JTR: Not even the skill of a butcher?

I've never slaughtered an animal in my life, Mike, but I know where a lady's womb is. Even if I don't know where the kidneys are, my hands aren't so insensitive that I can't slide them over a layer of membrane a few millionths of a metre thick, to discover "an interesting wobbly bump" underneath, which I can grip and tug.

Hi Sam,

I dont think its wise to use yourself as an example of what lack of specific knowledge might mean in terms of the killers choices....you may not be a Butcher or a Surgeon, ...but you clearly have studied anatomy, and Im sure are capable of using a knife. If you suggest that this killer only needed to have read one book on anatomy..or practiced using a knife by whittling, you have not suggested he was without skill or knowledge at all.....you have actually made a case for a man with limited knowledge and knife skills...not a man who has none.

Skill of at least a butcher is very fair...for 3 victims.

My best Gareth..as always.

I respectfully disagree, Mike. It's equally obvious that he could have known much less than that, and enough medical contemporaries thought so.

And I respect your opinions Ben...but....there are only 2 victims that could have been killed by a complete amateur...one who wasn't familiar with a knife, or had any idea of what he would find, and where, inside someone.

Thats Liz's killer...and the surgical masturbator who kills Mary Kelly.

Its inconceivable that someone without any knowledge would attempt to do this in public with severe time constraints, light and the fear that would cripple an amateur.

The man who killed Annie, and Kate, killed them to get abdominal organs...its not really debatable...thats exactly what happened. There are bottom lines here...and that is one. I extend my belief based on that to the notion that Polly was chosen for organ donation, but it was an ill chosen venue, and therefore his next, became a private yard.

I guess Ben I cant be part of perpetuating theories and myths based on opinions that have permeated this study any more...they often require a suspension of logic, and few if any have been properly challenged.

Polly's killer may have wanted abdominal organs...Annie's killer definitely did,.. Liz's killer wanted to kill her,.. Kate's killer wanted abdominal organs and added some personal notations,.. and Marys killer wanted her dead, and to leave a Ripper like crime scene.

Those I believe are fair statements...maybe not popular positions among the more established Ripperologists, but they are based on what each crime revealed...not a serial killers spree that no-one knows when it started, who it included, or when it ends.

Best regards mate.

[Sam Flynn]

he obviously knew at least as much about anatomy as a man who slaughters animals.

I've never slaughtered an animal in my life, Mike, but I know where a lady's womb is. Even if I don't know where the kidneys are, my hands aren't so insensitive that I can't slide them over a layer of membrane a few millionths of a metre thick, to discover "an interesting wobbly bump" underneath, which I can grip and tug.

[Ben]

There never was any real argument here...he obviously knew at least as much about anatomy as a man who slaughters animals.

I respectfully disagree, Mike. It's equally obvious that he could have known much less than that, and enough medical contemporaries thought so.

Ive been following discussions here, and fail to see how branching off to include questions like Did someone take organs after Jack killed them,...extremely unlikely... or were there more than one person involved, has any bearing on this threads premise. They are about as ridiculous as asking based on the C5, Did Jack have the skill of a Butcher.

And it seems "some said he did, and some said he didnt"...is enough to sustain pages of posts.

I guess its time someone seek another answers than just conflicting medical opinions. Like maybe some rational thinking...logic....common sense...by 21st Century amateurs like us.

The truth is that without a doubt, any of the 5 murders attributed could have been committed by someone without any more skill than that of a Butcher...when factoring not just the wounds, but also the locations, time of day, light and speed shown. But 2 of them obviously did'nt require that skill level at all, or show any similarity to the other 3 in terms of likely kill objectives, ..as imperically demonstrated in 2 cases, was obtaining abdominal organs.

Until you can dismiss that he went in specifically for those items....anyone?....then the results speaks for themselves. He trapped, killed, gutted, and left.

And the 2 victims I spoke of earlier did not follow that sequence.

There never was any real argument here...he obviously knew at least as much about anatomy as a man who slaughters animals.

The days for arguments based on nothing like these should be over..."well, maybe he just scoops stuff out"...or "maybe Richardson didnt Annie lying there"...or "maybe George Hutchinson told the truth even though the Police stopped believing it"...or "maybe Harvey just didn't see Jack over Kate in the square"....or " maybe Mary went out that night and no-one saw her"...." or "John Kelly just forgot when Kate actually pawned the boots"..or " the fact that Pardon was issued within 24 hours, on a Saturday, is just the result of the accumulated pressures, not on a possible accomplice sighting by Sarah"...or, "Diemshutz interrupted Jack even though according to Blackwell, he arrives at least 4 minutes after her throat was cut "...or..." Liz was prostituting, even though the evidence suggests she remained near her death spot in view for at least 1/2 hour prior, and she is found holding breath fresheners",....or..." Kates turn left out of Bishopsgate shouldn't be seen as unusual, even though she lived in the opposite direction, and by the boots pawnticket date and the holes in Kelly's story, she likely hasn't seen him since Friday night, and she has no bed doss and might be counting on Kellys trip to market for that"...or, " he takes 2 uteri, but only one kidney, so he must just be grabbing at anything he sees".....

All these arguments suck...they always have. They are not answers to the questions...they are mindsets that avoid the realities. And there are lots more of them in traditional Ripper logic.

Best regards all.

[Ben]

Is it just me or are you guys especially Ben and Sam just making things up as you go along or leaving things out?

It's just you.

Brown stated that Eddowes killer need only have possessed "animal cutting" skills rather than being a fully fledged doctor

I find this comment ridiculous

Take it up with Doc Brown then, cuz it wasn't me that said it!

he does not say the killer was definately or the skill level showed that it could only be someone who cut up animals.

I know, which is why I said: Brown stated that Eddowes killer need only have possessed "animal cutting" skills. His inference being that this was the minimum level of skill required to perform the eviscerations, but three other medics who also viewed the corpse disgreed, and detected markedly less skill.

How can you dismiss what they say?

[JSchmidt]

I believe the perpetrator of the act must have had considerable knowledge of the positions of the organs in the abdominal cavity and the way of removing them. The parts removed would be of no use for any professional purpose. It required a great deal of medical knowledge to have removed the kidney and to know where it was placed. Such a knowledge might be possessed by some one in the habit of cutting up animals.

First off Brown says that it required a great deal of medical knowledge, how can you just dismiss what a professional surgeon says, at the end of the above paragraph he merely suggests the killer could be someone who cuts up animals, he does not say the killer was definately or the skill level showed that it could only be someone who cut up animals.

The question regarding the quote is whether the medical knowledge referred to in it is "knowledge only a person with medical schooling or training could have" or "anatomical knowledge possessed by a person that cuts up bodies, either animal or human". And I tend to interprete it as the latter. It is a question of semantics and from my perspective is that Brown uses medical knowledge synonymous with anatomical knowledge, but not necessarily the knowledge possessed by a physician or surgeon.

[Sam Flynn]

If you guys are going to quote someone to support yourself then at least quote them properly without leaving bits out or adding bits in to try and support your own theorys

If you want to be "selective", then by all means stick to the one source that suits you. If you look at more than one source, you stand a better chance of understanding what was actually said. Besides, not once, in any source, did Dr Brown attribute surgical expertise to the killer, which is more than can be said for Bagster "Pon my soul" Phillips.

Ben was quite correct in what he said.

[jc007]

Is it just me or are you guys especially Ben and Sam just making things up as you go along or leaving things out?

Sorry, Nats, I'm not wrong at all. More contemporary medics detected little to no expertise, and even Brown stated that Eddowes killer need only have possessed "animal cutting" skills rather than being a fully fledged doctor

I find this comment ridiculous, Ben you have taken a certain part of Browns Autopsy report and taken the bit out that supports you and totally ignored the rest. here is the section we are talking about.

I believe the perpetrator of the act must have had considerable knowledge of the positions of the organs in the abdominal cavity and the way of removing them. The parts removed would be of no use for any professional purpose. It required a great deal of medical knowledge to have removed the kidney and to know where it was placed. Such a knowledge might be possessed by some one in the habit of cutting up animals.

First off Brown says that it required a great deal of medical knowledge, how can you just dismiss what a professional surgeon says, at the end of the above paragraph he merely suggests the killer could be someone who cuts up animals, he does not say the killer was definately or the skill level showed that it could only be someone who cut up animals.

If you guys are going to quote someone to support yourself then at least quote them properly without leaving bits out or adding bits in to try and support your own theorys

[Monty]

Can someone please clarify...

...does the apparent lack of medical skill shown in the murders mean that any, or even all, medically connected suspects or theories should be dismissed?

Monty

[Doctor X]

Like I have argued . . . in my humble magnificence . . . if he was a surgeon or in anyway trained as such, he would have used different tools. Seems to me he strangled first, then figured out simply cutting the throat proved more efficacious. Same with his dissection.

--J.D.

[Jeff Leahy]

Come on guys..you've all been over this a thousand times..

There is NO evidence that Jack required anything else than expertise with a knife..

Which he probably learned from experience's, as he went along..

fact: he altered developed his MO as he went along, each murder shows signs of development..he probably got covered in blood after Tabram and altered his MO....om the next 5?

He required NO medical knowledge...I cant think of a modern historian argueing that he did...can you?

Jeff L

[Ben]

Sorry, Nats, I'm not wrong at all. More contemporary medics detected little to no expertise, and even Brown stated that Eddowes killer need only have possessed "animal cutting" skills rather than being a fully fledged doctor. The only people who fingered the latter profession was Phillips...who dismissed Eddowes as copycat of Chapman!

[JSchmidt]

It was a (time) traveling witchdoctor collecting body parts for muti! Well, at least that would suffice for a horror movie plot or a rather lame thriller.

[Doctor X]

cd:

מזל טוב

[Mazel tov!--Ed.]

--J.D.