The subject of Jack's "anatomical knowledge"

[Hunter]

Question,

What was the reason to bring Bond in at the Kelly murder and to summarise the other findings in the first place? And if my memory seves me, it was Anderson that made that request. It is also strange that Bond saw some skill in the way McKenzie's throat was cut and related her murder to the one's perpetrated the previous fall. Just wandering, not drawing any conclusions.

[Natalie Severn]

Interesting points raised there, Hunter.

As for Bond, I'm strongly disinclined to think that his judgement was clouded by the carnage in Miller's Court, and that any "detailed work" on the part of the killer was simply non-existent as opposed to overlooked. The fact that he was prepared to flat out contradict the findings of Phillips in the Chapman case suggests that he adhered very strongly to the view that the killer demonstrated a complete lack of anatomical skill during all the "canonical" murders.

All the best,
Ben

Few doctors would have had the arrogance to behave in such an unprofessional way towards their colleagues as did Dr Bond.
He flatly contradicted some twelve doctors over the Ripper case in total that is,including the five he contradicted over Catherine[Rose] Mylett.To contradict the Police Surgeon -in- Chief,as well as three others ,four including Dr Phillips ,as he did over Mylett reveals either an extraordinary arrogance or a fear of someone more powerful and controlling than any one else---maybe someone such as Sir Robert Anderson- The Chief of Police!

[Simon Wood]

Hi Hunter,

You may already know this, but the marginal "Lipski" notation was not written by Swanson. See post #394—

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=8575&page=40

Regards,

Simon

PS, Sorry Mister Crockett, I just noticed that you already knew this.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello everyone,

Norma, Ben, Simon,

Excellent posts. Well thought out.
I would like to add an observation about the Coroner, Baxter, and his "silence" on the medicos opinions in Eddowes' case. He was roundly criticised after his comments at the Chapman inquest about the American doctor and uteri specimens, so he probably had become leary to interject himself into medical testimony again.

One thing we must consider in the various opinions of the doctors is the impression the murders made on them as they saw all of this for the first time. Phillips was likely rationalizing the mutilations of Chapman and uterus extraction by someone with medical knowlwdge because that was why he initially thought her death occured. The reality of a wanton serial murderer wasn't completely established yet.

When Bond stepped into Kelly's room, he was likely shocked at what he saw, despite being a physician. The hacking and carving done on her showed the work of a brutal savage. It had to influence his opinion and as such, the more detailed "work" that the killer did may not have registered in his mind. The fact is, whoever he was, he was capable of doing both. We know from the serial murderers that were apprehended that they often were found to have done much more than the so called "experts" had believed. The Green River Murderer comes to mind. JTR was never caught, so we don't know his capabilities or even the reason "why?" If we were ever to find out I'd bet there would be some real surprises. The first word out of most people's mouth would be, "Who?"

Trevor, You are a good sport as you have weathered much criticism with a well measured reserve and resolve. Since you don't know me, I don't understand the "Buffalo Bill" tag, but it may just be a cultural difference so I'll let that pass. I would be interested in the reason for your apparent change in belief of Mary Kelly being a victim of the person that eviscerated the other two. And, since you often mention "conjecture" I would like to know if you have documented evidence of organ removal from murder victims at the mortuary, as this is a serious charge, given the autopsies were performed to garner evidence in these murders and such activity would impead the investigation. It would not only be a high risk endeavor, considering the notoriety of the murders, but would be criminal.

I dont have any specific evidence of organ removal from murder victims. I merley highlighted the fact that
1. Organs required for research were in demand.
2. Organs could be obtained from mortuaries.
3. Bona Fide Persons seeking organs lawfully could attend the mortuaries
early morning and freely take what organs they required.
4. I also said that each mortuary would have contained any number of
bodies at any one time.
5. Mortuary attendants were not the brightest spark in the fire as we already
know.
6. The bodies of Chapman and Eddowes were left in those mortuaries for 12
hours before the PM was conducted. So there is every possibilty that
taking into account all of that the organs were removed in those
mortuaries or in the case of one of those victims outside where the body
had been left unattended.
7. Whoever removed them prpbabaly did so in good faith
8. As far as the postmortems were concerned it strikes me that the doctors
just turned up at a time that suited them with no prior specific
arrangments being made with the mortuary attendants.

Now putting all of those facts together makes my theory more plausible than
the accepted one.

By the way, if I am to be lauded with a nickname, I would prefer "Davy Crockett", since I'm from Tennessee.

I did come up with that but it was to late to edit the message

[Ben]

Interesting points raised there, Hunter.

As for Bond, I'm strongly disinclined to think that his judgement was clouded by the carnage in Miller's Court, and that any "detailed work" on the part of the killer was simply non-existent as opposed to overlooked. The fact that he was prepared to flat out contradict the findings of Phillips in the Chapman case suggests that he adhered very strongly to the view that the killer demonstrated a complete lack of anatomical skill during all the "canonical" murders.

All the best,
Ben

[Natalie Severn]

Actually Ben,I dont see Anderson encouraging his medics to fabricate in such a way.My view of Anderson is that he had a rich diet of Irish folk lore and an excited imagination.I may be wrong but I think that he used his imagination rather than hard facts to reach decisions about things.Sometimes his "instinct" was correct,sometimes it was not.In the case of the Ripper,I think he had deep seated fears about newly arrived Jewish immigrants who brought unfamiliar customs with them and deep down he convinced himself that the Ripper must have been a Jew.

[Hunter]

From the Swanson Report- Oct. 19, 1888

In the margin next to Schwartz's testimony as related by Swanson-

"The use of 'Lipski' increases my belief that the murderer was a Jew"

[Ben]

No rhyme or reason to the killing---just killing for killings sake and to be fair to him he tries to understand the killer"s urges in that in his "profile"he states the man may be in a sexual condition called satyriasis

And yet how interesting that Bond's views are so much more in allignment with our modern knowledge of mutilating serial killers, acquired over many decades since 1888, than Phillips'? It's a bit a fallacy, incidentally, that hands-on experience qualifies any of the other doctors over Bond. The argument would only become valid if, for example, Dr. Brown withheld some of his findings from his autopsy report. Otherwise, Bond need only read the contents of the complete report, discover precisely what injuries were inflicted upon Eddowes' corpse, and accordingly arrive at a conclusion that was just as valid as Brown's.

this may well have enabled him to perceive a degree of skill beneath the blood and gore in terms of the extraction of organs,as other doctors did to varying degrees.

No.

By the time of the Kelly murder, the idea that the killer possessed anatomical skill was still the minority view amongst the doctors, with three our of four giving the effective thumbs down to the "anatomical skill" argument at the Eddowes autopsy. Again, Bond had only to read the autopsy reports to arrive at an opinion that was just as valid as those who conducted the autopsies or were present at them, and if he was there in person, the overwhemling likelihood is that he would have adhered just as strongly to the "no knowledge" argument.

I already tend to see poor old Anderson as having his "low class Jew" theory on the brain!

Based on absolutely no evidence. And no, Anderson was not responsible for the entry in the margin.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Norma,

Someone in the Home Office thought that it was a "low class Jew" after the double murder because he wrote it in the margin of Swanson's report on Stride. Possibly Lushington. Don't know how much influence this had on Anderson since he was absent much of the time.

Hi Hunter,
It might have been better had I never known of this!I already tend to see poor old Anderson as having his "low class Jew" theory on the brain!
Seriously, I will now have to try and find this note-many thanks for telling me!

[Ben]

What followed were clearly discussions about who the murderer was likely to be and to Anderson and possibly to certain of the police who conducted the searches

I've no doubt that discussions occured concerning the identity of the murderer once Anderson had returned from abroad, and I have little doubt that the house-to-house inquiries were discussed in connection with that topic. What I doubt very much is that Anderson concluded immediately that the killer was a low class Jew. There is no evidence to suggest this, and thus no reason whatsoever for pinning a "low class Jew" theory on Anderson in November of 1888, less still a theory that he was so protective of that he encouraged medical professionals to fabricate their findings.

But if Anderson was the liar that you think he was, any claims he made in TLSOMOL or Blackwoods could have been false, surely? Why defend the veracity of Anderson's claims concerning the house-to-house inquiries when you're not equally defensive of the "definitely ascertained fact"?

All the best,
Ben

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks Hunter for keeping us on track.
Yes I agree with you here.I think the doctors probably did have pet theories about the buying and selling of uterae etc, for to their way of thinking there must have been a motive---and none was apparent to them other than someone trying to extract organs to sell them.
The second point you make is equally valid I believe.Dr Bond probably was stunned,just like most others,to see the wanton destruction of a young woman like Mary Kelly.No rhyme or reason to the killing---just killing for killings sake and to be fair to him he tries to understand the killer"s urges in that in his "profile"he states the man may be in a sexual condition called satyriasis---similar perhaps to today"s understanding of a serial killer motivated by murderous urges that cannot easily be controlled.
But in my opinion Dr Bond did not have the hands on experience of the previous murders and this may well have enabled him to perceive a degree of skill beneath the blood and gore in terms of the extraction of organs,as other doctors did to varying degrees.
Best
Norma

[Hunter]

Hi Norma,

Someone in the Home Office thought that it was a "low class Jew" after the double murder because he wrote it in the margin of Swanson's report on Stride. Possibly Lushington. Don't know how much influence this had on Anderson since he was absent much of the time.

[Natalie Severn]

That's just according to you, Norma. I disagree completely.

Why are you so sure that Anderson made an insta-beeline for the "low class Jew" bandwagon in 1888 in when there is no the slightest scrap of evidence to suggest this, and several indicators to the effect that it occured much later? Firstly, the house searches would obviously have continued after November 1888, and secondly, it is apparent that Kosminski only came to the attention to the police at a later stage, certainly not prior to the Kelly murder. And yet you seem convinced that if an action has a consequence, then the consequence can only happen immediately after that action, which is just ludicrous.

Anyway, surely if you've decided that Anderson was a liar who encourages other officials to lie for him, why are you suddenly prepared to "take him at his word" on this issue? Do you take his "definitely ascertained fact" at his word too?

Best regards,
Ben

My point Ben, was that it is Anderson himself who refers to the timeline regarding the house to house searches.He states that he is talking about the period when he was abroad---"house to house searches that took place DURING MY ABSENCE ABROAD".

What followed were clearly discussions about who the murderer was likely to be and to Anderson and possibly to certain of the police who conducted the searches,it looked like he came from the "low class Polish Jewish" community.No he didnt know then it was Kosminski nor in 1889 when after all ,as late as November 1889, Aaron Kosminski was taking the dog for walks in Cheapside without a muzzle!
So what exactly did Anderson know---or rather think he knew?
That the killer was being shielded by his family--he thought---who were low class Polish Jews---because thats the sort of thing low class Polish Jews did when faced with one of their own having to face Gentile Justice!

Anyway this is a bit off thread Ben,
Cheers
Norma

[Hunter]

Hello everyone,

Norma, Ben, Simon,

Excellent posts. Well thought out.
I would like to add an observation about the Coroner, Baxter, and his "silence" on the medicos opinions in Eddowes' case. He was roundly criticised after his comments at the Chapman inquest about the American doctor and uteri specimens, so he probably had become leary to interject himself into medical testimony again.

One thing we must consider in the various opinions of the doctors is the impression the murders made on them as they saw all of this for the first time. Phillips was likely rationalizing the mutilations of Chapman and uterus extraction by someone with medical knowlwdge because that was why he initially thought her death occured. The reality of a wanton serial murderer wasn't completely established yet.

When Bond stepped into Kelly's room, he was likely shocked at what he saw, despite being a physician. The hacking and carving done on her showed the work of a brutal savage. It had to influence his opinion and as such, the more detailed "work" that the killer did may not have registered in his mind. The fact is, whoever he was, he was capable of doing both. We know from the serial murderers that were apprehended that they often were found to have done much more than the so called "experts" had believed. The Green River Murderer comes to mind. JTR was never caught, so we don't know his capabilities or even the reason "why?" If we were ever to find out I'd bet there would be some real surprises. The first word out of most people's mouth would be, "Who?"

Trevor, You are a good sport as you have weathered much criticism with a well measured reserve and resolve. Since you don't know me, I don't understand the "Buffalo Bill" tag, but it may just be a cultural difference so I'll let that pass. I would be interested in the reason for your apparent change in belief of Mary Kelly being a victim of the person that eviscerated the other two. And, since you often mention "conjecture" I would like to know if you have documented evidence of organ removal from murder victims at the mortuary, as this is a serious charge, given the autopsies were performed to garner evidence in these murders and such activity would impead the investigation. It would not only be a high risk endeavor, considering the notoriety of the murders, but would be criminal.

By the way, if I am to be lauded with a nickname, I would prefer "Davy Crockett", since I'm from Tennessee.

[Ben]

Now if he came to that decision later than that OK, OK!!!BUT IT IS NOT WHAT IS IMPLIED!

That's just according to you, Norma. I disagree completely.

Why are you so sure that Anderson made an insta-beeline for the "low class Jew" bandwagon in 1888 in when there is no the slightest scrap of evidence to suggest this, and several indicators to the effect that it occured much later? Firstly, the house searches would obviously have continued after November 1888, and secondly, it is apparent that Kosminski only came to the attention to the police at a later stage, certainly not prior to the Kelly murder. And yet you seem convinced that if an action has a consequence, then the consequence can only happen immediately after that action, which is just ludicrous.

Anyway, surely if you've decided that Anderson was a liar who encourages other officials to lie for him, why are you suddenly prepared to "take him at his word" on this issue? Do you take his "definitely ascertained fact" at his word too?

Best regards,
Ben