JTR: Not even the skill of a butcher?

[perrymason]

Hello all,

I can appreciate that there is still divisive opinion on the level of skill attributed to the killer accused of killing only 5 of the street prostitutes in 1888. That is part of the mystery of this whole unsolved series, and will continue to be. That being said..... I am firmly on the side that the Canon included victims by more than one killer. And I'm not suggesting he worked in a pair, or more, and with all due respect Trevor, nor am I suggesting that organs were harvested after the bodies were discovered.

What I am suggesting is that using only the varied medical perspectives on the killer who might be guilty of 5 murders, we cannot conclude he had skill...but we cannot eliminate that possibility...because no-one here knows which of the medical opinions was actually correct....or which victims if any were assigned erroneously.

I personally like Phillips myself, and his feelings towards Kate's killer are to me not an indication he didn't know his stuff. After all, Kate is the first victim with a series of seemingly meaningless cuts....and his thoughts reflect that he did feel the killer of some of the priors showed a more "structured" kind of attack on their bodies.

I think its time for me to discuss another topic that relies far less on unsubstantiated opinion,...but as I take my leave I will say that it is very clear that some women within the C5 were killed, for at least in part, some abdominal organs. Debate it all you like.....its what happened, so its impervious to conjecture. Doesn't mean the killer was skilled...just that he felt confident enough in his abilities to open the women outdoors, ....in public, and to locate and remove what he needed/wanted, in a very short time span.

If anyone thinks that the Canon was created by the contemporary investigators because they had conclusive proof and were unified in the accusations against one unknown man, with no skill or anatomical knowledge, and that he must have killed all 5 women, you are simply ignoring the obvious, or in denial.

My best regards and ciao.

[Doctor X]

Certainly someone could read an anatomical atlas and have a general idea where things are--if you do not want to believe the "lucky find." Frankly, finding the uterus is not that "lucky" particularly if one has some sort of fetish about it.

However, I would not be surprised, given his damage to surrounding areas, if he did not have a good idea exactly where things are located once he got inside--such as the size of the liver, where the bladder was, et cetera.

--J.D.

[Ben]

Hi Nats,

Bond was bought in by Anderson because Bond was one of the most respected medical professionals around at the time (he was, at the very least, "higher profile" than Phillips, for example). To suggest that Bond was paid or encouraged to lie about his findings, and potentially jeapordize further lives is a pretty serious charge, and not one I can subscribe to. The fact that he was specifically brought in my police from "outside" merely suggests that his judgement was particularly trusted.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

If anyone thinks that the Canon was created by the contemporary investigators because they had conclusive proof and were unified in the accusations against one unknown man, with no skill or anatomical knowledge, and that he must have killed all 5 women, you are simply ignoring the obvious, or in denial.

Sorry, Mike, but for the umpteenth time - this thread is NOT about the "canon".

[perrymason]

Sorry, Mike, but for the umpteenth time - this thread is NOT about the "canon".

Sam,

So lets not use the word "Canon" then, but it is beyond me how anyone could be expected to answer a question regarding this particular killers skill set without knowing, or having a reasonable idea, .. whom he even killed.

What did you think this question was based on.....if not acceptance of the Canon as the foundation.

Anyway, just thought you might want to temper your "stay the course" thread recommendations, unless you really want people to stick to answers to a question that is vague, missing essential elements...(like a proposed Ripper victims list based on common sense and forensic details)... which makes the question incomplete, and impossible to answer.

But you wont find me deviating from the incomplete question on this thread again,.. promise.

Cheers Sam.

[jc007]

This is exactly why getting any closer to solving the JtR mystery is near on impossible because narrow minded people who are more interesting in themselves and thier own opinions than the acutal Ripper case refuse to accept anything else put to them, so much so they will go out of thier way to refute every little point put to them or if they can't find something to fire back with they will just ignore the statement completely.

There is enough factual evidence (not guess work and personal theorys by modern day ripperologists more interested in thier own opinions)and enough professional opinion (at the time, not by modern Dr's etc who were not there and who did not examine the actual bodies) to conclude a person who was involved in the whitechapel murders, (whether that be he killed all 5 or only 3)had some degree of anatomical/medical knowledge, to what degree can be debated. But what cannot be debated is the fact that with what factual informtion we know a killer with some kind of anatomical and or medical knowledge was at work. The fact that some people try to argue that logic and try to debunk professional police surgeons who were there at the time, is totally beyond me, or try to argue anatomical knowledge and medical knowledge are two totally different things, both go hand in hand together where you find one you're more than likely will find the other.

[NOV9]

This is exactly why getting any closer to solving the JtR mystery is near on impossible because narrow minded people who are more interesting in themselves and thier own opinions than the acutal Ripper case refuse to accept anything else put to them, so much so they will go out of thier way to refute every little point put to them or if they can't find something to fire back with they will just ignore the statement completely.

There is enough factual evidence (not guess work and personal theorys by modern day ripperologists more interested in thier own opinions)and enough professional opinion (at the time, not by modern Dr's etc who were not there and who did not examine the actual bodies) to conclude a person who was involved in the whitechapel murders, (whether that be he killed all 5 or only 3)had some degree of anatomical/medical knowledge, to what degree can be debated. But what cannot be debated is the fact that with what factual informtion we know a killer with some kind of anatomical and or medical knowledge was at work. The fact that some people try to argue that logic and try to debunk professional police surgeons who were there at the time, is totally beyond me, or try to argue anatomical knowledge and medical knowledge are two totally different things, both go hand in hand together where you find one you're more than likely will find the other.

You make more sense than most of the people on this site.
And that is really refreshing.


NOV9

[Ben]

There is enough factual evidence not guess work and personal theorys by modern day ripperologists more to conclude a person who was involved in the whitechapel murders, (whether that be he killed all 5 or only 3)had some degree of anatomical/medical knowledge

No, there isn't.

Some doctors said he did, others said he didn't. Simple as that.

But what cannot be debated is the fact that with what factual informtion we know a killer with some kind of anatomical and or medical knowledge was at work

That can easily be debated, and very persuasively at that. Dr. Thomas Bond believed that the killer of Kelly didn't even possess the anatomical skill of a butcher, while Sequeira and Saunders didn't detect any great anatomcal skill. You criticize others for "debunking" contemporary medical professionals, but why are you "debunking" Bond, for example? And if you're so big on Phillips, do you agree with his conclusion that Eddowes and Chapman were killed by different people? Because if not, you're "debunking" that, aren't you?

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Mike,

it is beyond me how anyone could be expected to answer a question regarding this particular killers skill set without knowing, or having a reasonable idea, .. whom he even killed.

It really has no bearing on the matter. If you think there is evidence of any specialist skill (beyond, say, that of a butcher or slaughterman) in any murder committed in the East End between 1888 and 1889, then I'll have to beg to differ. I see no evidence of any specialist skill at all, not even in any one of the "Evisceration Murders" (putting canons aside) that occurred between August and November 1888. As to the rest - does it require specialist training to slice a sharp knife through someone's throat? Again, my answer would have to be "no".

[Sam Flynn]

to argue anatomical knowledge and medical knowledge are two totally different things, both go hand in hand together where you find one you're more than likely will find the other.

Not true, I'm afraid, JC. I'm sure I'm not alone in having a reasonably detailed knowledge of anatomy, but I am by no means a medical doctor.

[jc007]

I see no evidence of any specialist skill at all

Sam,
Are you a Doctor??? more importantly out of some great miracle have you been able to examine the corpses personally to make such a bold and confident remark?? if not how can you say with any great certainty that there was absolutely no skill at all?? I find this rather strange.

[Sam Flynn]

Sam,
Are you a Doctor??? more importantly out of some great miracle have you been able to examine the corpses personally to make such a bold and confident remark?? if not how can you say with any great certainty that there was absolutely no skill at all?? I find this rather strange.

I'm not a doctor, but I've done my fair share of dissections, albeit not of human abdomens. However I've made enough Sunday lunches in my time to know that there's no great miracle or mystery involved in chopping bits out of a lump of meat.

[jc007]

Not true, I'm afraid, JC. I'm sure I'm not alone in having a reasonably detailed knowledge of anatomy, but I am by no means a medical doctor.

Enough to cut out a kidney in pitch black conditions in a small time frame??

[jc007]

I'm not a doctor, but I've done my fair share of dissections, albeit not of human abdomens. However I've made enough Sunday lunches in my time to know that there's no great miracle or mystery involved in chopping bits out of a lump of meat.

Fair enough Sam but that still doesn't explain how you can say with any great certainty what kind of injuries a person sustained without being a doctor or without personally examining the injuries for yourself?

[Sam Flynn]

Enough to cut out a kidney in pitch black conditions in a small time frame??

Who needs light when one has a wobbly lump firmly gripped in the palm of one's hand, and a sheet of connective tissue and tubes stretchy enough to allow a knife to pass safely through without cutting one's wrist in the process?