The subject of Jack's "anatomical knowledge"

[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

[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

[Debra A]

Ben


lets be clear here.We are talking of doctors "contradicting" each other![not policemen contradicting doctors !

I repeat Five medically trained doctors CONTRADICTED DR Bond.FIVE including the SURGEON -in CHIEF.
Dont try to wriggle here.

DR Bond,bless him, had had five hours of having his ear bent by Robert Anderson who didnt want him to go on saying he thought Rose Mylett had been murdered-strangled.
So poor old Dr Bond had to make a complete tit of himself in front of his medical colleagues and say "I know I did say I thought she had been strangled but I dont think so now. I think she fell asleep on herself after drink and thats how she strangled herself".

Now Rose Mylett was said to have had a big circular bruise round her neck
that grew darker and darker as she lay in the mortuary.............


You are wrong in your quotes by the way but I will come back to that later----Dr Brown ,Dr Sequeira and Dr Sanders were in full agreement on the nature and type of injuries.You really do need to read that inquest testimony through Ben,instead of chopping up bits out of context and emboldening type so it makes no sense!
Toodlepip !

Norma, it was four doctors;

Hebbert, who took it upon himself to view the body in Dr Bond's place

McKellar, officially in place of Bond because Bond was away

Brownfiled, who found no trace of alcohol in Mylett's stomach even though she had definetely been drinking and he stated with confidence at the inquest that she had never given birth even though she had 2 children! He blabbed to the papers about it being another ripper murder and was reluctant to answer questions from the officials about this.

Harris, a newly qualified doctor who stated himself that this was the first case of strangulation he had seen. Brownfield's assistant.

Brownfield and Harris agreed on the mode of strangulation used ie a ligature used with both hands crossed over at the back to effect strangulation.

McKellar gave no opinion on the mode of strangulation used

Hebbert believed that the mouth had been held closed...a totally different scenario to Brownfield and Harris's.
If two handed strangulation by a ligature was so obviously the method used, how come Hebbert didn't see that?

Dr Bond had also held the position of Acting Surgeon in chief in 1872 so he must have been as equally qualified as McKellar to have held the post even temporarily.

[Ben]

Many thanks for that extract, Garry.

lets be clear here.We are talking of doctors "contradicting" each other![not policemen contradicting doctors !

And since Dr. Bond had more exposure to the body of Rose Mylett, his observations are more than worthy of consideration, especially when they had the backing of the entire police force, which in turn dictated the entire approach to the investigation into her death. So I'm afraid out the window goes any attempt to misrepresent Bond's views as those of the minority. Secondly, we know that most of the doctors who proffered a different view to Bond were not present at the later viewing of the body. As such, we can't say that any of them would have persisted in their disagreement after that second viewing had any of them been there.

DR Bond,bless him, had had five hours of having his ear bent by Robert Anderson who didnt want him to go on saying he thought Rose Mylett had been murdered-strangled

Norma, bless her, is essentially accusing Bond of lying about his findings in order to accomodate the biases of Sir Robert Anderson, which, besides being an outlandish slur is also pretty illogical, since we know full well that Anderson and Bond openly disagreed over the number of victims that should be attributed to the same killer.

So poor old Dr Bond had to make a complete tit of himself in front of his medical colleagues and say "I know I did say I thought she had been strangled but I dont think so now. I think she fell asleep on herself after drink and thats how she strangled herself".

Y'know, it's pretty poor form to wrap an invented quote in inverted commas, pretend it comes from a contemporary source, and then use that invented quote as a basis for dismissing the contemporary source as a "tit".

You are wrong in your quotes by the way but I will come back to that later

I know for an ironlad fact that they are correct, and your continued protestations to the contrary are worthless, quite frankly. In fact, the number of times you've accused me of being wrong on matters that everyone else knows full well constitute the historical record makes me wonder if a deliberate attempt to mislead might be at work here.

[DVV]

It goes without saying, of course, that the medical men involved in the Whitechapel affair had no experience of the sadosexual serialist and therefore no real insight into the offence behaviour that would become characteristic of such men.


Garry Wroe.

Exactly Garry,

hence those two early suspects : the insane medical student and the mad pork-butcher.

Amitiés,
David

[Trevor Marriott]

In view of the present discussion, the following extract from my book might be of relevance:-

But it is the latter-day serialist who places the Ripper’s exploits in their truest light, medically untrained killers like Ed Gein who beheaded victims as well as removing internal organs and large areas of skin. Jeffrey Dahmer, Albert Fish, Dennis Nilsen, Andrei Chikatilo, Fritz Haarman, Karl Denke and Joachim Kroll each fall into a similar category, representing an arbitrary sample of non-medico murderers who have exhibited tremendous dexterity in dismemberment and organ removal. In addition to performing these same ritualistic acts, Ed Kemper learned from experience that, by slicing through a victim’s Achilles tendons, he could stave off crural rigor mortis, a process which, if left unchecked, severely inhibits necrophilic activity. And when in 1959 Birmingham police were alerted to the murder of Stephanie Baird, they became convinced that the man responsible had undergone medical training, a view endorsed by Dr Francis Camps after he had examined the body. Apart from being decapitated, Stephanie had been mutilated in a manner that stirred echoes of Mary Kelly. This prompted investigators to interview four thousand butchers as well as hundreds of medical students. These inquiries led nowhere. Then, quite by chance, the murderer was apprehended. He turned out to be Patrick Byrne, a twenty-eight year old Dubliner of below average intelligence who earned his living as a building site labourer.

It goes without saying, of course, that the medical men involved in the Whitechapel affair had no experience of the sadosexual serialist and therefore no real insight into the offence behaviour that would become characteristic of such men.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

An intersting article however the killers you cited from my memory all had plenty of time to dismember the bodies after killing them, and either inside houses or out of the way locations. With the Ripper he only had a short time to kill them and bear in mind he was doing it in a public street.so speed was paramount.

yet we are still asked to beleive the ripper spent 12-15 mins with Eddowes killing her mutilating her and then perfoming major surgery in almost total darkness

[Natalie Severn]

Ben


lets be clear here.We are talking of doctors "contradicting" each other![not policemen contradicting doctors !

I repeat Five medically trained doctors CONTRADICTED DR Bond.FIVE including the SURGEON -in CHIEF.
Dont try to wriggle here.

DR Bond,bless him, had had five hours of having his ear bent by Robert Anderson who didnt want him to go on saying he thought Rose Mylett had been murdered-strangled.
So poor old Dr Bond had to make a complete tit of himself in front of his medical colleagues and say "I know I did say I thought she had been strangled but I dont think so now. I think she fell asleep on herself after drink and thats how she strangled herself".

Now Rose Mylett was said to have had a big circular bruise round her neck
that grew darker and darker as she lay in the mortuary.............


You are wrong in your quotes by the way but I will come back to that later----Dr Brown ,Dr Sequeira and Dr Sanders were in full agreement on the nature and type of injuries.You really do need to read that inquest testimony through Ben,instead of chopping up bits out of context and emboldening type so it makes no sense!
Toodlepip !

[Garry Wroe]

In view of the present discussion, the following extract from my book might be of relevance:-

But it is the latter-day serialist who places the Ripper’s exploits in their truest light, medically untrained killers like Ed Gein who beheaded victims as well as removing internal organs and large areas of skin. Jeffrey Dahmer, Albert Fish, Dennis Nilsen, Andrei Chikatilo, Fritz Haarman, Karl Denke and Joachim Kroll each fall into a similar category, representing an arbitrary sample of non-medico murderers who have exhibited tremendous dexterity in dismemberment and organ removal. In addition to performing these same ritualistic acts, Ed Kemper learned from experience that, by slicing through a victim’s Achilles tendons, he could stave off crural rigor mortis, a process which, if left unchecked, severely inhibits necrophilic activity. And when in 1959 Birmingham police were alerted to the murder of Stephanie Baird, they became convinced that the man responsible had undergone medical training, a view endorsed by Dr Francis Camps after he had examined the body. Apart from being decapitated, Stephanie had been mutilated in a manner that stirred echoes of Mary Kelly. This prompted investigators to interview four thousand butchers as well as hundreds of medical students. These inquiries led nowhere. Then, quite by chance, the murderer was apprehended. He turned out to be Patrick Byrne, a twenty-eight year old Dubliner of below average intelligence who earned his living as a building site labourer.

It goes without saying, of course, that the medical men involved in the Whitechapel affair had no experience of the sadosexual serialist and therefore no real insight into the offence behaviour that would become characteristic of such men.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Phil Carter]

Hi Phil,

Cuts through the garments...thimble found at the crime scene...
It must be a tailor.

Amitiés,
David

Hello David,

Tinker, tailor, soldier, spy....

best wishes

Phil

[Ben]

As I have pointed out in my post above,it is not true that "everyone disagreed with Dr Brown". It is important therefore for you,Ben, to illustrate from the inquest papers that survive ,the clear proof of these three doctors " contradicting"as you put it, Dr Brown.

It is most assuredly true, Norma, that of the four doctors who attended the Eddowes autopsy, only one thought that the killer had anatomical knowledge and that the killer targetted a specific organ. The other four disagreed in both respects. It is troubling, and apparently indicative of a certain amount of wish fulfilment on your part, that you cannot accept what is so readily accessible in black and white, but I'll accede to your request and provide the relevant details once again.

Here's Sequeira again:

Mr. Crawford. - Have you formed any opinion that the murderer had any design with respect to any particular part? - I have formed the opinion that he had no particular design on any particular organ.

Mr. Crawford. - Judging from the injuries inflicted, do you think he was possessed of great anatomical skill? - No, I do not.

He was followed by Dr. Saunders:

By Mr. Crawford. - He was present during the whole of the post mortem examination. Having had ample opportunity of seeing the wounds inflicted, he agreed with Dr. Brown and Dr. Sequeira that they were not inflicted by a person with great anatomical skill. He equally agreed that the murderer had no particular design on any particular internal organ.

by going along with the concept of five murders having been committed by the same hand.

There is no evidence, anywehere, that Dr. Phillips ever went along with such a concept, and I think a careful re-read of Tom's post will reveal that he never made the suggestion either. Here's what Phillips said on the subject in 1889: "I cannot satisfy myself, on purely anatomical & professional grounds, that the perpetrator of all the Whitechapel murders in one man. I am on the contrary impelled to a contrary conclusion in this". There's no evidence that he connected Stride and Chapman for example, or Chapman and Kelly, or Stride and Kelly. If you have any evidence to the contrary, I'd be chuffed to see it.

His conclusions about how carefully and skillfully the kidney was removed have been supported by surgeons who have posted on the case recently

Not really. Plenty of medically qualified men have cast doubt of the increasingly unpopular "medical knowledge" theory for good reason, and again, we know that Dr. Brown's opinions in that regard were contradicted by his three colleagues at the autopsy (which is an absolute irrefutable fact, however much it bothers you). Blindingly obvious common sense informs us immediately that a kidney is not "difficult to extract" from a deceased corpse. Just think about it logically. Soft layers of fat versus sharp knife made of steel. Is there really any obstacle here? It might be difficult to locate, but that's only if you're trying to locate it as opposed to fumbling around with a hand and a knife and chancing upon it without knowing what it was.

However,Mary Kelly was butchered to such a horrific degree that no surgical skill,if there was any,could be traced

Wish fulfilment again. Very bad excuses for downplaying undesirable evidence. If Bond thought that no surgical skill could possibly traced even if there was some present, don't you think it was professional encumbant upon him to say so? Bond stated that no anatomical knowledge of any description was evinced by the murder because that's what his professional judgement led him to conclude.

As for the suggestion that Bond proffered a minority view with respect to the Mylett case, I think you'll find that he had the full support of the police force. Initially he was inclined to attribute Mylett's death to wilful murder by stangulation, but he had more time to view the body, and noted, in particular, the disappearance of the marks on her neck which had initially precipitated the strangulation theory as well as the absence of a protrouding tongue or clenched fists.

[DVV]

Hi Phil,

Cuts through the garments...thimble found at the crime scene...
It must be a tailor.

Amitiés,
David

[Phil Carter]

Mike, Dave all,

What I am trying to say, albeit badly, is this.

If the garments NEAREST the body are of a lesser size cut than the outer garments, it indicates, to my mind at least, that either the killer could "see" what he was doing much clearer than we think, or that he knew exactly where to go. Is there any indication of the killer "fishing about" inside Eddowes to get to the kidney? Seems to me that removal of the intestines is to make room to get to the kidney area. Take into mind Browne's statement.. that he thought "it would require a great deal of knowledge to locate the kidney".

I don't know these things, I am speculating. But I think that the cuts to the garments nearest the body may be important, in trying to ascertain medical knowledge. I could be wrong.

best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Dave, Mike,

Thats it exactly...look at the garments worn nearest the flesh...the cuts to them are smaller than the cuts to the skirts..all three of the skirts.
The max length of one cut of an undergarment is 5 inches long. But the skirts, over 10 inches. We are talking about getting to a kidney here remember? This seems odd to me.

best wishes

Phil

[DaveMc]

Regardless of the clothing, there must have been methods for easy access by the gentleman callers. Lift up this, pull down that. It couldn't have been too hard. With Eddowes, it looked as if he cut/tore the apron off because he couldn't get at the skirts.

Mike

Hmm... only Polly is listed with "drawers" among her clothing.
It looks like most of our ladies traveled with the bomb bay open.

[Natalie Severn]

I've noticed that various other double standards keep cropping up in these recent attempts to advance the "medical knowledge" theory. For example, inordinate attention is paid to the seniority of Dr. Brown, who only examined one corpse and who everyone disagreed with on the subject of Eddowes' killer's medical knowledge. Why isn't equal attention paid to Dr. Bond, who also examined only one corpse personally, and who went on record as stating that the killer had no anatomical knowledge whatsoever? He was at least as "senior" as Brown, if not more so.

As I have pointed out in my post above,it is not true that "everyone disagreed with Dr Brown". It is important therefore for you,Ben, to illustrate from the inquest papers that survive ,the clear proof of these three doctors " contradicting"as you put it, Dr Brown.
Dr Phillips did not at first think Catherine Eddowes was definitely a victim of Jack the Ripper,that is so but as Tom pointed out earlier here, he appears to have adjusted that view later on, by going along with the concept of five murders having been committed by the same hand.

Dr Brown wrote an extensive and very erudite autopsy report on the injuries Catherine Eddowes sustained.His conclusions about how carefully and skillfully the kidney was removed have been supported by surgeons who have posted on the case recently,who have pointed out that a HUMAN kidney
is difficult to extract .

With regards to Dr Bond,I do not and would not rely on his findings as being the same as those of the IMPARTIAL findings of the other police surgeons in the case.
In the case of Mary Kelly,it is fair to say he made a very thorough examination and gave a very valuable, detailed and erudite autopsy report.
However,Mary Kelly was butchered to such a horrific degree that no surgical skill,if there was any,could be traced .Crucially this was the ONLY victim Dr Bond was called upon to see with his own eyes and later conduct a post mortem on.So I am not in the least surprised he could not detect any skill there.
But Dr Bond concerns me with regards to his objectivity.In particular with regards to his "revised" opinion on the nature of Rose Mylett"s death .
And seriously Ben, if you are really going to talk about someone having been roundly and unequivocally "CONTRADICTED" by other doctors,which as a consequence, by your own yard stick, "invalidates" their opinion,then DR Bond is surely your man.

"Hoist by your own petard" Ben ? !

Hey the "contradiction" of DR Bond and his "revised opinion" after his very long and meaningful "chat" with Robert Anderson, must be a WORLD RECORD in terms of numbers of doctors!


The 5 doctors contradicting Dr Bond were :

Dr A.O.MacKELLAR ,Surgeon -in- Chief of the Metropolitan Police,--- leading the charge,

---followed by Dr Brownfield, Dr Hibbert , Dr Harris- Dr Phillips also disagreed with Dr Bond over Rose Mylett"s death---oh and ofcourse the entire jury !

More to follow---in depth---