JTR: Not even the skill of a butcher?

[Trevor Marriott]

Sam
I was asked to give an opinion which i have given.

The anatomical issues i cited are well known as coming from the various doctors which have been discussed and done to death now.

Th truth is that none of the doctors examined the bodies in any great detail whilst the bodies were in situe so their subsequnt findings when conducting the post mortems cannot be corroborated in relation to the removal of the organs.

Taking the hypotheis that persons or persons removed the organs in the way I have suggested prior to the post mortem the doctors could only then report on what they found when conduting the post mortems and automatically assumed that the killer had removed the organs at the crime scene.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Trevor,

I didnt know the apron section was so controversial, but I believe that Points 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, and 12 are correct, and the wetness mentioned in 12 is blood. Or am I mistaken?

The mistake is believing that whatever happened to the apron has anything to do with this thread, which is not even specifically about the Eddowes case, but about the alleged skill of the murderer across all the murders (canonical or otherwise). Aprons, being made of fabric, have - and deserve - threads of their own.

[Sam Flynn]

My opinion is that the eveidene of "antaomical knowledge" described by the doctors when conducting the post mortems is as a result of the organs being removed by person or persons unknown

What is your evidence for that - i.e., not that there were third parties involved (which is an entirely separate debate), but how is their skill evident from what was inflicted on the corpses?

I repeat (for the sake of sanity!) that this thread is about the skills required and/or evidenced by the killer(s), it's not about who you think did it or how you believe it might have happened - they are big enough subjects in themselves.

[Trevor Marriott]

My personal opinion is well documented. i do not subscribe to the fact that JTR removed the organs from Eddowes and Chapman at the crime scenes. My opinion is that the eveidene of "antaomical knowledge" described by the doctors when conducting the post mortems is as a result of the organs being removed by person or persons unknown who did have sufficiinet medical knowledge to remove the organs between the bodies being removed from the crime scene and the subsequent post mortems which were not conducted unitl many hours later after the bodies had been left unattended.

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Monty!

I agree with you.

It's bloody difficult to find any new facts with a case, that is soon 120 years old!

But, any new conlusions are welcome with a case, still unsolved!

All the best
Jukka

[Varqm]

Mr Mariott,

What is your professional and personal opinion on the skill of JTR and why?
I think it is hard to tell. There are too many kinds of people. Looking forward to your answer.

[Natalie Severn]

I agree with Trevor here.Especially about conflicting newspaper reports.
As far as Dr Phillips is concerned, I understand as the divisional police surgeon for Whitechapel,he must have been a well trained doctor and surgeon,he was vastly experienced,for example he must have examined countless victims of violence including a fair number of throat cuts and other murderous assaults in Whitechapel,and as he saw more of the victims than any of the other doctors, and must have had at least as competent and objective an ability to "fair test" the injuries of the victims as any of the other doctors.
As for this notion that all the doctors were somehow ganged up on Dr Phillips disputing his findings that just isnt so.There were some differences of opinion,just as there are today among doctors but I myself am deeply suspicious of some of the comments from doctors brought in later,This is particularly the case with Dr Bond whose express purpose was to concur with the "medical opinion" of Police Chief but layman in medical matters, Robert Anderson over the Rose Mylett case and conclude that she had not been murdered but had died a natural death in the streets of Whitechapel in December 1888. In order to do this, Dr Bond had to change his initial findings and dispute with his superior,the Police Surgeon -in- Chief, Dr Alexander MacKellar as well as Drs Brownfield,Harris,Hibbert and Phillips,to try to overturn their findings ---which he was unable to do as they all stood firm.
It has often appeared to me that a very similar event happened over the dispute on the time of death where Robert Anderson brought in this Dr Bond to dispute with Dr Phillips over time of death,and allow him to over rule him.
Best Wishes
Natalie

[Monty]

But there is always going to be a small minority who have been wearing blinkers for many years and have their own views and opinions which they are quite entitled to do so but this minority are beyond accepting new facts and opinions put forward by other posters/readers

New facts?

Some have trouble accepting the old ones.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

The answer is there is no answer.

To be honest i do not know which is correct and having regard to the different ways the issue with the apron piece was reported I challenge anyone to say they know the truth.

Sadly there are many such misgivings througout the whole Ripper mystery. Time and time again I see on here a poster will put forward an opinion etc and there is usulally someone else who comes forward quoting from some press report etc who would suggest the contrary to what the original posters view is.

As a professional investigator i can only gather all the facts which includes newspaper articles and the assess and evaluate those facts and sometimes arrive at plausible rational explanations which posters/readers worldwide can either accept or reject.

But there is always going to be a small minority who have been wearing blinkers for many years and have their own views and opinions which they are quite entitled to do so but this minority are beyond accepting new facts and opinions put forward by other posters/readers

Hi Trevor,

I didnt know the apron section was so controversial, but I believe that Points 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, and 12 are correct, and the wetness mentioned in 12 is blood. Or am I mistaken?

Cheers Trevor.

I will even give an example of one major aspect of Eddowes murder which is quite a significant issue which was reported in the press and there are different reports of this particular aspect.

The issue is with regards to the apron piece. I have read the following different accounts all of which have been the topic of various arguments on here some of which poster on here standby as being correct

1. The apron piece was torn
2. The apron Piece was cut
3. The apron piece had been torn from a previous part which had been
repaired.
4. The apron piece had been cut from a previous part which had been repaired
5. The apron piece was bloodstained
6. The apron piece was spotted with blood.
7. The apron piece did not have traces of faecal matter.
8. The apron piece had smears of faecal matter.
9. The apron piece was wet
10 The apron piece was not wet
11.The apron piece was stained on one side as if somone had wiped a hand
or knife on it
12. The apron piece was wet in one corner

So in view of all of this how can anyone safely rely on any of the above as being totally correct.

[Ben]

This argument is usually put forward by those who have a pet suspect who had no medical background so to overcome this hurdle they simply ignore or attempt to discredit the evidence.

The reverse is much nearer the mark, JC007,

Whevever a theorist has a "doctor/educated" suspect in mind, they usually do whatever they can to champion Phillips over the other medical officials who outnumbered him on the issue of the ripper's anatomical prowess, or lack thereof. They say things like "He was there and he was a doctor so he must be right". Great, so do we exclude Eddowes on the basis that Phillips was "there" and thought she was killed by someone other than Chapman's killer, and what about all the other doctors who were "there" and disagreed with Phillips?

[Trevor Marriott]

I will even give an example of one major aspect of Eddowes murder which is quite a significant issue which was reported in the press and there are different reports of this particular aspect.

The issue is with regards to the apron piece. I have read the following different accounts all of which have been the topic of various arguments on here some of which poster on here standby as being correct

1. The apron piece was torn
2. The apron Piece was cut
3. The apron piece had been torn from a previous part which had been
repaired.
4. The apron piece had been cut from a previous part which had been repaired
5. The apron piece was bloodstained
6. The apron piece was spotted with blood.
7. The apron piece did not have traces of faecal matter.
8. The apron piece had smears of faecal matter.
9. The apron piece was wet
10 The apron piece was not wet
11.The apron piece was stained on one side as if somone had wiped a hand
or knife on it
12. The apron piece was wet in one corner

So in view of all of this how can anyone safely rely on any of the above as being totally correct.

T

There's also this from the summary at the Nichols Inquest...

"Dr. Llewellyn says the injuries on Nicholls could have been produced by a strong bladed instrument, moderately sharp. Dr. Phillips is of opinion that those on Chapman were by a very sharp knife, probably with a thin, narrow blade, at least six to eight inches in length, probably longer. The similarity of the injuries in the two cases is considerable."

and this.....

"there are other dreadful injuries in both cases; and those injuries, again, have in each case been performed with anatomical knowledge"


and this...

"I suggest to you as a possibility that these two women may have been murdered by the same man with the same object"

Then we have from Kate's Inquest, Brown during questioning by Mr Crawford....

"The uterus was cut away with the exception of a small portion, and the left kidney was also cut out".

When questioned by the Coroner about possible skill and knowledge, he said...

"He must have had a good deal of knowledge as to the position of the abdominal organs, and the way to remove them. "

....and regarding the kidney extraction, ...."It would require a good deal of knowledge as to its position, because it is apt to be overlooked, being covered by a membrane."

[Coroner]: "Would such a knowledge be likely to be possessed by some one accustomed to cutting up animals? "

[Brown]:"Yes."


So....in the three cases summarized at inquest that have been noted here....Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes, all have expressed opinions that there was indeed anatomical knowledge indicated.

Now from Strides summation.....

"There had been no skilful mutilation, as in the cases of Nichols and Chapman"

In fairness, to which he added..."and no unskilful injuries as in the case in Mitre-square - possibly the work of an imitator"

There is no official opinion given during the summation of Kelly's Inquest, only later by Bond after he had performed the Post Mortem.

I personally believe the above is as close to Imperical Evidence that you're going to get that only 3 victims were noted for the knowledge and skill possibly present. But they certainly were noted as feeling the killer, in only 3 cases....Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes....possessed some skill and knowledge.

So again, the question should not be did all of the C5 show signs the killer had some savvy....rather, did some of the victims display wounds that medical experts of the period think were "intelligently" done, because its clear in the records, thats affirmative.

Best regards all.

[Doctor X]

"Meaningless cuts" were described.

Methinks the coroner engaged in hyperbole. Incidentally, "skilled" people did not use knives in these procedures.

--J.D.

[Trevor Marriott]

murder of chapman

Is that your opinion of Wynne baxter then ?

Why would he sensationlaize surely the duty of a coroner is the same as a judge he recaps to the jury the evidence which has been presented in court.

For him to have summed up in the way stated he would have been misleading the jury would he not if what he stated was not the truth.

The trouble is with all of the ripper topics most of it is based on what has been written by someone usually a menber of the press way back in 1888.

Now we all know even today that the press do not always print the truth. In 1888 it was the same there are many newspaper articles written about the various murders and related topics which are cited today. No one can say for sure that whichever article is cited contains the truth or has been reported correctly.