Surgical expertise, anatomical knowledge. So on and so forth..

[Karl]

Simply because he is not operating in daylight, in an operating room with assistants, his instruments, and all the time he needs.

That's another thing: why wouldn't he be having the proper instruments with him, if he was associated with the surgical profession

But that assumes the kidney was the first organ targeted, it may not have been. Plus taking the kidney may have been an afterthought.

When you operate, you have a plan in mind. Every incision counts and has a specific purpose. None of the corpses show signs of a surgeon's deliberation, but every sign of a killer mutilating corpses. No more, no less.

Never thought it necessary.

So where does the claim that most doctors feel the killer had surgical experience come from?

[Wickerman]

That's another thing: why wouldn't he be having the proper instruments with him, if he was associated with the surgical profession

I offered the suggestion from a perspective of the need for different instruments depending on what organ was being removed. But of course, this is to conduct an operation where the patient is expected to live, so perhaps 'Jack' was not being so choosy.

Just to make it clear, I am not advocating 'Jack' was a surgeon, though I do believe he had some medical experience along those lines.

When you operate, you have a plan in mind. Every incision counts and has a specific purpose. None of the corpses show signs of a surgeon's deliberation, but every sign of a killer mutilating corpses. No more, no less.

Ok, but I do not recall reading any doctors opinion on that score, so I'm not sure of your source.
That aside, if what you say is true, perhaps 'Jack' was a failed medical student, or an imposter - one who likes to think himself a surgeon.

So where does the claim that most doctors feel the killer had surgical experience come from?

I don't recall reading that myself.
I could name two or three doctors at the time who made remarks that could be interpreted as acknowledging a 'skilled hand at work', or something along those lines, but I wouldn't say there was a consensus.
The rigid class society being what it was I suspect most skilled surgeons would publicly refuse to acknowledge the possibility that 'one of their class' was responsible - the embarrassment, an outrage.

[Karl]

I offered the suggestion from a perspective of the need for different instruments depending on what organ was being removed. But of course, this is to conduct an operation where the patient is expected to live, so perhaps 'Jack' was not being so choosy.

Not just where the patient is expected to live - the same instruments are used for the same purpose in pathology as well.

Ok, but I do not recall reading any doctors opinion on that score, so I'm not sure of your source.

I am not a medical man myself, but I do have sources close at hand. I have both friends and family, as well as colleagues, in the medical profession either as MDs or nurses, from two different hospitals. Owing mostly to my choir singing hobby, as these professions are strangely over-represented in the two choirs I attend. And it also doesn't hurt that my fiancé is also a medical doctor. These make good sources for me, but naturally I accept that they are no more than hear-say to you. And naturally Jack the Ripper isn't something which comes up a lot in conversation, but I do become entangled in shop talk quite a bit.

I did, however, find one old thread where a certain Doctor X (no longer active on these forums) strikes me as having a medical background, and not just because of his name:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=403

That aside, if what you say is true, perhaps 'Jack' was a failed medical student, or an imposter - one who likes to think himself a surgeon.

Perhaps - or perhaps he saw himself as a hunter, or indeed a butcher. I see Jack the Ripper as someone who truly hated his victims, and that being the case he is motivated by a desire to damage his victims - not to play doctor or coroner.

I don't recall reading that myself.
I could name two or three doctors at the time who made remarks that could be interpreted as acknowledging a 'skilled hand at work', or something along those lines, but I wouldn't say there was a consensus.
The rigid class society being what it was I suspect most skilled surgeons would publicly refuse to acknowledge the possibility that 'one of their class' was responsible - the embarrassment, an outrage.

It may well be true that if a doctor recognised a doctor's skill in JtR's work, that he might keep this opinion to himself, for the reasons you mention. But without his confessing as much, either to another person or a diary, we cannot conclude that such was the case.