JTR: Not even the skill of a butcher?

[Natalie Severn]

I admit that I phrased my answer somewhat harshly. I just wanted to point out the caveat that we have to examine the facts first and without information have to refrain from forming theories that might unduly influence our judgements regarding the facts.
I did not dispute that it happened, I only see no immediate connection to the case.
Without further information we can only speculate on what caused him to commit suicide. There is a multitude of possible causes which are neither related with the case as such nor connected with the police officers.
If you have information that supports your theory I will gladly listen to it.

I dont have a theory on the above.I am presenting the facts as I myself see ,understand and perceive them. What is made of this information depends on the reader and their perceptions.

BTW I find all this talk about the victims as lumps of meat etc to be quite disrespectful.That the women had to suffer the death they did is bad enough without treating them as so much butchers meat.
Best Wishes
Natalie

[Sam Flynn]

BTW I find all this talk about the victims as lumps of meat etc to be quite disrespectful.

Dear Nats, trust me - lumps of meat is all that the killer had to deal with after he'd slaughtered his victims. Meat, in fact, is all we are once we're dead.

[Natalie Severn]

Dear Nats, trust me - lumps of meat is all that the killer had to deal with after he'd slaughtered his victims. Meat, in fact, is all we are once we're dead.

Sure Sam,...but there is a fine line during these discussions.Surprisingly perhaps I dont find you as someone who crosses it despite the tendency to discuss the butchery!......maybe its because I have talked to you in person and know a little of the way you think about the case.

[Sam Flynn]

Sure Sam,...but there is a fine line during these discussions.

Absolutely, Nats, but it really does pay to be dispassionate at times - and, let's not forget, "dispassionate" need not mean "lacking compassion". It certainly doesn't in my case, as you've rightly discerned.

Thanks for the kind words

[Doctor X]

Huh? How do we know that the kidney wasn't damaged when it was taken out?

Exactly.

You know, I wonder if part of it is looking back on an event and calculating, in our minds, how improbable it was.

If it was complete, utter, pitch black, he would have to know where the kidney is located roughly to simply feel for it. Still, he could have simply felt it sweeping his hands under the intestines. If knowledge, it could have been simply looking at a drawing.

Problem with these things is they are all based on assumptions. Let us assume he purposefully wanted a "trophy." Then you have him "looking/feeling" for a kidney. Then you can imagine him looking at a diagram--assuming he is not a butcher.

What if it was "opportunity?" He opens a victim up, sees the uterus, thinks "cool!" and decides to take it? He gets a bit more ambitious the next time.

Or . . . if you assume he left the chalk graffito . . . maybe he took them just to mess with authorities . . . or not.

And around . . . and around . . . and around we go.

--J.D.

[jc007]

Problem is every one assumes far too much without using factual evidence from the crimes to back up what they say. Fair enough i assumed the kidney was taken out with out being damaged, but there is nothing to suggest it was. But to wrongfully assume professional police surgeons do not know what they are talking about or are plain wrong, is a bold and pompous statement to make to say the least, no one here has had the oppurtinity to examine the bodies nor has the professional ability to make such bold calls, yes there were a few surgeons who disagreed (and did they explain why they had this opinion?) but also a couple who had the opinion some skill was present and who are we to say they have no idea what they are talking about???

[Ben]

Good points, Doctor X!

Hi Jc007,

But to wrongfully assume professional police surgeons do not know what they are talking about or are plain wrong, is a bold and pompous statement to make to say the least

Okay, so straight back to the question I put to you earlier. Are you arguing that Thomas Bond - who detected no anatomical knowledge of any description whatsoever - did not know what he was talking about? And were Sequeira and Saunders, who detected no great anatomical skill either, both similarly clueless? You cannot criticize others for disagreeing with contemprary doctors when you'e doing precisely the same thing yourself.

Fair enough i assumed the kidney was taken out with out being damaged, but there is nothing to suggest it was.

Nothing to suggest it wasn't.

[jc007]

Ben,
Can you give me any real factual reasons Bond, Sequeira and Saunders gave for disagreeing with Phillips and Brown?? Sure they could of said Ronald McDonald was the Ripper, its fine to disagree with fellow collegues but surely if they are going to do that they need to supply some reasoning in order for anyone to give thier disagreements any credit.

[jc007]

Just to note, in Eddowes case, Drs Sequeira and Sedgewick Saunders did not believe much expertise was shown by the killer, they did not say there was absolutely no expertise shown.

[Ben]

Can you give me any real factual reasons Bond, Sequeira and Saunders gave for disagreeing with Phillips and Brown??

It wasn't encumbent upon any of those three to prove a negative. If they didn't detect any evidence of anatomical skill, they had only to say so, citing as evidence the description of the wounds already published. That's what Bond did; he described Kelly's horrific injuries in meticulous detail and went on to deduce from that that the killer possessed no anatomical knowledge. Did Phillips give any "reason" for disagreeing with Bond?

"Just to note, in Eddowes case, Drs Sequeira and Sedgewick Saunders did not believe much expertise was shown by the killer, they did not say there was absolutely no expertise shown"

And that description can apply to pretty much everyone. The vast majority of people would demonstrate "not much expertize". Where does this quote originate from, incidentally?

[jc007]

Where does this quote originate from, incidentally?

An article by Ivor Edwards called Misconceptions concerning the Whitechapel Murders 1888

#14: JtR possessed no 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. I shall endeavour to give both sides of the evidence pertaining to the killers anatomical knowledge and let the reader decide the issue.

Acting Commissioner, City of London Police, Sir Henry Smith, was quoted in the People of Sunday, 9 June 1912, as saying that the killer was a gentile and he possessed anatomical knowledge. In a report written by Chief Inspector Swanson, on 6 November 1888, he stated that the medical evidence showed that the murder of Eddowes could have been committed by a properly trained surgeon or a student in surgery.

In the case of Nichols, Bucks Row, Whitechapel. Dr Llewellyn pronounced Nichols dead his original autopsy report has since been lost. The Times reported his medical testimony which did not include any information relating to the killer's medical skill. The Times report did suggest that the injuries were performed from left to right and may have been done by a left handed person. The swollen face of the victim and lack of blood indicated asphyxiation. Vital organs were attacked indicating that the killer knew exactly where they were located.

In the case of Chapman, 29 Hanbury St, Spitalfields. Dr Philips pronounced Chapman dead and at the post-mortem he was of the opinion that there were indications of anatomical knowledge which were only less indicated in consequence of haste. He believed the murder weapon to be such an instrument as a medical man used for post-mortem purposes. The mode in which the absent portions were extracted showed some anatomical knowledge. Dr. Philips was of the opinion that the breathing of the deceased had been interfered with prior to the cause of death due to "syncope". On 19 September1888, Dr Philips was recalled to give evidence in relation to the after-death mutilations omitted from his evidence on 14 September. He noted that the work was probably completed by an expert (no adjacent organs were damaged during the attack) He also noted that the way the knife had been wielded pointed to knowledge of anatomy and was such as used by surgeons in post-mortems. Dr Phillips thought the killer could not have performed all the injuries he described, even without a struggle, under a quarter of an hour. If the killer had performed the mutilations in a deliberate way, as would fall to the duties of a surgeon, it probably would have taken him the best part of an hour. The coroner Wynne Baxter concluded that Chapman's killer was a medical man.

In the case of Stride, Dutfields Yard, Whitechapel. Dr. Blackwell pronounced Stride dead. He stated Stride had been killed standing up and believed the blood on her right hand indicated a struggle. Dr Phillips carried out the post- mortem with Dr Blackwell in attendance. Phillips disagreed with Blackwell's findings and believed Stride was seized by the shoulders, pressed on the ground, and that the killer was on the left side when he cut her throat while she was lying on the ground. He could not explain how the victim's hand had become covered in blood. Dr Blackwell later concurred with the findings of Dr Phillips. The only injury to Stride was a cut throat, so the question of the killer having showed medical knowledge in this case was virtually non-existent.

In the case of Eddowes, Mitre Square, Aldgate. Dr Sequeira and police surgeon Dr. Gordon Brown were called out to the crime scene. Brown's post-mortem report can be seen at the C.L.R. [or here] It is interesting to note that Dr. Brown observed that there was no sign of sexual connection. He wrote, "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." He also wrote, "It required a great deal of medical knowledge to have removed the kidney and to knowwhere it was placed." Drs Sequeira and Sedgewick Saunders did not believe much expertise was shown by the killer. Coroner Wynne Baxter believed the killer of Eddowes to be an unskilled imitator. An interesting comment made by Brown, considering the severe nature of the crime, was that the killer would have little blood on his person.

In the case of Kelly, 13 Millers Court, Dorset St, Spitalfields. Dr Bond was called to the crime scene and his post-mortem report was lost and then returned to Scotland Yard in the 1980s. This case was the most severe in respect of mutilations, but Dr. Bond stated that the killer would not necessarily be splashed or be covered in blood. He stated the killer to be a man of physical strength and of great coolness and daring. Dr Phillips believed medical skill was shown in the murder of Kelly while Dr. Bond did not.

[Ben]

Ivor Edwards is not a primary source, unfortunately.

Most of the things he lists as "misconceptions" are nothing of the sort.

[Sam Flynn]

Ben,
Can you give me any real factual reasons Bond, Sequeira and Saunders gave for disagreeing with Phillips and Brown??

Brown himself only suggested that the killer had anatomical knowledge. I know where my kidneys are, and I'm sure your knowledge of anatomy extends as far too.

Phillips seems to stand alone amongst his peers in terms of attributing any surgical skill, and that attribution was seemingly made on the basis of Annie Chapman's murder alone, where Phillips was apparently awestruck by the sub-cervical removal of a womb. The fact remains that the clumsiness evidenced by a stump of the bladder remaining in the corpse, a slashing of the descending colon, and the crude removal of three rough panels of flesh from the abdomen, seems to have played no part in his analysis - despite the fact that he himself noted these things. This ought to speak volumes as to his discernment on such matters. The fact that he believed he could not have done the same in under 15 minutes says something about his imagination, if not his own surgical ability.

[jc007]

Brown himself only suggested that the killer had anatomical knowledge.

In the case of Eddowes, Mitre Square, Aldgate. Dr Sequeira and police surgeon Dr. Gordon Brown were called out to the crime scene. Brown's post-mortem report can be seen at the C.L.R. [or here] It is interesting to note that Dr. Brown observed that there was no sign of sexual connection. He wrote, "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." He also wrote, "It required a great deal of medical knowledge to have removed the kidney and to knowwhere it was placed.

You sure Sam?

[jc007]

Ivor Edwards is not a primary source, unfortunately.

Most of the things he lists as "misconceptions" are nothing of the sort.

Unlike most of the people here at least Edwards is unbiased as he throws up both sides of the coin in the matter and uses factual evidence and infomation about the case to back it, rather than using guess work.