JTR: Not even the skill of a butcher?

[perrymason]

Ok....how about we try a different approach to this question, by creating our own Ripper "Canon" of victims that, at the very least, are alike in some respects.

Polly, Annie, Kate and Alice McKenzie...for example. And so we are not just grabbing victims willy nilly, it should be noted that all the 4 mentioned were at least at one moment in time, considered to be possible Ripper kills by contemporary investigators.

If Bond or Macnaughten, or any of the myriad of others that had opinions on the killers skill set, based on the victims wounds within the existing Canonical group, had set aside only the 4 women I mentioned as being Jacks victims, what then might we gather about his possible skill, or anatomical savvy.

Surely even the C5 proponents will recognize that by removing the very probably untrained and unskilled kills from the Canon, 3 and 5, a different profile appears...one that it would be impossible to deny, involved some kind of motivation concerning the organs within a womans abdomen.

Best regards to all.

[Sam Flynn]

Surely even the C5 proponents will recognize that by removing the very probably untrained and unskilled kills from the Canon, 3 and 5, a different profile appears.

Not at all. The premise of the argument is that no great level of professional skill was either a prerequisite for, or evidenced in, any of the murders. Focusing on any 3 or 5 (or less or more) victims is irrelevant to that premise.

[perrymason]

Sam, I hadnt realized that it was your position that none of the C5 showed any degree of skill or potential knowledge. If thats your stance, then I see your point.

I personally think that's what the biggest problem is with this area of study, its all 5 or none....but you are entitled to see it any way you choose.

For me, attributing deaths that have no abdominal injuries or a lack of interest in organs abdominal, to a killer who slits open only midsections, is capable of organ extractions individually...not just as a part of a handfull, and historically takes things only from there, is a bit screwy...but hey, its not my Canon.

I mean I know why they created the Canon....why its still being used though, when we have none of the media pressures, residents pressures, or job stresses, or anxieties, or feelings of helplessness that they did. The only influences we should have that they did are the egos of the people giving opinions.

I can only say for me, its not about being right,...its more about not being sheep.

Cheers Sam.

[Sam Flynn]

I personally think that's what the biggest problem is with this area of study, its all 5 or none....but you are entitled to see it any way you choose.

...which isn't "5 or none", by the way Mike.

Buuuuut... that's a discussion about which victims may be ascribed to the same killer, not about what skills the murderer(s) may or may not have demonstrated in killing them.

[tji]

Hi all

Hi Perry, Sorry it took so long to acknowledge your post - thanks for that!!

Just thought I would type this out, I know you will all probably have read it but at least I'm on topic.

I'm not a butcher,
I'm not a Yid,
Nor yet a foreign skipper,
But I'm your own light-hearted friend,
Yours truly Jack The Ripper.




On the other side of the fence there is this excert of a letter wrote by Mr R. Hull dated 8 Ocober 1888 .

From the age of 14 till past 30, I was a butcher so that I can speak with some authority. Doctors I think but little know how dextrous a good slaughterman can be with his knife. There has been nothing done yet to any of these poor women that an expert butcher could not do almost in the dark. It is not known to the medical fraternity that a slaughterman is a dexter handed man. Consequently Doctors are misled. And as to the time taken by the murderer to do the most difficult deed done as yet, I think it would be reduced to about one third of the time stated by them if done by a practical man.

Looks like these questions have been about for a while!!

tj

[Natalie Severn]

Hi all

Hi Perry, Sorry it took so long to acknowledge your post - thanks for that!!

Just thought I would type this out, I know you will all probably have read it but at least I'm on topic.

I'm not a butcher,
I'm not a Yid,
Nor yet a foreign skipper,
But I'm your own light-hearted friend,
Yours truly Jack The Ripper.




On the other side of the fence there is this excert of a letter wrote by Mr R. Hull dated 8 Ocober 1888 .

From the age of 14 till past 30, I was a butcher so that I can speak with some authority. Doctors I think but little know how dextrous a good slaughterman can be with his knife. There has been nothing done yet to any of these poor women that an expert butcher could not do almost in the dark. It is not known to the medical fraternity that a slaughterman is a dexter handed man. Consequently Doctors are misled. And as to the time taken by the murderer to do the most difficult deed done as yet, I think it would be reduced to about one third of the time stated by them if done by a practical man.

Looks like these questions have been about for a while!!

tj

The reason the Ripper has held such a grip on the popular imagination is that whoever it was, was never caught and nobody was certain they had seen him [or them].
One of the theories put forward by Dr Phillips and other police surgeons
is that he knew how to subdue his victims so that everything that followed happened in silence.Such a skill is not to be found in the population at large but could have been acquired by a soldier as well as a doctor.
Another theory is that he knew how to escape the jet of arterial blood flow,therefore may not have had much blood on him,so he was able to leave the scene without arousing suspicion.
The removal of Catherine Eddowes kidney,especially in such dire lighting and rushed circumstances, has also been considered to be the work of someone who knew well what they were doing.

Natalie

[perrymason]

Mr R. Hull dated 8 Ocober 1888 ....

"There has been nothing done yet to any of these poor women that an expert butcher could not do almost in the dark".

Hi Tj,

I think Mr Hull might have offered some answers to those questions too... were he the important public figure that many of the ones whose opinions stand were,...maybe he figured something out just after the Mitre Square murder, in which case it might be the skill of "an expert butcher" he may have seen in Kate's murderer.

Its really not a tough question if its as Sam asked...but, when you have contemporary differing opinions by medical experts, and the words "skills"..."anatomical knowledge"...."surgical ability"....and objectives are suggested as being the obtaining of female organs for Ripper kills, ...I cant possibly see how anyone could take the position it was not an issue of great interest, and divided opinions among them. If they could say that there was not one shred of evidence suggestive of any anatomical knowledge....without adding the phrase that they often did, which was "no more than the skills of that of a butcher"...we could be confused.

But they didn't,... they qualified their opinion in many cases, so as to eliminate a professional medical man, but not someone bereft of knowledge or skill completely...just that of a butcher...or as Mr R Hull says "an expert butcher".

No question that even they did not state for posterity that the man was bereft of any skills assisting him in his quest....only that he wasnt any more talented than a butcher.

A man who opens animals, takes out organs, and maybe is a little sloppy cause his money is made by carving specific cuts of meat, and ideally, cutting in great volume....a lot....and fast....not cutting really, really nicely. I would think it near impossible to suggest such a man has no idea of anatomy or use of a knife.

Plus Mr Hull mentioned the probability of a butcher being ambidexterous..that would answer some things as well. Too bad no-one listened....too bad people still aren't listening...

My best tj.

[Dan Norder]

I'd thought id share this snippit of infomation i found on another site dedicated to worming out JtR

Ivor Edwards, as published by the New Criminologist website... Neither one is very reliable on matters concerning Jack the Ripper.

Ivor Edwards' has a specific suspect in mind. When he writes something, he's doing so solely to say whatever it takes to make his suspect sound more likely to be the Ripper. His list of "misconceptions" actually introduces more misconceptions than it clears up.

[Trevor Marriott]

Murder of Chapman

Quote from coroner when summing up the inquest.
page 72 Jack The Ripper The 21st Century Invetsigation"

"The body has not been disected but,but someone who had considerable anatomical skill and knowledge has made the injuries.There are no meaningless cuts.One who knew where to find what he wanted, what difficulties he would have to contend against, and how he should use his knife so as to abstract the organ without injury to it,did it. No unskilled person could have known where to find it, or have recognised it when it was found. For instance no mere slaughterer of animals could have carried out these operations, it must have been someone accustomed to the post mortem room."

[Sam Flynn]

Quote from coroner

Hello Trev,

If I were disposed to be mean, I'd now cite the coroner's belief in the "Uterus Monthly Magazine" theory, but as it's you... I won't

[Trevor Marriott]

Murder of Chapman

Sam
You are so predicatable. If anyone was going to reply I would have bet my house it would have been you.

I know i shouldnt have not posted on here again I should have stayed with my feet firmly in the real world. Instead of venturing out yet again into cloud cuckoo land.

[jc007]

When he writes something, he's doing so solely to say whatever it takes to make his suspect sound more likely to be the Ripper.

Didn't Ivor Edwards say something similar in that very same article? could you be trying to turn his own words against him? this comment also sounds like few other people too, at least you can't accuse him of being bias, he did give both sides of the story when it came to medical knowledge.

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. They then pick and choose information to tailor their suspect's requirements. It appears to be general practise for many authors / Ripperologists on the subject to first pick a likely suspect from the endless list only to proceed further by weaving a story around them until it appears to fit to their requirements. These people have not ascertained the correct motive before looking for the man.

[Sam Flynn]

Instead of venturing out yet again into cloud cuckoo land.

Whilst you're there, Trevor, please give my regards to Wynne "Sensationalist" Baxter

[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.

[Doctor X]

"Meaningless cuts" were described.

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

--J.D.