The subject of Jack's "anatomical knowledge"

[Rob Clack]

This drawing is taken FROM a sketch by Mr F W Foster indicating it wasn't him that drew THIS drawing.

Yes it was.

Someone doesn't know how many days there are in the month. Compare the 3 in 3.45 and the "3" in 30th...the "3" in 30th is a 5.....

Actually it is a '3'. That's why I say you shouldn't use low resolution copies to try and make a point.



Regards

Rob

[Phil Carter]

Rob,

Respectfully...

Nice try.... you'll have to change the whole picture..there's much more

and you know it..so did the emails Ive been getting asking me what is this.

Its a FAKE.

best wishes

Phil

[The Good Michael]

Phil,

It's a fake what? It looks like a drawing to me. Is it not a drawing?


Mike

[Rob Clack]

Rob,

Respectfully...

Nice try.... you'll have to change the whole picture..there's much more

and you know it..so did the emails Ive been getting asking me what is this.

Its a FAKE.

best wishes

Phil

Phil, with respect
You were wrong about claiming Foster didn't draw the sketch and you were wrong about the 3 being the 5 and your wrong about the photo not being Catherine Eddowes, I haven't heard one convincing argument from you or anyone to convince me.
And please don't tell me what I should or shouldn't know.

Rob

[ditlew]

Hi Uncle Jack,

Does the skill displayed in th cutting of the victims simply suggest that he would have experience being a butcher or was there no skill at all?

I think most of all that the cutting displayed his/her state of mind during the rippings. Personally I wouldn't rule out a doctor or alike.

Best Regards,
Ditlew

[Tom_Wescott]

If it was faked then it was faked in the 1960's by Francis Camps and or his assistant, who must have had the mortuary photographs of Eddowes in order to render these drawings and must have stood to gain much as they were risking impeccable reputations by committing this forgery.

I think before we deem something a 'fake', we should keep in mind that in every instance we are accusing another person of a very serious, morally objectionable act.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Uncle Jack,



I think most of all that the cutting displayed his/her state of mind during the rippings. Personally I wouldn't rule out a doctor or alike.

Best Regards,
Ditlew

i would suggest you read post 260 on here may make you change your mind.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Tom, Rob,

I am writing this in a good mood, and with a smile...so please don't pre-judge the style of writing..nothing personal here gentlemen.

Tom,
Respectfully,
Yes. And it won't be the first time in the history of this subject either..it has happened before and it will continue to happen until someone speaks up. And Tom, I haven't mention a person by name have I? I didn't mention Camps, you did. That is to assume that he could possibly have been responsible. I make no such assumption.
I have my own opinion that for now I will keep to myself. Which is my right until I judge it applicable to do different..

Call me cynical. Im told it is to be encouraged, by none other than SPE.

Now...as to when it was done... well now, I wonder...

Rob,
Again, respectfully,
Please don't presume I am trying to convince you. Believe me, that isn't my objective.

However, I will do as the likes of others, and question things. As is my right.
We are all different personalities Rob, and present things in different ways.
IF, in my opinion, it is a fake, I will say so. As well as that Rob, the evidence I have posted SO FAR is only part...and there is masses more on this drawing, and other places too... that others can look and judge for themselves.You don't have to, because you already know all is well and good. Others can make better copies for themselves, with "high resolutions".
And form their own opinions.

If I wish to question provenance of things that have no historical or documentary provenance, the "Eddowes photo" you mentioned for example, then I shall. Unfortunately, the recently (23 years ago) discovered photo's that turned up in "Millen's album", and MJK3 in particular, have no documentary provenence.
And that is just the way it is.

If I'm told that a picture is of Annie Chapman, because it turns up in an album from an unproven source, from a person who apparently gave lectures with his album of pictures, with no documentary provenance..should I believe it just because I'm told to?
You wouldn't have done that with the "Abberline Diaries" or even a certain piece of paper that found it's way into the files, unstamped, dated Sept 17th 1888.
I am yet to see the original Bond Papers, which suddenly turned up in time for the 100 year anniversary. I haven't seen the officially stamped version either. I READ that they are in Bond's handwriting. No doubt, like the marginalia, we will need something to compare that handwriting. To prove provenance of course. Likewise the letter that came with the marginalia, which isn't, according to the Sourcebook, stamped either. (page 123)


I apologise if in any way you feel that I am having a personal dig, which I assure you, I am not. I have much respect for you and your own achievements and awards.

I just won't take the spoon and swallow it without looking and smelling. And if it looks wrong, or smells, I will say what I see or smell. AS is my right. In my own way...without nastiness, and with good humour.

Its nothing personal. It NEVER is. I hope that is clearly understood.

best wishes Rob,

Phil

[Phil Carter]

three's and fives

Hello all,

Here is another zoom in, of the copy posted on this thread previously, by Simon Wood. I have ringed the two numbers.


1) There is a total difference between the 3 in "3.45 AM" and the supposed "3" in "30th".

2) the 3 in "3.45" AM is slightly elongated...the 5 is flat.

And no, I havent changed it one bit.(Apart from colour to make it stand out a little better).. The 3 is totally different from the 5.

thefore, imho, the date on this drawing is dated the 50th September.

best wishes

Phil

[Simon Wood]

Hi Phil,

Just for the record, the copy of the drawing which I posted reads, "3.45 A.M. Sunday Septr 30th 1888."

Regards,

Simon

[Hunter]

This thread has meandered somewhat so I will just focus on the two primary subjects- Anatomical knowledge and who removed the organs.

In regards to the latter, I would be inclined to give the theory that Trevor has so resolutely expounded more support if it wasn't for the fact that the murderer did remove organs from Mary Kelly, which demonstrates that he had the ability and the proclivity to do so. I doubt that he would have started this activity at this point in the series, especially since it was done by someone before; thus establishing from any investigative point of view, a pattern. It has been postulated that it would be unnecessary to eviscerate the intestines in order to obtain the uterus or the kidney. That would be true if we were dealing with a rational personality, but we are not. The killer's motive was to mutilate and debase his victims and for whatever reason, to remove organs. The focus on the women's sexuality is quite obvious. Once again, he eviscerated the intestines and removed organs from Kelly.

With Phillips arriving at 29 Hanbury St. after dawn, he undoubtedly noticed Chapman's missing uterus since a good part of an external organ, the vagina, was missing with it.

Brown noticed at the scene of Eddowes' murder that there was no sign of connexion; therefore he had to notice her missing uterus as well though he would not have observed a missing kidney. His own sketch depicts the placement of the entrails and there is no physical way they could have been arranged as such except by the hand of the murderer. I can only say as regards to the time required to perform the acts, the medicos believed that the killer had the time because he went so far as to clip Kate's eyelids and cut intricate V's in her upper cheeks. In the last two murders he seemed to cut wildly at some parts and more detailed at others. Who knows what was in his mind?

As far as the knife, I can only say that a kidney can be removed with a long knife by employing the point instead of the entire blade as I have done it myself, in the dark, to large mammals in short order. Their organs are in the same general area as humans'. Again we don't know if this perpetrator carried more than one knife or not.

Finally, on this point, I would imagine that if someone wanted to clandestinely remove an organ at the mortuary it would be more practical to do so just before the victim is sewed up; as I understand that the attendants performed that task and there would be no fear of discovery. The attending physicians would probably not have stayed around for that chore.

Whether the murderer exibited any anatomical knowledge or skill is admittedly, at this point, a matter of conjecture, as the physicians' opinions varied widely in that regard from victim to victim. Each murder was performed under different circumstances which some of the medicos, especially Dr. Phillips seemed to not take into account. They were looking at the injuries from a purely medical perspective instead of the eyes of a deranged man. There is no logic as to what this person does and few of the doctors were able to grasp that. Thus, Phillips sees in Chapman's murderer someone with anatomical knowledge and Bond sees in Kelly's murderer someone with none, but they were likely done by the same hand.

I believe that JTR had to have some knowledge, because the uterus and the kidneys could be overlooked by someone with none. That he targeted the uterus in 3 victims and the kidneys in 2, demonstrates that he knew what they were and where they were. Now, that doesn't narrow the field very much as it has previously been stated who the possible candidates could be.

This subject has been debated since the murders themselves and I seriously doubt that there ever will be a consensus at this late stage.

[The Good Michael]

The 3 is by the same hand, but slightly different as you suggested. The top is flatter in the second one, but the rest is terribly similar. No problem here.

Mike

[Trevor Marriott]

This thread has meandered somewhat so I will just focus on the two primary subjects- Anatomical knowledge and who removed the organs.

In regards to the latter, I would be inclined to give the theory that Trevor has so resolutely expounded more support if it wasn't for the fact that the murderer did remove organs from Mary Kelly, which demonstrates that he had the ability and the proclivity to do so.

Firstly was Kelly killed by the same hand as the other two ?

yes the killer did remove the organs from Kelly thats not in dispute. They were removed with no skill at at all (See Dr Bonds report) this is the only murder he attened. Secondly there is a major issue with the heart. It is described as missing from the pericardium but no one has stated it was actually missing from the room.


I doubt that he would have started this activity at this point in the series, especially since it was done by someone before; thus establishing from any investigative point of view, a pattern. It has been postulated that it would be unnecessary to eviscerate the intestines in order to obtain the uterus or the kidney. That would be true if we were dealing with a rational personality, but we are not.

Conjecture we dont know the identity of the killer so how can we talk about his personality.

The killer's motive was to mutilate and debase his victims and for whatever reason,

On this point I concur

to remove organs. The focus on the women's sexuality is quite obvious.

Conjecture again

Once again, he eviscerated the intestines and removed organs from Kelly.

With Phillips arriving at 29 Hanbury St. after dawn, he undoubtedly noticed Chapman's missing uterus since a good part of an external organ, the vagina, was missing with it.

Wrong no he didnt at both murders no doctors noticed any missing organs this is fact

Brown noticed at the scene of Eddowes' murder that there was no sign of connexion; therefore he had to notice her missing uterus as well though he would not have observed a missing kidney. His own sketch depicts the placement of the entrails and there is no physical way they could have been arranged as such except by the hand of the murderer.

Already commented on this


I can only say as regards to the time required to perform the acts, the medicos believed that the killer had the time because he went so far as to clip Kate's eyelids and cut intricate V's in her upper cheeks. In the last two murders he seemed to cut wildly at some parts and more detailed at others. Who knows what was in his mind?

He had time to murder and mutilate but not to effect organ removals. One of the doctors mentioned a time of 5 minutes, but dont get confused he stated that was the time for the killer to carryout the murder and mutilations. This 5 minutes is in line with the times i mentioned regarding Pc watkins entry and exit of Mitre Square.

As far as the knife, I can only say that a kidney can be removed with a long knife by employing the point instead of the entire blade as I have done it myself, in the dark, to large mammals in short order. Their organs are in the same general area as humans'. Again we don't know if this perpetrator carried more than one knife or not.

Try doing it in the dark with an abdomen filled with blood and difficulty in finding and gripping organs

Finally, on this point, I would imagine that if someone wanted to clandestinely remove an organ at the mortuary it would be more practical to do so just before the victim is sewed up; as I understand that the attendants performed that task and there would be no fear of discovery. The attending physicians would probably not have stayed around for that chore.

I never suggested any clandestine removal of trhe organs. The bona fide persons I reffered to would have visited the mortuaries on a daily basis, The mortuary keepers would know them and think nothing of it.


Whether the murderer exibited any anatomical knowledge or skill is admittedly, at this point, a matter of conjecture, as the physicians' opinions varied widely in that regard from victim to victim. Each murder was performed under different circumstances which some of the medicos, especially Dr. Phillips seemed to not take into account. They were looking at the injuries from a purely medical perspective instead of the eyes of a deranged man. There is no logic as to what this person does and few of the doctors were able to grasp that. Thus, Phillips sees in Chapman's murderer someone with anatomical knowledge and Bond sees in Kelly's murderer someone with none, but they were likely done by the same hand.

But were they done by the same hand i have been positive about others issues surrounding these murder. I have to say not so sure about Kelly

This subject has been debated since the murders themselves and I seriously doubt that there ever will be a consensus at this late stage.

There should be if common sense is applied by posters who should make a thorough assessment and evaluation of all the facts in unbiased fashion.

I will still stand by my statement that there is no evidence to show the killer removed the organs from Chapman and Eddowes at the crime scene. There is however strong circumstantial evidence to show he did not

[The Good Michael]

Trevor,

Let's say you are right about the later organ removal. Why would the thief take them from such high profile victims? Would it be because the assumption would be the Ripper took them and the real thieves would never be caught?

Again, if you are right, what help is it in the identification of JTR?

Cheers,

Mike

[Rob Clack]

Phil,

I have no problems with people questioning things. I do it all the time myself and I encourage people to do it themselves. But I tell people to examine the original copies of the photos they are questioning and I do not mislead people when I do.
You said the the negative plate was tampered with. This is not true as the negative is missing, you haven't even seen the original print so you have no idea at all when these alleged markings/writing were made. Your basing a lot of ill-founded assumptions on a low resolution copy which is a dangerous thing to do. And when I proved beyond doubt a few posts back in this thread why you shouldn't do such a thing you completely ignored my point.
If your going to ignore evidence that goes against what you believe there is no point discussing it as you can't keep an open mind.

Regards

Rob