JTR: Not even the skill of a butcher?

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Nats,

Phillips' opinion [of the Jane Beardmore murder at Birtley] was that the abdominal injuries in this case had been a "clumsy piece of butchery"

Beardmore's abdominal wounds comprised a couple of stabs to the upper abdomen and a slashing cut lower down that caused her bowels to protrude, which is clumsy butchery by any standards. I daresay that Phillips would have labelled Polly Nichols' wounds as a "clumsy piece of butchery" on that basis. But we'll never know.

In the case of Chapman, Phillips seems to have been so swayed by a sub-cervical cut to Annie's uterus that he overlooked the rough dollops of flesh carved from her belly, the severed colon and the stump of the bladder that were staring him in the face. Quite how he felt compelled to extrapolate this wreckage to attribute "expertise" to the killer has always baffled me.

Just my opinion - your mileage may vary

[Natalie Severn]

Hi All,
I am firmly of the view that as the principal police surgeon of Whitechapel "H" division in 1888 ,Dr Bagster Phillips,saw the hand of the Ripper ,"in the flesh as it were" and Dr Phillips ,as an experienced Police Surgeon for the Whitechapel district ,was vastly more experienced than any of us and furthermore was actually in a position to know what he was talking about being there at the time and seeing several victims with his own eyes.So as a trained and experienced surgeon he had many cases over the years to use as a scale of comparison.
So it is interesting to know that he made the following notes in the context of his report on his findings at having been called North to County Durham to decide whether a certain murder victim,a Jane Beadmore, may have been a Ripper victim.His opinion was that the abdominal injuries in this case had been a "clumsy piece of butchery" and had shown none of the "finesse and skill" of the Whitechapel miscreant.Inspector Thomas Roots, who had travelled with him was of a similar opinion.
Best
Natalie

[Mitch Rowe]

I don't know how many times it needs to be said, but someone without any understanding of psychology trying to look something up in a general dictionary and then attempting to interpret what that means isn't helpful at all. Experts on sadism and psychology say Jack the Ripper definitely was one. Sadism is a mental condition that can be expressed with a whole broad range of actions. Cutting up a body, whether the body is capable of feeling pain at that point or not, is classified as sadism. Regardless of whether some people here choose to believe it or not, it's a fact.

Similarly, it's not that targeting the sexual organs is what makes him a sexual serial killer. Sexual impulses also have a wide range of expression. If people accept that someone can have a fetish for shoes or leather or diapers, why do people have a problem understanding that someone can have a fetish for cutting people?

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but if one is expressing an opinion on whether a particular psychological classification is appropriate or not, he or she needs to understand how the classification system works. Without that basic knowledge it's like someone without any background in chemistry trying to argue that diamonds can't possibly be made out of carbon because they've seen carbon paper and carbon is soft and black while diamonds are hard and white.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdNGgJLlbgs

Interestingly, the word "surgery" is a modern form of the word "chirurgery", which derived from the Greek for "hand work" - so you're not far off

You never cease to amaze me with the range of topics you can speak intelligently about Mr Flynn.

Cheers Mate.

[Sam Flynn]

But to pat myself on the back....since no-one else is likely to....I rather liked my phrase "Surgical Masturbation"

Interestingly, the word "surgery" is a modern form of the word "chirurgery", which derived from the Greek for "hand work" - so you're not far off

Sorry Sam.

Ok...using my last post as the framework, I suggest that the killer of some of the Canon had no more experience cutting flesh than a butcher or hunter might have, if that......but some of the kills do reveal some greater focus in the cutting actions than that, achieving a more "surgically capable" appearance to the killers work.

So the men who killed 2 Canonical women could just have been a drunk thug and a pig farmer or butcher without any real focus, and the man or men that killed the remaining 3 of the Canon might have had some objectives that are revealed in the simplicity of the activities performed, or the fact that superficial and superfluous wounds were minimized, or that they were more "expertly" done than the others...at least in appearance.

Thats the closest I can come to staying specifically on topic Sam....

But to pat myself on the back....since no-one else is likely to....I rather liked my phrase "Surgical Masturbation" when describing Kellys killers activities.

Cheers Gareth.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Mike,

....if he had wanted her heart, he need not have made such a mess, or taken the flap...and partially de-fleshed thighs? Whats the deal there....oh...right, I forgot..... Jack just wants cutting and bleeding, not anything specific

...whether he does or not, that has everything to do with arguments about his aims and motivations, and nothing to do with whether he possessed any particular skill. The latter is the subject of this thread.

Please, folks - don't turn this into a discussion of whether or not he killed X or Y, I beg you!

Hello again,

I think Sam with the flaps you have evidence that perhaps the same man did those two, or two different men used a technique for the very reason you suggested...it offered them greater access and room...particularly if he worked on some from between their splayed legs.

Interesting that in Annie's case it may have aided the removal of her uterus intact, and in Marys case, it was one of many things he did while simply emptying her and placing bits around her body. One shows that it was done to aid an activity such as extraction...one shows that it was done as a distraction, another bit of senseless mutilation....if he had wanted her heart, he need not have made such a mess, or taken the flap...and partially de-fleshed thighs? Whats the deal there....oh...right, I forgot..... Jack just wants cutting and bleeding, not anything specific.

Maybe the guy who slices up Mary shows us that motivational scenario, but Polly and Annie don't, and Kate only marginally does. Annies killer wanted something and took it, and Kate's killer wanted something new, but not without the same organ taken from Annie. Liz's killer just wanted her dead, and Marys killer was one panicked dude, trying like hell to make a crime scene a bloodthirsty madman might make....but he forgot something really important to the guy who takes the female uterus and other organs, and he didn't tie this one in with the priors in a way that would clinch the deal, like perhaps killing her outside like the others, when she was assumed to be working the streets, not sleeping...or taking the excised uterus, or leaving her door open when he leaves, cause Jack could care less who finds his girls first judging by his priors....or not stripping one thigh of flesh and the other partially.."Jack" didn't surgically masturbate with his victims like the man who killed Mary did,..... Jack cut to kill, cut to access, cut to extract, and probably once at least, cut some cloth from the victim to carry the items off.

My best regards Sam, all.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Jon,

What advantage is gained with the removal of the belly wall in panels ? As opposed to the breast bone to pubes rip ?

It gave him a bigger space in which to manoeuvre, I'd say. I had thought that the confined space afforded by the vertical rip to Catherine Eddowes was instrumental in Jack's cutting through her descending colon, however on recently reading the Echo report of the Chapman inquest, I came to learn that Jack had severed Annie's colon also.

That doesn't negate the fact that removing slabs of flesh from the belly wall would have given Jack more elbow-room (it's logical that it would have), but it certainly didn't seem to help him to be much "neater" in his evisceration at Hanbury Street than he would later be at Mitre Square.

[Jon Guy]

Sam

A question,if I may ?

What advantage is gained with the removal of the belly wall in panels ?
As opposed to the breast bone to pubes rip ?

[Sam Flynn]

I was aware that it was you that noted the "flaps" thing , I didn`t realise that this had been applied to the available light observation.

No need to apologise, Jon. It's cool when people come to the same conclusions. For one thing it shows that one might not be barking up the wrong tree!

[Jon Guy]

Hello Sam

Mucho apologies!!

I was aware that it was you that noted the "flaps" thing , I didn`t realise that this had been applied to the available light observation.

[Sam Flynn]

Actually, I remarked on the similarity between the abdominal incisions suffered by Chapman/Kelly versus Nichols/Eddowes in my Rip article, Jon - so great minds think alike! However, I've since revised my opinion, in that Nichols may have suffered more than one vertical incision down her abdomen - or so it appears. I say "appears", because we are working with very limited records in the case of the Buck's Row murder. However, it is possible that Nichols' killer had started to carve out separate "panels" of flesh to gain entry to her abdomen also. Alternatively he just scored some random slashes from the base of the ribs towards the pubes - but the possibility that he intended to carve out flaps of flesh is intriguing.

[Fisherman]

What do I reckon? I reckon it is a very good question, seeing as victims 1 and 3 differed in this respect from number 2 and 4. No escalation, thus, and no picking-up-as-you-go-along thing either.
Time? Kelly offered heaps of it, in comparison with the killings in the streets, and maybe he felt more at ease in a backyard than on Buck´s Row and Mitre Square - it would have diminished the chances of people running into you to some small extent, I guess.
Then again, as he managed to harvest both uterus and kidney in Mitre Square, why would he feel the need to rid himself of the stomach flaps in two other cases? Maybe he intended to go longer with Chapman, but was spooked by Cadoches reoccurring lavatory trips? Could his main aim all along have been total evisceration, something he had to give up until Kellys room provided the perfect setting? And if so, why did he not find more secluded murder spots? They must have been around to some extent.
Interesting, Jon!

The best,
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

Hello

I may well be off the mark with these two observations, which may , or may not, demonstrate some method to the slashing and grabbing.

In the cases of Chapman and Kelly, where there may have been some visibility afforded to the killer, the belly was cut away in portions.

Whereas, with Nichols and Eddowes, where he was pretty much working in complete darkness ,he draws a line with his knife from breast bone to pubes.

What d`ya reckon ?