The name's Bond

[Ben]

No Ben, how cuts were applied can only be assessed by looking at the mutilations, this Bond was only able to do with Kelly

I disagree, Jon.

We might assume that the doctors responsible for writing the autopsy notes for the previous victims were competent enough to describe "how the cuts were applied", thus enabling an equally competent doctor to make reasonable inferences regarding the level of skill, or otherwise, displayed. It goes without saying that the notes would have been infinitely more detailed in this regard than anything that emerged from the inquest.

I'm aware Dr. Bond said the killer showed, "no scientific nor anatomical knowledge."

Which in my view contradicts Dr. Brown...

Indeed he did, but so did Saunders, Sequeria and, apparently, Phillips on the subject of Eddowes' mutilations evincing anatomical skill or knowledge, all of whom attended the autopsy.

The renal artery is very small in diameter, there is no need to use a knife, simply pull the kidney out of the body and the renal artery will snap in two.

Not easily it won't.

The renal artery is made of strong elastic muscle; tugging at it to eventual breaking point is a laborious option when the tugger has a sharp knife handy - medical knowledge is hardly required to figure that out.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Elmore,

The way Annie's uterus was removed could only have been done by someone with a thorough knowledge of human anatomy according to Prosector,also see the surgical mobilisation of the bowel,the location of the kidney in the dark and the skirting the umbilicus.Bond denies that the killer has even the skills of a butcher which is not true,he obviously has anatomical knowledge.

Why the uncritical acceptance of "Prosector"'s views and wholesale rejection of Bond's? I must admit I share Observer's bemusement at this disparity. Bond was an inexperienced doctor who examined one victim personally and studied the notes for the others; on what grounds do we assert that he is "obviously" wrong? Because a modern commentator says otherwise? That's not really good enough. And what's this "surgical mobilisation of the bowel"? Do you mean grabbing the guts and shoving them out of the way? I can't imagine what could be considered remotely "surgical" about that.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon

I have no problem with individual poster's interpretation of what the medical men who investigated the crimes revealed about the injuries. My issue is with posters who dismiss Bond on the grounds that he did not physically examine all the victims, and then use Prosector as a means to promote a theory which includes the killer requiring surgical skill in order to carry out the mutilations.

Hi Obs.
Neither Prosector (obviously) nor Bond saw the mutilations of Nichols, Chapman, or Eddowes, so on that basis they are both working from notes, yes.

Because Bond did see the mutilations on Kelly, it would be precarious for anyone today (Prosector?) to second guess what he saw.
Though why we should expect a medical man (the killer) to systematically remove tissue in an organised fashion is in itself a little bizarre.

If an architect was assigned to remove a building, would we expect him to disassemble it brick by brick, just because he was an architect?

[Abby Normal]

As far as we know, isn't Bond the only doctor, past or present, who had such a low opinion of the rippers possible medical experience??


I think he may have been trying to distance himself and his profession from a "maniacal" killer.

The ironic thing is, he wrote a rather good (IMHO, and except the lack of medical experience of course) profile of who he thought the killer was, considering this might be the first serial killer profile ever done.

[Ben]

Hi Abby,

As far as we know, isn't Bond the only doctor, past or present, who had such a low opinion of the rippers possible medical experience??

The views of Sequeira and Saunders with regard to the extent of "skill" evinced by the Eddowes mutilations are broadly in agreement with Bond's. Interestingly, Bond is the "only doctor, past or present" to attribute the "canonical" victims to one killer - a reality that seems to be overlooked by some of his latter-day critics who happen to by canonically-minded themselves.

Hope all's well,

Ben

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,



The views of Sequeira and Saunders with regard to the extent of "skill" evinced by the Eddowes mutilations are broadly in agreement with Bond's. Interestingly, Bond is the "only doctor, past or present" to attribute the "canonical" victims to one killer - a reality that seems to be overlooked by some of his latter-day critics who happen to by canonically-minded themselves.

Hope all's well,

Ben

Thanks Ben
I hadn't realized that about Bond-interesting. Did he include tabram and Mackenzie? or others?

hope you have a Merry Christmas!

[Ben]

You're welcome, Abby. I'm not sure he ever read the Tabram autopsy notes, but he believed McKenzie was murdered by the same hand that did for the "canonicals". It's noteworthy, I think, that Bond's views on victim-linkage are more consistent with modern-day thinking on the subject than those of his colleagues.

hope you have a Merry Christmas!

You too, mate. Have a goodn!

[Abby Normal]

You're welcome, Abby. I'm not sure he ever read the Tabram autopsy notes, but he believed McKenzie was murdered by the same hand that did for the "canonicals". It's noteworthy, I think, that Bond's views on victim-linkage are more consistent with modern-day thinking on the subject than those of his colleagues.



You too, mate. Have a goodn!

thanks! Yes Like I said his profile I found rather impressive as his linkage now also, as I think that most probably Mckenzie was also a ripper victim.

[Observer]

Hi Obs.
Neither Prosector (obviously) nor Bond saw the mutilations of Nichols, Chapman, or Eddowes, so on that basis they are both working from notes, yes.

Because Bond did see the mutilations on Kelly, it would be precarious for anyone today (Prosector?) to second guess what he saw.
Though why we should expect a medical man (the killer) to systematically remove tissue in an organised fashion is in itself a little bizarre.

If an architect was assigned to remove a building, would we expect him to disassemble it brick by brick, just because he was an architect?

Hi Jon

Bizarre is the key word here. The medical men were flumoxed. The injuries inflicted on the Whitechapel victims were something entirely new. I think Philips and certain other doctors were bamboozled into believing that the killer displayed anatomical knowledge, and some kind of surgical skill. A description of the injuries inflicted upon Annie Chapman had to be dragged out of Doctor Phillips by the coroner, he was obviously deeply affected by what he witnessed.

I believe the killer targetted Annie Chapmans vagina, not her uterus, he wanted to possess her vagina is what I'm implying, for what reason God only knows. He succeeded in taking the upper part of the vagina, the uterus being taken with this of course. Tellingly, two thirds of the bladder came away with the vagina and the uterus, this implies to me that the killer simply hacked these parts out of Chapmans abdomen.

Of course the knife was vey sharp, and the clean cuts could have thrown Philips into believing a degree of surgical skill was in evidence. Philips remarked that the rectum had been avoided, this poining to some form of surgical skill. I believe this to be coincidence, the killer simply missing the rectum by sheer chance.

Regarding surgical skill it's not widely pointed out in this forum that a part of the stomach was above the left shoulder possibly sliced off as the killer disemboweled Annie Champan. This to me another example of a killer simply hacking away at the victim.

Let me say it's hard enough for me to express the above in a public forum, I can imagine it was infinetly more upsetting for poor Philips to reveal what he had witnessed on the morning of the 8th September 1888.

Regards

Observer

[Wickerman]

... Bond was an inexperienced doctor who examined one victim personally and studied the notes for the others; on what grounds do we assert that he is "obviously" wrong?....

Is there a typo somewhere here Ben?

[Wickerman]

The views of Sequeira and Saunders with regard to the extent of "skill" evinced by the Eddowes mutilations are broadly in agreement with Bond's.

Strange conclusion Ben, Dr. Sequeira specifically made the point:
"I was present and heard the whole of the evidence of Dr. Gordon Brown at the last meeting I quite agree with the Doctor in every particular."

And we know from Dr Brown himself (previously quoted), that he saw some evidence of medical knowledge. He did not say the killer was greatly endowed with knowledge, but knowledge was evident, in his opinion.

Which then explains the next comment by Sequeira:
"I do not think that he was possessed of any great anatomical skill".

Which does not contradict Dr. Brown at all. The emphasis on "great", Sequira is not agreeing with Bond in this comment.
Bond said he saw "no scientific nor anatomical knowledge".

Sequeira is not agreeing with Bond, he is agreeing with Brown.

[John G]

A number of modern experts, consulted by Trevor Marriott, were deeply divided on the issue of whether the assailant had any medical/surgical knowledge. Ian Calder, a consultant pathologist, was of the opinion that Eddowes' and Chapman's assailant must have had both knowledge of anatomy and experience in using it. In fact, given the level of skill and expertise that was demonstrated, he concluded that the organs could not have been removed at the crime scene, given the suggested time frame and poor lighting conditions.

On the other hand Dr Biggs , a forensic pathologist, concluded that the killer wouldn't have required any surgical or anatomical knowledge.

Interestingly, Dr Biggs asks whether Eddowes' kidney and uterus were surgically removed or simply hacked out by an unskilled person. On the other hand, Ian Calder comments that Annie Chapman's pelvic organs "appear to have been removed skilfully without damage to adjacent tissue." ( Marriott, 2015)

I think therefore the question as to whether surgical or medical skill was demonstrated by the killer is largely undetermined.

[Abby Normal]

A number of modern experts, consulted by Trevor Marriott, were deeply divided on the issue of whether the assailant had any medical/surgical knowledge. Ian Calder, a consultant pathologist, was of the opinion that Eddowes' and Chapman's assailant must have had both knowledge of anatomy and experience in using it. In fact, given the level of skill and expertise that was demonstrated, he concluded that the organs could not have been removed at the crime scene, given the suggested time frame and poor lighting conditions.

On the other hand Dr Biggs , a forensic pathologist, concluded that the killer wouldn't have required any surgical or anatomical knowledge.

Interestingly, Dr Biggs asks whether Eddowes' kidney and uterus were surgically removed or simply hacked out by an unskilled person. On the other hand, Ian Calder comments that Annie Chapman's pelvic organs "appear to have been removed skilfully without damage to adjacent tissue." ( Marriott, 2015)

I think therefore the question as to whether surgical or medical skill was demonstrated by the killer is largely undetermined.

where you been?

[John G]

where you been?

Hi Abby,

I've been a little busy, but thanks for asking. Merry Christmas by the way.

[Observer]

On the other hand, Ian Calder comments that Annie Chapman's pelvic organs "appear to have been removed skilfully without damage to adjacent tissue." ( Marriott, 2015)

I don't have a clue what is meant by that. Two thirds of her bladder was taken away, not exactly a subtle manouvre.