The subject of Jack's "anatomical knowledge"

[Tom_Wescott]

Brownfiled, who found no trace of alcohol in Mylett's stomach even though she had definetely been drinking

This is a topic we should learn more about. How did doctors feels so confident in stating someone had not been drinking? It was said Chapman had not been drinking, although Paul Begg felt differently and wrote a rather persuasive essay on the matter, and also wrote about it in 'The Facts'. In the case of Stride, we have evidence that she was drinking at the Queen's Head pub around 7pm on the evening of her murder, then was most likely spotted in the Bricklayer's Arms, then outside the George IV pub, then in the yard of a club that sold beer! This is a woman who was arrested no less than 8 times for drunkeness between 1887 and 88, an absolute alcoholic, yet Dr. Phillips stating she had not consumed liquor on the day of her death. I'm sorry, but I just can't buy that.

As for Rose Mylett, correct me if I'm wrong, but the weight of medical opinion came down on her having been murdered by some method, whether ligature or strangulation? I find her case very confusing.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Trevor Marriott]

Before I leave this topic i should also point out the timings as in my previous post based on the time the doctor stated at the inquest of Chapman that he would need to perform the mutilations and removal of her uterus (20 mins)

As Eddowes also had her kidney removed which would have taken even longer the killer could not have had time to remove the organs in any event.

Pc watkins stated he first entered Mitre Sq at 1.30am allowing a few mins for him to enetr and leave that might take him up to 1.35am.

He then states it was 1.44am when he re entered the square and found the body. So that only leave 9 mins for the killer to enter with Eddowes go to the murder spot, kill her and then perform surgery and make good his escape.

My friends out there in la la land perhaps you will now see the light

[DVV]

Hi Trevor,

you are thus suggesting that the drawings of the crime scene are hoaxes...

Amitiés,
David

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

you are thus suggesting that the drawings of the crime scene are hoaxes...

Amitiés,
David

i think you need to read my post again i did not mention anyhting about drawings. I have merely reffered to the timings as given by Pc watkin and the doctor who gave inquest testimony at Chapmans inquest.

i have no doubt someone will want to disagree

[DVV]

Trevor,

the fact that you didn't mention the drawings doesn't matter.
Eddowes was eviscerated in Mitre Square (see the drawings), between 1:35 and 1:44.
For no purpose?

Amitiés,
David

edit : I dont "want" to disagree with you, I simply disagree.

[Hunter]

Hi David,

Foster's drawing and the inquest testimony shows that 2 feet of intestines were cut out and layed between Kate's left arm and her body, so there was removal of organs left at the site. No, that it not a kidney or uterus but it shows the killer had the incentive to remove something. The drawing also shows the pubic area cut up so if the uterus was removed later it would have probably been quite worthless.

And since total darkness is brought up time and time again I will be redundant also and state that Sequeira, who was there, said that there was enough light for the killer to perform his grisly task.
The medicos also agreed that the murderer had enough time. As far as Chapman goes, Phillips was off on several things including the time of her murder.

[DVV]

Thanks Hunter,

right you are, and Trevor's theory has a serious problem with the drawings.

Amitiés,
David

[Tom_Wescott]

Hunter and DVV,

Why are you two spoiling a good theory with pesky facts?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[DVV]

We were born bad minded, Tom, and have been seriously molested during our childhood.

Amitiés,
David

[Natalie Severn]

points of information:
6th November 1888,
extract from Report by Donald Swanson on Mitre Square Murder:

.......The Surgeon Dr Brown called by the City Police and Dr Phillips called by the metropolitan police
...having made a post mortem examination of the body reported that there were missing the left kidney and 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,so that the police could narrow their enquiries into certain classes of persons.On the other hand as in 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 properly qualified surgeon.

Dr Gordon William Sequeira......I was called on 30th September at 5 to 2

.........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.


Dr William Saunders........

I was present at the post mortem.I agree that the wounds were not inflicted by anyone possessing GREAT anatomical skill..............I AGREE WITH DR BROWN AND DR SEQUEIRA that the wounds were not inflicted by anyone possessing GREAT anatomical skill


The question of DEGREE of anatomical skill is,as I noted in several posts a few pages back on this thread,important.The medics are not saying no skill but rather no GREAT skill.

As can be seen Swanson,in his report suggests that the murderer therefore could have been a hunter,a butcher,a slaughterman,
AS WELL AS
A STUDENT IN SURGERY OR a PROPERLY QUALIFIED SURGEON.[from Swanson"s synopsis]

[DVV]

Hi Norma,

don't you feel that without the previous Phillips/Baxter theory, these medics would have been less tortuous ?

Amitiés,
David

[Ben]

Thank you, Debs, for that illuminating low-down on the various doctors associated with the Mylett case.

Hi Norma,

The question of DEGREE of anatomical skill is,as I noted in several posts a few pages back on this thread,important.The medics are not saying no skill but rather no GREAT skill.

Ah, there's that repetition of previously challenged assertions again. So it's straight back in with those important reminders.

- Let's exercise caution and avoid semantic meandering here. If you describe an actor as having "no great talent" or a curry as having "no great flavour", you're expressing negativity. The actor's crap and the curry tastes of nothing is what you're saying, in essence. Saunders, Sequeira and Phillips were clearly unimpressed by the anatomical "knowledge" displayed by Eddowes' mutilator.

- Whenever people usually resort to the phrase "X or Y has no great...(whatever)" the central bullet point of their observation is that X or Y is deficient in whatever field or category that X or Y is supposed to be "not great" at. It's a negative observation.

- If you describe something as being "not great", you're making a negative statement - that's just obvious. The observations of Drs. Saunders and Sequeira were very obviously to the effect that the killer possessed no more anatomical knowledge or skill than the average Joe.

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.

But we know that Sequeira did not agree with Brown in every particular.

Dr. Brown thought the offender had "considerable" knowledge concerning the location of the kidney and how to remove it, whereas Sequeira thought the killer did not have considerable knowledge and that he wasn't looking for a kidney specifically. Those are polar opposite views, so it is an absolute irrefutable, indisputable matter of historical factual record that the two doctors disagreed on key particulars.

Have another careful re-read of the Swanson report you've just quoted. Swanson observed that the killer could have belonged to any of those occupations listed, but he didn't need to have done. He is most assuredly not ruling out anyone with no anatomical knowledge whatsoever.

[Natalie Severn]

Debs,
I am mindful of yours and Rob"s excellent research into the case of Rose Mylett.
I have long held an interest in this case myself and I accept a number of both your conclusions.However,the bit I posted above about the mark around Rose Mylett"s neck was new to me. It was a mark that DR Bond claimed was not "visible" four days after her death.But in your article you state that William Randall,assistant to Courtain Chivers,fastened down the lid of Catherine"s [aka Rose"s] coffin,seventeen days after Catherine was found dead and noticed a mark around her neck still clearly "visible" about aquarter of an inch deep with a bruise to the left of it.Why such disparity ---if Dr Bond had examined her corpse so many times?
With regards to the number of doctors quoted I included Dr Phillips because he commented on the case,believing her to have been murderd.That makes a total of five doctors who believed Catherine aka Rose Mylett ,had been murdered.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Norma,

don't you feel that without the previous Phillips/Baxter theory, these medics would have been less tortuous ?

Amitiés,
David

No David.But thanks for asking.Clearly Dr Phillips was impressed over aspects of the cuts to Annie Chapman but the reason the doctors were cautious was because the police badly needed definite help in knowing exactly who they were needing to look for.Was it a "qualified" surgeon or a "student surgeon",was it a "butcher" or a" horse slaughterer' or a "hunter".Could they be really precise---please....And so the coroners pressed the doctors and the doctors did their best but clearly did find it difficult to establish with any certainty the degree of skill evidenced.These were murders after all not operations that as Dr Phillips pointed out in the case of extractions from Annie Chapman could take over an hour,done with correct lighting and in surgical conditions.
If you ever go to Kew David,you will see that all the police seemed to be doing for a good part of the time were chasing doctors in Scotland Liverpool,France etc and it led nowhere.They needed more information,if possible from the doctors who didnt have all the answers.

[DVV]

If you ever go to Kew David,you will see that all the police seemed to be doing for a good part of the time were chasing doctors in Scotland Liverpool,France etc and it led nowhere.They needed more information,if possible from the doctors who didnt have all the answers.

I have no doubt about this, Norma. Even in 1894, we have Druitt the Doctor and Ostrog carrying surgical knives...
There were actually several "schools of thought" in the force. Some believed in doctors, some believed in Jews, or sailors, or poor dossers...

Bond's involvement in November is a clear attempt to put an end to the "doctor theory", on behalf of "another school".

Although I agree with Bond here (ie : no anatomical knowledge nor medical skill), I consider his role in the Mylett case a bit dubious.

Amitiés,
David