Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Skill or no Skill, that is the question

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Skill or no Skill, that is the question

    So i know this an old skool area of debate.


    But how could a man commit a act of barbaric violence upon a victim in a very poorly lit street with few viable escape options and with relatively little time to carry out the sheer extent of damage inflicted upon his chosen victim, manage to inflict wounds with almost surgical precision in the dark without having at least some anatomical knowledge or capability with a sharp knife?


    It would seem statistically more likely that JTR was at the very least, skilled enough with a knife to be precise enough to physically unravel the anatomy of his chosen victims?

    To say that there's no evidence he had any skill with a knife would seem unlikely.

    In claiming that he had no anatomical knowledge or skill with a knife and was just plain lucky to have hit the right spots so to speak, seems rather ludicrous.


    Let's take Nichols for example.

    She was displayed for all to see, the killer wanted her to be found and took pride in his work like a warped artist trying to prove a point that his work meant something and should be admired.


    I would argue that despite being driven by rage, he was also by comparison, controlled, meticulous and knew exactly what he wanted to do to Nichols.


    I would also argue that the main reason why some are quick to suggest that he had no skill with a knife or had any anatomical knowledge is mainly because it virtually eradicates several of the key suspects in the case.


    Let's take for example the fact that there was a Horse Slaughterer in Winthrop Street just yards away from the crime scene.

    This work would have required skill with a knife.

    And while the anatomy of a human and a horse are completely different, the concept of obliterating a weak 'animal' and the idea that the killer chose this location is perhaps more relevant than first thought?

    3 of the men who worked at the slaughterers were subsequently questioned and then excluded.

    So JTR commits his (arguably) 1st murder just yards away from a Horse Slaughterer yard...


    Is this significant?




    Thoughts, theories and onslaught please?



    TRD







    "Great minds, don't think alike"

  • #2
    Originally posted by The Rookie Detective View Post
    Thoughts, theories and onslaught please?
    Again, look at some of the archived threads on this subject. They're numerous.

    Comment


    • #3
      There isn't one on Henry Gawen Sutton ...... yet!
      My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by DJA View Post
        There isn't one on Henry Gawen Sutton ...... yet!
        Although, it is on its way!...

        Click image for larger version

Name:	fetch?id=743610&d=1585279682&type=medium.jpg
Views:	863
Size:	22.6 KB
ID:	744008
        Andrew's the man, who is not blamed for nothing

        Comment


        • #5
          My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

          Comment


          • #6
            Hello, Rookie Detective.

            Don't mind them.

            I think you have an excellent point. And I hadn't thought about Nichols being killed by the slaughter yard before!

            Some medical experts of the era said the murderer had medical skill, while others thought a butcher could easily remove the organs. What was the truth?

            I think the experts were hobbled by their preconceptions (a thing most Victorians of that age were) about class and human nature.

            An educated man wouldn't do such a barbaric thing, they thought, so they decided to blame an immigrant, a working-class thug, a seaman, a horse slaughtered or butcher.

            The frustrating thing is we need to rely on the opinions of the medicos, and they do not always agree.
            Pat D. https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...rt/reading.gif
            ---------------
            Von Konigswald: Jack the Ripper plays shuffleboard. -- Happy Birthday, Wanda June by Kurt Vonnegut, c.1970.
            ---------------

            Comment


            • #7
              Human anatomical knowledge -- yes, but very limited.

              Skill using knife -- wasn't afraid to make cuts and remove what he found.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Pcdunn View Post
                Hello, Rookie Detective.

                Don't mind them.

                I think you have an excellent point. And I hadn't thought about Nichols being killed by the slaughter yard before!

                Some medical experts of the era said the murderer had medical skill, while others thought a butcher could easily remove the organs. What was the truth?

                Thank you for your viewpoint and I appreciate that you didn't dismiss my query.

                I personally believe it to be quite a coincidence that Nichols was slain only yards away from a Horse Slaughterer, when the main witness who was found in close proximity to the body; Charles Lechmere, had a personal connection to the trade...his mother was a Horse Slaughterer by trade, or more specifically a Horse Flesh Dealer. What's even more odd is that the Pinchin Street torso discovered under the railway arch in September 1889 was only yards away from where she lived.

                Now I'm by no means implying that Lechmere was JTR, merely that it's a coincidence that he found Nichols just yards from a place that slaughtered horses for human consumption and his own mother was in the trade, which may have been an interestingly lucrative trade if one were to slaughter prostitutes instead of horses.

                Just a random hypothesis and not in any way a theory.
                "Great minds, don't think alike"

                Comment


                • #9
                  And the connection between slaughtered horses and Mary Nichols, is what, if you don't mind me asking?
                  Regards, Jon S.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                    And the connection between slaughtered horses and Mary Nichols, is what, if you don't mind me asking?
                    Ah, that's my point exactly...

                    To really look at this from another angle, I am trying to ascertain the connection that a key witness and potential suspect has in relation to the murder location because he's the one taking the risk...

                    If we try not to look from the victim's perspective for once and build the picture from another angle, it will shed more light on the picture.

                    If we take the same approach with other individual witnesses or suspects that we know had a physical connection with at least one of the victims, then that would also help build the picture.

                    For example, we know that Barnett, McCarthy, Bowyer, Lechmere, Paul, Hutchinson etc... are confirmed as either being witnesses or to have known one of the victims, then that will help build the case.

                    We need to put others like Sickhart, Ostrog, Kosminski etc...to the back of the list, although unpopular to do so, we have to start with the witnesses or suspects that we know had some link to the murders.
                    "Great minds, don't think alike"

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                      And the connection between slaughtered horses and Mary Nichols, is what, if you don't mind me asking?
                      In other words, it's not necessarily Nichols that has a connection to the place she was murdered, especially if we assume it's somewhere the killer would need to have felt relatively safe to commit the crime.

                      It could be said that's the reason why MJK stands out; because we have to look from her perspective seeing as it was her dwelling place.
                      "Great minds, don't think alike"

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Here are the opinions of the medical types.

                        Dr Llewellyn - “some rough anatomical knowledge”

                        Coroner Baxter - "considerable anatomical skill and knowledge”

                        Dr Phillips - "seemed to indicate great anatomical knowledge.”

                        Dr Sequeira - "not possessed of any great anatomical skill"

                        Dr Brown - “a great deal of knowledge”

                        Dr Saunders did not think the killer showed anatomical skill.

                        Dr Bond - "no scientific nor anatomical knowledge" IIRC, Thomas Bond read the reports in the victims, he did not examine the bodies.

                        So the assessments of skill are:
                        None - Bond, Saunders
                        Some - Lllewellyn, Sequeira
                        A lot - Baxter, Brown, Phillips

                        So who knows?
                        "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren

                        "Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Fiver View Post
                          Here are the opinions of the medical types.

                          Dr Llewellyn - “some rough anatomical knowledge”

                          Coroner Baxter - "considerable anatomical skill and knowledge”

                          Dr Phillips - "seemed to indicate great anatomical knowledge.”

                          Dr Sequeira - "not possessed of any great anatomical skill"

                          Dr Brown - “a great deal of knowledge”

                          Dr Saunders did not think the killer showed anatomical skill.

                          Dr Bond - "no scientific nor anatomical knowledge" IIRC, Thomas Bond read the reports in the victims, he did not examine the bodies.

                          So the assessments of skill are:
                          None - Bond, Saunders
                          Some - Lllewellyn, Sequeira
                          A lot - Baxter, Brown, Phillips

                          So who knows?
                          It's not just the skill factor the killer would have to have possessed in removing the organs, he would have to have had sufficient medical knowledge to know how to locate the organs within the abdomen.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                            It's not just the skill factor the killer would have to have possessed in removing the organs, he would have to have had sufficient medical knowledge to know how to locate the organs within the abdomen.
                            The assumption that killer was looking for specific organs is part of the assessments made by the doctors. Arguing against those assessments are organs that were stabbed or cut in two, instead of neatly removed.

                            "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren

                            "Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by The Rookie Detective View Post
                              I personally believe it to be quite a coincidence that Nichols was slain only yards away from a Horse Slaughterer, when the main witness who was found in close proximity to the body; Charles Lechmere, had a personal connection to the trade...his mother was a Horse Slaughterer by trade, or more specifically a Horse Flesh Dealer. What's even more odd is that the Pinchin Street torso discovered under the railway arch in September 1889 was only yards away from where she lived.
                              In 1891, the widow Maria Forsdike was working as a horse flesh dealer, not a knacker. Horse flesh dealers received boiled meat from the knackers, already separated from bones and organs. They then cut up the meat (likely with some fat a gristle), placed the meat on wooden skewers, and sold it.

                              This required less anatomical skill than carving up a holiday turkey.
                              "The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren

                              "Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven Blomer

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X