JTR: Not even the skill of a butcher?

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Michael!

I think, that the basic line with the all of us her is;

to make some sense to this 120 years old unsolved mess!

All the best
Jukka

[Ben]

Oh come on, Nats.

You're overemphasising the Phillips = God, Bond = Idiot angle a bit aren't you?

Bond was just as competent as Phillips and certainly higher profile. Moreover, Bond's attribution of victims to the same killer made much more sense that Phillips, who more or less attributed each murder to a different killer.

[perrymason]

Bond was just as competent as Phillips and certainly higher profile. Moreover, Bond's attribution of victims to the same killer made much more sense that Phillips, who more or less attributed each murder to a different killer.

Hi Ben,

I think if I interpret Nats correctly, she feels there is knowledge that only the man performing the examination, ...first hand,... can gain, and in simple terms, Phillips touched more than Bond.

And Bond dismisses Alice as a Ripper victim in part due to the lack of sophistication or intelligent cutting,...and that not what he describes most Ripper wound reports look like back in 1888. The man touched one victim himself, who knows if she was even a Ripper victim, and contradicted his 1888 Ripper opinion of skill potential a year later. He is capable of error....as they all are.

But Im with Nats on this, the guy who did the "hands-on", if a qualified man, is the man I listen to first.

My best regards.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Ben,

I think if I interpret Nats correctly, she feels there is knowledge that only the man performing the examination, ...first hand,... can gain, and in simple terms, Phillips touched more than Bond.

...and Sequeira, Llewellyn, Saunders, Brown et al? Do their opinions count for naught?

Never forget, Phillips on Stride: "The killer knew where to cut the throat", or words to that effect. Am I alone in hearing the sound of the bottom of a barrel being scraped?

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

I think if I interpret Nats correctly, she feels there is knowledge that only the man performing the examination, ...first hand,... can gain, and in simple terms, Phillips touched more than Bond.

Yep, but that still doesn't make him right, especially if he chalked up the Eddowes and Chapman murders to different killers. Let's face it, Phillips was almost certainly wrong about that that, and if he's wrong about that, what's to stop him being equally wrong about the level of skill he attributed to Chapman's killer? Bond, on the other hand, believed five or six of the victims were killed by the same perpetrator who, he believed, was a sexually-motivated serial killer. Based on what we now know from a century's worth of comparable SK cases, Bond's opinions make a hellova lot more sense than Phillips'.

Regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

if a qualified man, is the man I listen to first.

"God does not play dice" - Albert Einstein, slagging off Quantum Theory.

[jc007]

Read ALL the accounts of the Eddowes inquest in the Press Reports section

Sam i did as you suggested and too a look a the Press Reports section and in the first i chose to read i found the following:

In neither can robbery have been the motive, nor can the deed be set down as the outcome of an ordinary street brawl. Both have unquestionably been murders deliberately planned, and carried out by the hand of some one who has been no novice to the work.

The body bore clear proof of some anatomical skill, but the murderer had been in a hurry, and had carried out his design in a more rough fashion than that with which ANNIE CHAPMAN'S body had been mutilated.

At Mitre-square the police must have been close upon his heels. The fact that he gives proof of the possession of anatomical skill does much to narrow the inquiry. Not one man in a thousand could have played the part of ANNIE CHAPMAN'S murderer. In one of these new cases, if not in both, we have evidence of a similar kind.

The reason why Chapman is mentioned is because in the same article it was concluded that Chapmans and Eddowes had been killed and mutilated the same way. then we see in the final paragraph i've reproduced, that they refer to the "new cases" meaning the double event.

Sam if you want to disagree thats fine, i've just used the very articles you have directed me to read in order to prove your supposed supremecy in this topic and its done exactly the opposite, in all fairness i have not read ALL the Press Reports either, also i don't see how reading witness statements can really help in the debate about the Rippers skill?

[Sam Flynn]

Sam if you want to disagree thats fine, i've just used the very articles you have directed me to read in order to prove your supposed supremecy in this topic and its done exactly the opposite, in all fairness i have not read ALL the Press Reports either, also i don't see how reading witness statements can really help in the debate about the Rippers skill?

The witness statements include those of the medics, so they're worth seeking out. If you haven't read the articles relevant to the Eddowes inquest, then I suggest you keep reading. I haven't "directed" you to any evidence as such - because, frankly, there's too much of it for me to post individual links. You should seek it out for yourself, because I promise you that you'll find it rewarding.

BTW, I claim no "supremacy", only inasmuch as I've actually read more than one source. You would do well to do the same before you accuse people of altering the evidence.

I'm only trying to offer guidance.

[perrymason]

Yep, but that still doesn't make him right, especially if he chalked up the Eddowes and Chapman murders to different killers. Let's face it, Phillips was almost certainly wrong about that that, and if he's wrong about that, what's to stop him being equally wrong about the level of skill he attributed to Chapman's killer? Bond, on the other hand, believed five or six of the victims were killed by the same perpetrator who, he believed, was a sexually-motivated serial killer. Based on what we now know from a century's worth of comparable SK cases, Bond's opinions make a hellova lot more sense than Phillips'.

Regards,
Ben

Hi again Ben,

Well, I for one hold the possibility open those two women weren't killed by the same guy, in which case I think he may have been pretty savvy.

And what we know about the killers that have been studied for more than a century that has passed since these killings has little or no bearing on who the guy was, how many there were, or which ones are connected. I don't buy sexually motivated either...but that another segway.

Sam, you seem to be snitty with me even though a few posts back I tried to remind people you deserve respect...not quite sure how you spun that negatively, but...if you think its wise to just accept opinions without weighting each perspective, again, thats your prerogative. I read the reports available, the opinions given...that when out of the realm of specific medical relevance are just sheer conjecture and subjectively driven anyway. Bond was pompous...its all over all accounts of him, from him, about him....the guy without hesitation ridiculed his peers conclusions. That doesn't make him wrong or right, just capable of ego in his opinions. I dont want ego in my reports...and his pomposity solved or contributed nothing to the investigations.

Actually, based on an inconclusive 120 years, It may have sabotaged them irreparably.

My best regards.

[jc007]

Based on what we now know from a century's worth of comparable SK cases

Sure Ben, lets go and pick a few seriel killer cases from the last 100 or so years out of a hat, pick out a few similarites and pin them on the Ripper. wait a minute what was that Dan Norder said about about you and Sam using specific facts

"despite them being able to provide specific facts"

Trying to deduce JtR was a sexual killer just because Ted Bundy was, is not a specific fact, its a assumption and a guess. nothing more.

[Ben]

Trying to deduce JtR was a sexual killer just because Ted Bundy was...

And pretty much every other serial killer who targetted the abdominal region and extracted organs, and taking into account pretty much every expert in criminology who classes JTR as a sexually-motivated serial killer. It's the height of hobbyist ignorance to claim that a century's worth of insight into serial killers counts for nothing.

the guy without hesitation ridiculed his peers conclusions.

He didn't ridicule them, Mike. He just disagreed with them. Nothing remotely pompous about professional disagreement.

[Doctor X]

Never forget, Phillips on Stride: "The killer knew where to cut the throat", or words to that effect. Am I alone in hearing the sound of the bottom of a barrel being scraped?

Yeah . . . I remember wondering--given the length of the knife required--exactly where else Jack was going to cut.

--J.D.

[Sam Flynn]

Sam, you seem to be snitty with me.

Not at all - I was just pointing out by way of simile that, if a mind as great as Einstein prematurely dismissed Quantum Theory, then Bagster Phillips could have decided that "expertise" was needed to remove Chapman's pelvic organs in a similarly perfunctory manner.

[Doctor X]

I guess it is all relative.

--J.D.

[perrymason]

Not at all - I was just pointing out by way of simile that, if a mind as great as Einstein prematurely dismissed Quantum Theory, then Bagster Phillips could have decided that "expertise" was needed to remove Chapman's pelvic organs in a similarly perfunctory manner.

It is important to note Sam that Dr Bond is on record as having suggested the Whitechapel Murderer did indeed have skill and knowledge, by virtue of his comments dismissing Alice McKenzie.

Is it just me, or does Bond dismiss virtually every contrary opinion to his own?

I think Ill just stay with my analogy of a painter who suddenly has sculptures circulating with his signature on them, and there is nothing anywhere that indicates he ever did sculptures, or work in any other medium than paint. If his name is carved into it, it would appear you and others would be inclined to assume that the painter must have been a sculptor as well,... its just that we have no records, witnesses or any indication historically that he ever did, or would, sculpt.

The Whitechapel Murderer had traits, had preferences, had wits and had objectives he could only achieve by using dead women. It is there on paper...that is if you care to review the deaths without concluding who killed them first. Their deaths are secondary issues to The Whitechapel Murderer/Leather Apron/Jack,... they only helped facilitate the objectives quietly and without any resistance.

And in the Canon, it is obvious the only thing Strides killer wanted was to kill her....and Marys killer had no idea what he wanted, so he did everything.

Best regards, have a good Sunday.