly have seen the killer, the reality is that the police did make a "choice" in the form of the Lawende over other potential ripper-spotters. It was Lawende, by all accounts, who was requested to give the once-over to Sadler and Grainger, with a view to comparing them with his red-neckerchief wearing suspect. They didn't ask "Mrs. Kennedy", shockingly enough, nor did they entreat Thomas Bowyer to measure the collar-length of Sadler's shirt to determine whether or not he was Mr. Scary Long-Collar from his bogus, non-existent Wednesday sighting. But I suppose the police missed a trick there, according to you?

I am not, for moment, suggesting that Lawende's sighting represents quality eyewitness evidence in and of itself; on the contrary, it is problematic insofar as the witness expressed doubt as to whether or not he would recognise the suspect again, and because it only involved a rear-view sighting of the alleged victim. That does not, however, prevent it from being the best of a bad bunch, which, according to the police, it clearly was.

It appears others have adequately responded to your questioning of the "anatomical knowledge" issue.

"Others" have written informative posts, yes, and I intend to address them. I don't see much evidence of dissent regarding my "questioning of the anatomical knowledge issue", however.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

...Which would not be a very sensible thing to do, Jon, considering the importance the police invested in Lawende, i.e. ostensibly more than any other eyewitness sighting attached to the investigation.

Apparently Ben, you hold Lawende's testimony to a higher degree that either McWilliams or Swanson did at the time.
The fact the police had no choice but to use him at a later date is no qualification that he was the star witness for the police. Internal reports tell a more reserved story.

There's a whole paragraph by McWilliams, written four weeks after the murder which begins, "police are at a great disadvantage in this case in consequence of the want of identity", that they only have three witnesses, their best being a man who, "did not see the woman's face", and "does not think he should know the man again".
There is certainly nothing positive nor upbeat in the report by McWilliams concerning their 'best'? witness.

Swanson, writing almost three weeks after the murder reflects on information received from McWilliams, and concludes - "one of the men identified the clothes only of the murdered woman Eddowes, which is a serious drawback to the value of the description of the man".

So we can see neither Officer in charge was over enthused about the possibility their 'best'? witness had actually seen the victim, and therefore the true killer, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Swanson does admit, due to the body being found a mere 10 minutes later, that it is "reasonable to believe" that the suspect seen was the killer, though as a Chief Inspector - Swanson will know that "reasonable to believe" is not sufficient to carry a murder conviction.

It appears others have adequately responded to your questioning of the "anatomical knowledge" issue.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Ben,

Yes, you're correct as to Sugden's claim that Dr Phillips was inclined to believe that Eddowes and Chapman were killed by different men. However, although I have the greatest of respect for Philip Sugen I wonder if, on this occasion, he is in error.

Thus, he cites the Evening News, 1 October, 1888 as a source. I have checked the report on this site and there is a reference to Dr Phillips: "Dr Phillips was called to Berner Street shortly after the discovery of the woman's body, gives (so says Dr Gordon, who has made a post-mortem examination of the other body) it is his opinion that the two murders were not committed by the same man. Upon this point Dr Phillips is an authority."

Now the quote is clearly referring to Stride and Eddowes not being by the same hand, and not Chapman and Eddowes. To be fair, Sugden does refer to Dr Brown's statement in the Evening News, but I can find no record of this.

Sugden also cites Report of Chief Inspector Swanson, 6 November 1888,HO 144/221/A49301C/8c, which he also quotes from:

"The surgeon, Dr Brown, called by the City Police, and Dr Phillips,who had been called by the Metropolitan Police in the cases of Hanbury Street and Berber Street, having made a post-mortem examination of the body, reported that there were missing the left kidney and the uterus, and that the mutilation so far gave no evidence of anatomical knowledge in the sense that it evidenced the hand of a qualified surgeon...on the other hand, as in the Metropolitan Police cases, the medical evidence showed that the murder could have been committed by a person who had been a hunter, a butcher, a slaughterman, as well as a student in surgery or a properly qualified surgeon"

So that obviously narrows down the list of possible suspects! Or perhaps they were just hedging their bets.

I've also found another interesting Dr Brown reference, concerning a small tour of authors and crime buffs, whom he escorted around Whitechapel in 1905:

"He was inclined to think that he (the murderer) was or had been a medical student, as he undoubtedly had a knowledge of human anatomy, but that he was also a butcher, as the mutilations slashing the nose, etc., were butchers' cuts" (The Life and Memoirs of John Churton Collins, 1912)

I think the fact the killer in Mitre Square severed the colon and loosed some feces indicates that at the very least he wasn't as careful as he had been. Plus a partial uterus.

[John G]

...Which would not be a very sensible thing to do, Jon, considering the importance the police invested in Lawende, i.e. ostensibly more than any other eyewitness sighting attached to the investigation. In view of the continued and erroneous lumping together of Brown and Sequeria, it is necessary to repeat myself: Brown and Sequeria disagreed over the level of anatomical knowledge displayed by the murderer. Brown believed it evinced considerable knowledge, whereas Sequeira, Saunders, and Bond (and Phillips, according to Sugden, who I'm inclined to credit for doing the necessary homework on the subject) did not - making Brown the heavily unnumbered opinion, at least as far as Eddowes was concerned. If you describe someone as having "no great" anatomical skill, the judgment you are passing is an irrefutably negative one, just as an actor with "no great acting talent" is a lousy one.

The only doctor who detected "surgical skill" was Phillips, and only in the case of Chapman, with no other doctor present at the autopsy to offer a potentially dissenting opinion, as was the case with subsequent victims. But what were Phillips' views on the potential link between Chapman and Eddowes? Well, according to Sudgen (no, I can't quote his sources off the top of my head, but I naturally invite skeptics to prove him in error) he believed the two victims were killed by different people, undoubtedly influencing Wynne Baxter's view that Eddowes was mutilated by an unskilled copycat.

Combining the views of all doctors for all ripper-attributed victims, it becomes clear that the "anatomically knowledgeable" view was the minority one.

Regards,
Ben

Hello Ben,

Yes, you're correct as to Sugden's claim that Dr Phillips was inclined to believe that Eddowes and Chapman were killed by different men. However, although I have the greatest of respect for Philip Sugen I wonder if, on this occasion, he is in error.

Thus, he cites the Evening News, 1 October, 1888 as a source. I have checked the report on this site and there is a reference to Dr Phillips: "Dr Phillips was called to Berner Street shortly after the discovery of the woman's body, gives (so says Dr Gordon, who has made a post-mortem examination of the other body) it is his opinion that the two murders were not committed by the same man. Upon this point Dr Phillips is an authority."

Now the quote is clearly referring to Stride and Eddowes not being by the same hand, and not Chapman and Eddowes. To be fair, Sugden does refer to Dr Brown's statement in the Evening News, but I can find no record of this.

Sugden also cites Report of Chief Inspector Swanson, 6 November 1888,HO 144/221/A49301C/8c, which he also quotes from:

"The surgeon, Dr Brown, called by the City Police, and Dr Phillips,who had been called by the Metropolitan Police in the cases of Hanbury Street and Berber Street, having made a post-mortem examination of the body, reported that there were missing the left kidney and the uterus, and that the mutilation so far gave no evidence of anatomical knowledge in the sense that it evidenced the hand of a qualified surgeon...on the other hand, as in the Metropolitan Police cases, the medical evidence showed that the murder could have been committed by a person who had been a hunter, a butcher, a slaughterman, as well as a student in surgery or a properly qualified surgeon"

So that obviously narrows down the list of possible suspects! Or perhaps they were just hedging their bets.

I've also found another interesting Dr Brown reference, concerning a small tour of authors and crime buffs, whom he escorted around Whitechapel in 1905:

"He was inclined to think that he (the murderer) was or had been a medical student, as he undoubtedly had a knowledge of human anatomy, but that he was also a butcher, as the mutilations slashing the nose, etc., were butchers' cuts" (The Life and Memoirs of John Churton Collins, 1912)

[Michael W Richards]

...Which would not be a very sensible thing to do, Jon, considering the importance the police invested in Lawende, i.e. ostensibly more than any other eyewitness sighting attached to the investigation. In view of the continued and erroneous lumping together of Brown and Sequeria, it is necessary to repeat myself: Brown and Sequeria disagreed over the level of anatomical knowledge displayed by the murderer. Brown believed it evinced considerable knowledge, whereas Sequeira, Saunders, and Bond (and Phillips, according to Sugden, who I'm inclined to credit for doing the necessary homework on the subject) did not - making Brown the heavily unnumbered opinion, at least as far as Eddowes was concerned. If you describe someone as having "no great" anatomical skill, the judgment you are passing is an irrefutably negative one, just as an actor with "no great acting talent" is a lousy one.

The only doctor who detected "surgical skill" was Phillips, and only in the case of Chapman, with no other doctor present at the autopsy to offer a potentially dissenting opinion, as was the case with subsequent victims. But what were Phillips' views on the potential link between Chapman and Eddowes? Well, according to Sudgen (no, I can't quote his sources off the top of my head, but I naturally invite skeptics to prove him in error) he believed the two victims were killed by different people, undoubtedly influencing Wynne Baxter's view that Eddowes was mutilated by an unskilled copycat.

Combining the views of all doctors for all ripper-attributed victims, it becomes clear that the "anatomically knowledgeable" view was the minority one.

Regards,
Ben

Just a point Ben, Phillips saw more Canonicals in death than anyone and as such is amply equipped to offer comparative skill analysis....skills which were noted with the first 2 victims, not just Annie. Anything noted about Annies killer must also be applicable to Pollys, since its almost inconceivable they were different killers...the murders and actions are almost identical.

Annies murder set the bar for skill/knowledge high...and no subsequent murders meet that standard. I believe Pollys was a stressful location for his first murder, which explains the missing components.

[Ben]

The time constraints observed by Dr. Calder do not apply if we dispense with Lawende's sighting, that the couple he saw were not Eddowes with her killer.

...Which would not be a very sensible thing to do, Jon, considering the importance the police invested in Lawende, i.e. ostensibly more than any other eyewitness sighting attached to the investigation. In view of the continued and erroneous lumping together of Brown and Sequeria, it is necessary to repeat myself: Brown and Sequeria disagreed over the level of anatomical knowledge displayed by the murderer. Brown believed it evinced considerable knowledge, whereas Sequeira, Saunders, and Bond (and Phillips, according to Sugden, who I'm inclined to credit for doing the necessary homework on the subject) did not - making Brown the heavily unnumbered opinion, at least as far as Eddowes was concerned. If you describe someone as having "no great" anatomical skill, the judgment you are passing is an irrefutably negative one, just as an actor with "no great acting talent" is a lousy one.

The only doctor who detected "surgical skill" was Phillips, and only in the case of Chapman, with no other doctor present at the autopsy to offer a potentially dissenting opinion, as was the case with subsequent victims. But what were Phillips' views on the potential link between Chapman and Eddowes? Well, according to Sudgen (no, I can't quote his sources off the top of my head, but I naturally invite skeptics to prove him in error) he believed the two victims were killed by different people, undoubtedly influencing Wynne Baxter's view that Eddowes was mutilated by an unskilled copycat.

Combining the views of all doctors for all ripper-attributed victims, it becomes clear that the "anatomically knowledgeable" view was the minority one.

Regards,
Ben

[John G]

I don't think it is necessary to suggest a 'medical expert', the doctors (Brown, Phillips, Sequira, and if I'm not mistaken, Prosector too), have suggested nothing more than someone with medical knowledge. Which is considerably lower down the professional ladder than a medical expert.

Perhaps this distinction becomes lost from time to time.

It seems that the experts are divided on this issue. Phillip Harrison, for instance, opined that "Even for a highly skilled medical man given all the circumstances it would have been a daunting task." (Marriott, 2013). And the Lancet referred to the work of an expert. The question therefore is whether it was possible for anyone to remove the organs at the crime scene- and Dr Calder clearly answered that question in the negative.

However, I would question whether the pelvic organs were actually skilfully and carefully removed, without damaging the adjacent tissue-at least at the crime scene- as the reports seem to suggest. If they were, given the appalling lighting conditions, the time restraints, and the use of a Victorian knife, it would appear to be an incredible achievement, and one I consider to be highly unlikely.

[Wickerman]

I am also far from convinced that the killer was any kind of medical expert, especially considering the degree of ambiguity in the reports.

I don't think it is necessary to suggest a 'medical expert', the doctors (Brown, Phillips, Sequira, and if I'm not mistaken, Prosector too), have suggested nothing more than someone with medical knowledge. Which is considerably lower down the professional ladder than a medical expert.

Perhaps this distinction becomes lost from time to time.

[John G]

The time constraints observed by Dr. Calder do not apply if we dispense with Lawende's sighting, that the couple he saw were not Eddowes with her killer.
The murder could already have been under way while Lawende & Co. were leaving the club.
Trevor's theory is not the only solution to this perceived problem.

Yes, I'm not totally convinced about Lawende's evidence myself, particularly as he seemed to witness a great deal more than his companions. In other words, he may have exaggerated his evidence. Of course, he only saw the back of the woman and was able to identify her only by her clothing. Even in this respect, he only said that he believed the woman's clothing matched that of the deceased, which is hardly unequivocal, especially when you consider the poor lighting conditions, "I have seen the articles at the police station, and believe them to be those the deceased was wearing."

I am also far from convinced that the killer was any kind of medical expert, especially considering the degree of ambiguity in the reports.

[Wickerman]

The time constraints observed by Dr. Calder do not apply if we dispense with Lawende's sighting, that the couple he saw were not Eddowes with her killer.
The murder could already have been under way while Lawende & Co. were leaving the club.
Trevor's theory is not the only solution to this perceived problem.

[John G]

The sections of the reports I refererd are fairly explicit though don't you think John? Two thirds of the bladder removed, portion of stomach by the right shoulder.

Yes, I agree. There are clear indications that the perpetrator lacked medical expertise. For instance, in addition to your examples, the jagged wound inflicted on Eddowes doesn't resemble a surgical incision. And why did he remove a portion of Chapman's small intestines? I mean, even a butcher who was consulted by Trevor Marriott stated that he was aware that you don't need to remove the intestines in order to access the uterus.

Nonetheless, medical experts at the time were clearly very impressed by the apparent level of skill that was demonstrated. Thus, commenting on Chapman's murder, the Lancet observed, "obviously the work was that of an expert-of one, at least, who had such knowledge of anatomical or pathological examinations as to be enabled to secure the pelvic organs with one sweep of the knife." Interestingly, Paul Harrison, who assisted Dr Calder, commented, "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." (Marriott, 2013)

And Dr Calder commented on how the"pelvic organs appear to have been removed skilfully without damage to adjacent tissue." (Marriott, 2013) And, of course, the perpetrator would have been operating under very poor lighting conditions and under severe time pressure, presumably risking discovery at any moment.

How then was this Herculean task achieved? Are we dealing with one of the world's greatest medical experts? Well, importantly, Dr Calder concludes that the killer could not have skilfully removed Eddowes uterus and kidney at the crime scene within the time frame available to him. This, of course, accords with Trevor's argument that the organs were removed elsewhere.

However, I'm not personally comfortable with that explanation. I would therefore ask whether the post mortem examination was sufficiently rigorous. I would also refer to Dr Biggs' comments about the lack of detail in the text, "which does not allow for inferences to be drawn with confidence." (Marriott, 2015). In other words, can it be reasonably inferred that the organs were "skilfully" removed without damage to adjacent tissue?

[Observer]

The sections of the reports I refererd are fairly explicit though don't you think John? Two thirds of the bladder removed, portion of stomach by the right shoulder.

[John G]

Without damage to surrounding tissue? Organs removed skilfully? Two thirds of the bladder being removed with the uterus, and the top section of the vagina. A portion of the stomach lying by the right shoulder.

To be honest I'm wondering whether the medical reports are sufficiently detailed to allow for any firm conclusions. As Dr Biggs points out, "much of the description is vague and potentially ambiguous" (Marriott, 2015). Even Dr Calder's opinion indicates a degree of uncertainty, with phrases such as "appear to have been removed skilfully." (My emphasis).