The subject of Jack's "anatomical knowledge"

[Hunter]

"...for some, hunting and sexual gratification become entwined."



Interesting. Now I know why my wife lets me go huntin' instead. LOL

[David Monaghan]

The anatomical knowledge for such butchery could equally be from the skill of gralloching, the field art of cutting the innard from a killed deer. You have to be good with a knife, and work quickly on the chilled countryside:
‘the rule is for the huntsman to go in as soon as he can,
or dare, and cut the deer’s throat with his knife’. Walsh, John Henry.
Manual of British Rural Sports (O. Routledoe & Co., 1856).
‘Ah, that plunging of your man’s long knife into his chest,
which is followed by such a
stream of blood, is a very kind one indeed.’ The deer, after having been
thus bled, was opened and gralloched. ‘Eli, look to the white-puddings,
sir, and see till the fat in his brisket and inside, and just pass your hand
over his haunches. Lord, what a deer!’ Scrope, William. The Art of Deerstalking (J. Murray, 1839: p. 68).
Deer-stalkers were expected to
know the placement of internal organs to extract treats for their dogs;
‘sportsmen are accustomed to give their dogs portions of the deer’s liver
when he is gralloched’ is the way William Scrope put it.

The idea the Ripper may have been a deer stalker familiar with gralloching has been floated before in the sugestion Duke of Clarence was the killer.

I had been unconvinced. But I had not understood that, for some, hunting and sexual gratification become entwined. My suspect, Walter, author of My Secret Life, was a hunter. He horribly describes the linkage between blood sports and pursuing street prostitutes: ‘I went
to stay with my mother to be nearer my game, and nightly I hunted the girl’, then graduates to a self-description as a "c**t hunter"
He saw his pursuit as a stalk: ‘there was difficulty in getting
at the girl unobserved, but nothing stood in my way when c**t-hunting’.


David Monaghan
Author
Jack the Ripper's Secret Confession

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Trevor,

thanks for quoting me, though I fail to see the relevance of your comments, since I was merely alluding to Bond's role in the Mylett case, finding myself in agreement with Norma.

But while I'm here... Regarding anatomical knowledge, I agree, we all know how ambiguous and conflicting are the medics opinions, and we try to form ours on such an uncertain basis.

It's indeed one of the oldest questions of ripperology, dating back September 1888, and still, no consensus.



Amitiés,
David

Thankyou David.I quite agree with you over your second paragraph!But Trev has a point.

Best
Norma

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

thanks for quoting me, though I fail to see the relevance of your comments, since I was merely alluding to Bond's role in the Mylett case, finding myself in agreement with Norma.

But while I'm here... Regarding anatomical knowledge, I agree, we all know how ambiguous and conflicting are the medics opinions, and we try to form ours on such an uncertain basis.

It's indeed one of the oldest questions of ripperology, dating back September 1888, and still, no consensus.

Amitiés,
David

My initial comments were not aimed specifically at your posting but towards the matters i have highlighted.

b

[DVV]

Hi Trevor,

thanks for quoting me, though I fail to see the relevance of your comments, since I was merely alluding to Bond's role in the Mylett case, finding myself in agreement with Norma.

But while I'm here... Regarding anatomical knowledge, I agree, we all know how ambiguous and conflicting are the medics opinions, and we try to form ours on such an uncertain basis.

It's indeed one of the oldest questions of ripperology, dating back September 1888, and still, no consensus.

Amitiés,
David

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Jason,

one must admit that Bond's involvement and conficting conclusions in the Mylett case are a bit dubious.
But nothing like a conspiracy, though.

Amitiés,
David

may i interject in this heated needless debate and apply the wisdom of Solomon (Marriott)

The truth of the matter is there was never any conspiracy and all of the various doctors involved in the various murders all seem to conflict with each other. In view of that it is unsafe to rely on anything they have said.

In the light of that why spend many hours arguing on here about the issues involving the doctors. Like so many other contentious issues surrounding these murders it is for every individual to assess and evaluate the evidence and to form their own opinions.

Those opinions unless corroborated should be kept to themselves. The problems are that when aired on here they encourage the type of mindless silly arguments and petty bickering which we have seeen here and seen on a regular basis in other postings. There are a number of regular posters here on no matter what is posted will find a reason to start an argument or try to ascert their ways over others.

This is suposed to be a discussion forum, everyone would be happier if it kept that way.

[DVV]

Hi Jason,

one must admit that Bond's involvement and conficting conclusions in the Mylett case are a bit dubious.
But nothing like a conspiracy, though.

Amitiés,
David

[jason_c]

Powerful and controlling, are we still discussing the Jews?

Jason,
What exactly do you mean by this?
Thanks[/QUOTE]

Norma

It was a light hearted throwaway comment at conspiracy theories.

You seem to openly suggest the possibility of some sort of conspiracy or corrupt practices between Anderson and Bond. This scenario is possible but no proof whatsoever exists. At the same time you discount the possibility of family, religious or cultural ties (all can be described as powerful and controlling links) binding a family together at the expense of a "foreign" legal system which may have resulted in the death of a beloved member of a family.



Apologies if going off topic.

[Ben]

Nothing awry,Ben, Catherine Eddowes had been dead about 10 minutes when PC Watkins found her.Dr Brown arrived at " 2 to 3 minutes past 2 am"

I wasn't suggesting that the time of death proffered for Eddowes was "awry", Norma. I was thinking more of Phillips' estimate on the TOD for Annie Chapman. I'm not saying we should be too severe in our criticisms on these grounds alone, since the estimation of death times was in its relative infancy in 1888, and that goes for Bond who, after all, was only suggesting a maximum amount of time that could have elapsed between death and discovery - and that's not taking into account other non-medical evidence that pointed to a shorter time frame, and with which Bond would not have been concerned.

Dr Bond"s duty as a doctor was to be exact and accurate in his statements.

Fortunate it is, then, that Bond was both.

he needed someone to fill in the pieces of his jigsaw.

Ah, but again, there's not the slightest indication that Anderson had a "jigsaw" around the time of Kelly's death, at least not one that involved any low class Jews.

[Natalie Severn]

The more "precise" times of death were offered by the doctors who examined the bodies, rendering any repetition superfluous. There are compelling indications that at least one of those suggestions was siginficantly awary, which may have accounted for Bond erring on the side of caution and suggesting a maximun time that could have elapsed between death and discovery.



Because he recognises the merit in the observations of that doctor, unless you want to conjur up all sorts of sinister and nefarious agendas for subscribing to that view.

Nothing awry,Ben, Catherine Eddowes had been dead about 10 minutes when PC Watkins found her.Dr Brown arrived at " 2 to 3 minutes past 2 am"
and Catherine was still warm then.
Mary Ann Nichols was barely dead when found and PC Neil found her warm and within minutes of her death.Dr Llewellyn said she had been dead 30 minutes when he arrived.
Dr Bond"s duty as a doctor was to be exact and accurate in his statements.

Nothing sinister or nefarious Ben. It was just a "remarkable fact" that Anderson had not long returned from abroad and heard about the "house to house" searches that took place during his absence and he needed someone to fill in the pieces of his jigsaw.

[Ben]

We are talking about a detailed medical report that is full of errors about four women who had been brutally murdered.Ofcourse he should have been precise.

The more "precise" times of death were offered by the doctors who examined the bodies, rendering any repetition superfluous. There are compelling indications that at least one of those suggestions was siginficantly awry, and Bond may well have erred on the side of caution by suggesting a maximun time that could have elapsed between death and discovery.

of course he will approve of Robert Anderson"s "Favourite"!

Because he recognises the merit in the observations of that doctor, unless you want to conjur up all sorts of sinister and nefarious agendas for subscribing to that view. As for Bond being Anderson's favourite, it should be remembered that the two men disagreed over the number of victims that the Whitechapel murderer claimed.

[Natalie Severn]

Norma,

Have you ever discussed Dr. Bond at any length with Debra Arif? That would be a very interesting discussion to follow, if you ask me!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Thankyou Tom,
No I havent really discussed Dr Bond with Debs but I have read her and Rob"s brilliant research .I like the way they reserve judgment about the death of Catherine Mylett while providing us with plenty of new information on it to get our teeth into and arrive at our own conclusions about.
However,I havent been persuaded to see Dr Bond as acting with sufficient independence ,particulary over his "profile" of the five women he names as the Ripper"s victims and when writing about Catherine Mylett ,with sufficient impartially.
But there you are Tom,I have great regard for Debs,one of the best researchers on the case.
Best
Norma

[Natalie Severn]

No, not really.

I dispute the existence of any appreciable shortcomings implicit in Bond's reports. Martin Fido is a also a highly respected commentator on the ripper murders, and he didn't discern too many errors in the report either. So I'm afraid the whole "How naughty of you to disagree with modern authority X or Y" can just as easily be levelled at you.

Oh Come on now----- EVERYBODY knows that Martin Fido has written endlessly about how much he admires Robert Anderson so ofcourse he will approve of Robert Anderson"s "Favourite"!

[Natalie Severn]

So it's "unprofessional" of Bond to have imparted the view that the victims mentioned could not have been dead for longer that three or four hours, when we know from independent evidence that it was absolutely true?

Wow.

I'll know not to listen in future whenever you decry anything or anybody as "unprofessional".

We are talking about a detailed medical report that is full of errors about four women who had been brutally murdered.Ofcourse he should have been precise.It was his duty not to be SLOPPY about TIMING ,especially since everyone on here knows exactly how long the two women had been dead when they were found!

[Ben]

"Bond"s letter made its way through the hands of Anderson to the Home Office.DESPITE ITS SHORTCOMINGS, ITS ERRORS and the fact that some of what Bond deduced was fairly obvious". Do you agree with Evans and Rumbelow here Ben or not?

No, not really.

I dispute the existence of any appreciable shortcomings implicit in Bond's reports. Martin Fido is a also a highly respected commentator on the ripper murders, and he didn't discern too many errors in the report either. So I'm afraid the whole "How naughty of you to disagree with modern authority X or Y" can just as easily be levelled at you.