The name's Bond

[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.

[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]

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]

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]

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 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]

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]

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.

[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]

John,

I snipped the above in your reply to point out that we do in fact have professional opinion on that particular question with one Canonical, Annie. It was suggested that everything the killer did in terms of cutting was to facilitate removal of the organ that he eventually took. Its one reason why they postulated about possible black market organs to meet the needs of teaching hospitals. I believe Burke and Hare targeted specific items as well, based on the demand at the time. Not that they have any meaningful connection to any Ripper case.

Annie Chapman was considered to have been dissected in a professional manner, with skills that exceeded a mere butcher or slaughtermans'. That it was done in the early light of dawn is another marker of that skill. They sought medical professionals after that murder, not just students.

How that killer lost his skills by the time he supposedly kills Kate is one serious problem with the Canonical group, another is that Liz Strides wounds were considered to be significantly different from the preceding victims. They obviously were restricted to a single cut at any rate.

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).

[Michael W Richards]

Regarding organ removal, of course we cannot know that the killer intended to target specific organs at any murder scene, that is simple speculation.

John,

I snipped the above in your reply to point out that we do in fact have professional opinion on that particular question with one Canonical, Annie. It was suggested that everything the killer did in terms of cutting was to facilitate removal of the organ that he eventually took. Its one reason why they postulated about possible black market organs to meet the needs of teaching hospitals. I believe Burke and Hare targeted specific items as well, based on the demand at the time. Not that they have any meaningful connection to any Ripper case.

Annie Chapman was considered to have been dissected in a professional manner, with skills that exceeded a mere butcher or slaughtermans'. That it was done in the early light of dawn is another marker of that skill. They sought medical professionals after that murder, not just students.

How that killer lost his skills by the time he supposedly kills Kate is one serious problem with the Canonical group, another is that Liz Strides wounds were considered to be significantly different from the preceding victims. They obviously were restricted to a single cut at any rate.

[John G]

Apologies for the late reply, JohnG, and many thanks for providing those sources.

Sugden also cites "Baxter's summing up at the Stride inquest" in support of his claim that Phillips attributed Chapman and Eddowes to different killers. Presumably, he reasoned that Phillips must have influenced Baxter's opinion, as he had done with previous murders; in which case I would agree. I'm certainly not aware of any evidence to suggest he believed both were slain by the same individual. In fact, I'm not even sure he inferred a link between any two victims, with the possible exception of Nichols and Chapman. This is in obvious contrast to the much-maligned Bond, whose opinions on that subject are ironically much more consistent with those of modern-day theorists, including those who seek to undermine him for his repudiation of the "medical knowledge theory.

All the best,
Ben

Hi Ben,

Thanks for the reply. I must admit that I find the conflicting medical opinions very confusing. Thus, as you've pointed out Dr Sequeira concluded that Eddowes' killer had "no great anatomical knowledge ". In contrast, Dr Brown seemed to think that he was, or may have been, a medical student: See The Life and Memoirs of John Churton Collins, 1912.

However, for me it is Dr Phillips' assessment of the Chapman murder that is the most problematic. There is clearly no doubt that he felt the murderer possessed a great deal of skill. Thus, the Report following the post mortem examination states:

"...and the incisions were cleanly cut, avoiding the rectum, and dividing the vagina low enough to avoid injury to the cervix uteri. 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..." (see
http://www.casebook.org/victims/chapman.html)

And as Dr Calder opined: "The pelvic organs appear to have been removed skilfully without damage to adjacent tissues. This would be technically very difficult , as the organs are down in the bowl of the pelvis, and would require continuous observation to avoid the complicated local anatomy. (Marriott, 2013).

At the very least, the degree of care taken suggests that the perpetrator had significantly more skill than, say, a butcher or slaughterman. In fact, a master butcher consulted by Trevor Marriott pointed out that, "in abattoirs very little care is taken when removing the internal organs from animals it is very much what is called cut and slash" (Marriott, 2013).

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? I mean, even the butcher consulted by Trevor confirmed he was aware that you didn't need to remove the intestines in order to access the uterus.

Dr Bond, as you point out, didn't believe that the killer possessed any skill at all, even "the technical knowledge of a butcher or horse slaughterer. " However, he was only present at Kelly's autopsy, where the clear medical consensus was that no great skill was evident. It is therefore somewhat perplexing that he could arrive at such a conclusion in respect of the Chapman murder when, presumably, he only had Dr Phillips' notes to consider, and he, of course, took a quite contrary view.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

But if you sensibly acknowledge that he was the "best of a bad bunch", what's the sense in arguing that he was less likely to have seen the actual ripper than people who offered discredited fag-ends to the press in the immediate aftermath of the Kelly murder? That's not so much Hobson's Choice as Hobbyist's Choice. It can be observed that it isn't definitely established that the couple in question were Eddowes and her killer, but he was more likely to have seen the actual killer than anyone else.

Hello Ben.
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. They merely expressed their suspicions.

The other factor in calling on Lawende in later years is very likely that he was the only witness who's whereabouts was known.
Lawende had a business, therefore a fixed address, whereas the others could quite easily have moved around and become hard to trace.

That's a pretty outlandish claim if you think about it, Jon. Why couldn't he have applied his skill and expertise to studying the written details of the mutilations, and deduced from them that Nichols through to Kelly were murdered by the same hand, which is ironically the view you yourself endorse?

Because he included Stride (which I am not convinced), who only had a throat wound. Caused by an implement not identifiable as to type or length, and the wound could have been perpetrated by anyone.
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.

"No evidence of a struggle" is technically correct inasmuch as a struggle usually connotes actual fighting, which obviously didn't occur. The act of strangulation was undoubtedly done to prevent a "struggle" from occurring.

Unless the victim is unconscious to start with, the victim is expected to resist an attempt at strangulation/suffocation, as evidenced by Phillips's physical observations of Annie Chapman.
So resistance was noted, and resistance is "struggle", so Bond was in error.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

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

But if you sensibly acknowledge that he was the "best of a bad bunch", what's the sense in arguing that he was less likely to have seen the actual ripper than people who offered discredited fag-ends to the press in the immediate aftermath of the Kelly murder? That's not so much Hobson's Choice as Hobbyist's Choice. It can be observed that it isn't definitely established that the couple in question were Eddowes and her killer, but he was more likely to have seen the actual killer than anyone else.

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.

You've provided no evidence, and thus no valid reason, to dismiss that conclusion as erroneous, unless you're more qualified to judge than Bond. I never described Phillips as a "voice in the wilderness", although the only recorded instance of "surgical skill" being detected comes from him. Who are you accusing of mistaking Chapman with Stride? Me? I'd be fascinated to know on what basis.

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.

That's a pretty outlandish claim if you think about it, Jon. Why couldn't he have applied his skill and expertise to studying the written details of the mutilations, and deduced from them that Nichols through to Kelly were murdered by the same hand, which is ironically the view you yourself endorse? And where does "emotion" come into it? Why would the recognition of a strong similarity in the manner in which these women were mutilated be more the product of "emotion than medical expertise"?

"No evidence of a struggle" is technically correct inasmuch as a struggle usually connotes actual fighting, which obviously didn't occur. The act of strangulation was undoubtedly done to prevent a "struggle" from occurring.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Apologies for the late reply, JohnG, and many thanks for providing those sources.

Sugden also cites "Baxter's summing up at the Stride inquest" in support of his claim that Phillips attributed Chapman and Eddowes to different killers. Presumably, he reasoned that Phillips must have influenced Baxter's opinion, as he had done with previous murders; in which case I would agree. I'm certainly not aware of any evidence to suggest he believed both were slain by the same individual. In fact, I'm not even sure he inferred a link between any two victims, with the possible exception of Nichols and Chapman. This is in obvious contrast to the much-maligned Bond, whose opinions on that subject are ironically much more consistent with those of modern-day theorists, including those who seek to undermine him for his repudiation of the "medical knowledge theory.

All the best,
Ben