Skill or no Skill, that is the question

[Sunny Delight]

One of the most respected and revered and well published ex-Policemen Ripperologists answered a direct question from me here some years ago, in case you think suggesting that these 5 victims are not all connected is somehow radical thinking, and he told me that after studying these crimes for 50 years he cannot see more than 2 or 3 of the Canonical Group as likely being connected by one killer. I dont know how long youve been studying these crimes, Ive been at this since 1988, but I suggest that you have a naive idea of the people and environment of that time. And so you dont continue believing that all contemporary investigators bought the Canonical Group theory, maybe read about the ones that openly admitted they had no idea how many victims were by one man, why they were killed and by whom.

Whats really a bit sad is adopting something others have said as some kind of stable foundation to use. Just like Trump supporters.

Trump supporters are the antithesis to my beliefs and way of operating. I have no idea what someone agreeing with you or the length of time studying the case is supposed to make me say? Well done I suppose for the longevity. I do not have a naive opinion of people at that time nor the environment.

I am from Ireland and am a history graduate. As part of my Masters degree I was researching the Fenian movement in Ireland. I then began to look in depth at the dynamite campaign in London which eventually led me to the Jack the Ripper case. There is no connection by the way rather than location. I digress, the case then became of interest to me moreover for the social aspect of which there is more myth yet again(a look at Charles Booth's map shows this clearly). When trying to research connections with the crimes I think the vast majority are in agreement that the Ripper killed at least four, probably six and possibly eight. That is not really up for discussion. In fact the discussion has moved far beyond that.

The Doctors and Surgeons who looked at the case settled on five definite victims. They were there. They saw the bodies and saw the reports. They analysed documents we can only dream of seeing. How someone 135 years later believes they have a better idea of things I just do not know. That is even more pertinent when they are not a doctor nor a surgeon.

[Fleetwood Mac]

The Doctors and Surgeons who looked at the case settled on five definite victims. They were there. They saw the bodies and saw the reports. They analysed documents we can only dream of seeing. How someone 135 years later believes they have a better idea of things I just do not know. That is even more pertinent when they are not a doctor nor a surgeon.

I reckon the answer lies somewhere in between.

The doctors and police were limited in their understanding of serial killers and pathology. We have information at our disposal that they did not have.

On the other hand, the medical men left us information which is not subject to the limitations of that period. By way of illustration, Annie Chapman's stomach contents is an important piece of information which is not negated due to the murder series being 150 years ago.

When it comes to the police, we simply cannot reasonably say that because the police believed something then we must believe it. The reason being there is no science behind believing a witness or a statement: it's a judgement call based on many things, and it certainly isn't a scientific verifiable proposition. Whether or not Swanson for example believe something, is irrelevant unless Swanson leaves us information to understand exactly why he believed it and we can assess whether or not Swanson's conclusion was a sound one.

As for 5 victims, had the police known what we know today, I'm pretty confident they would have concluded that there were more than 5 victims. There is outdated thinking that you see on these boards still, to the effect that serial killers follow rigid patterns and all murders must display certain characteristics and modes of attack. That thinking wasn't actually based on studies of what serial killers actually do: it was theorising based on limited knowledge and what they perceived. Studies that have actually looked at what serial killers do, conclude that serial killers are not rigid at all in their methods and this includes the fact that they don't always use the same weapon let alone effect the exact same cut in the exact same manner.

What I would say about the police of 1888 is that to their credit they did not place the same emphasis on witness statements that many on this board do, and it is demonstrable that they were right to do that (given what we know today surrounding the general unreliability of witnesses and the reasons).

In sum: the police and the medical men leave us two types of information. 1) Information that is not negated by the fact the case was 150 years ago. 2) Information that is not so useful due to being the subject of more primitive methods of policing and medicine, and in relation to the police some of which is mere judgement.

[Holmes' Idiot Brother]

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.

This is my feeling, too. I feel that the medicos may also have known that Jack did indeed have surgical skill and perhaps may have been reluctant to definitively say so, in an effort to protect their profession, as it were. The shock that a trained man of medical science could/would do this to a member of the unfortunate classes may have been a sore source of embarrassment for them. If the Ripper did indeed make off with these organs under conditions of extraordinary handicap and risk, then I am in agreement with Sugden that "we will not likely find him amongst the laboring poor." What convinced me of the man's skill was procuring Eddowes' kidney from the front. I work in a hospital and asked a few trauma doctors how hard it would be to extract a kidney from the front, in near dark, under threat of discovery, and in less than 15 minutes. They all looked at me as if I'd just levitated. They all said there would be no advantage to taking the kidney from the front, as they would have to contend with the peritoneal lining, a layer of fat protecting the rest of the viscera. One doctor (also a surgeon) asked an excellent question: "If she's already dead, why didn't he just turn her over and save himself the time?" Fair point. For me, Jack may have shown either his lack of surgical experience and just got lucky...or he was showing off. Perhaps he was showing off to his contemporaries, whom he knew would be sure to examine Eddowes...?

[The Rookie Detective]

This is my feeling, too. I feel that the medicos may also have known that Jack did indeed have surgical skill and perhaps may have been reluctant to definitively say so, in an effort to protect their profession, as it were. The shock that a trained man of medical science could/would do this to a member of the unfortunate classes may have been a sore source of embarrassment for them. If the Ripper did indeed make off with these organs under conditions of extraordinary handicap and risk, then I am in agreement with Sugden that "we will not likely find him amongst the laboring poor." What convinced me of the man's skill was procuring Eddowes' kidney from the front. I work in a hospital and asked a few trauma doctors how hard it would be to extract a kidney from the front, in near dark, under threat of discovery, and in less than 15 minutes. They all looked at me as if I'd just levitated. They all said there would be no advantage to taking the kidney from the front, as they would have to contend with the peritoneal lining, a layer of fat protecting the rest of the viscera. One doctor (also a surgeon) asked an excellent question: "If she's already dead, why didn't he just turn her over and save himself the time?" Fair point. For me, Jack may have shown either his lack of surgical experience and just got lucky...or he was showing off. Perhaps he was showing off to his contemporaries, whom he knew would be sure to examine Eddowes...?

That is an excellent point.

If the killer was concerned about time, he would have taken her kidney from behind; before laying her on her back.

That would imply that the Kidney was not his primary target, but he pushed his curiosity so to speak


I believe the killer had no surgical ability in the clinical sense, but he did have anatomical knowledge. He knew where everything was, but his interests postmortem were all about the act of cutting and what he could do with his knife.

That puts him more in line with a butcher and slaughterer, than a surgeon.
It also puts him more in line with the Torso killer who I believe could have been the same man.

He was skilled with his knife; and skilled at cutting, but outside of that, he was just exploring his kink of cutting a female body to see what she was made of.

His primary focus IMO was always the Uterus; the area where new life is created and grown.

Also, he may have attacked the Uterus to see whether his victim was pregnant. Interestingly, all of his outdoor victims were all around the age they were possibly entering/experiencing menopause.
They were also women who may have been perceived as having fallen from grace through their life choices; personal break-ups, alcohol, prostitution, ex-marital status etc...

I think he had a thing for exploring the Uterus to see what was inside, but he primarily targeted older women (of child bearing age) from a combination of disgust, punishment, and curiosity.

How would a man who attacked women; and who enjoyed cutting into them, feel about women whom he perceived as choosing a life of prostitution?

The correlation between prostitutes and the increased statistical likelihood that they would conceive illegitimate offspring; I believe was also part of his motive; his underlying driving force that carried his rage, possibly brewing from his adolescence and experiences in his formative years.

I think one of the reasons why he decimated Kelly, was because she may have been pregnant. That's conjecture of course, but I do wonder whether he discovered she was pregnant as he cut into her, and that automatically drove his rage and he went berserk.

I also believe that he intended to take her head as a trophy, but may have been disturbed by activity in the court.

The idea that he was interrupted as he was cutting Kelly may seem strange; because it's always assumed that because he was inside her room, he would have taken his time. However, I believe he hadn't quite finished with her and he had to abort his attempt at taking her head, to escape the court undetected.

I believe he did indeed carry a black bag...but as a means for transporting the head. Only on this occasion, he left with just her heart. He may have desired to display her as heartless; literally a heartless woman.

His bag perhaps reminiscent of Goldstein's black bag, when he was seen walking hurriedly past the murder site of Stride.

RD

[Fiver]

I believe the killer had no surgical ability in the clinical sense, but he did have anatomical knowledge. He knew where everything was, but his interests postmortem were all about the act of cutting and what he could do with his knife.

Doctors who examined both Torso victims and Ripper victims concluded that the Torso Killer had more anatomical knowledge than the Ripper.

[Michael W Richards]

Trump supporters are the antithesis to my beliefs and way of operating. I have no idea what someone agreeing with you or the length of time studying the case is supposed to make me say? Well done I suppose for the longevity. I do not have a naive opinion of people at that time nor the environment.

I am from Ireland and am a history graduate. As part of my Masters degree I was researching the Fenian movement in Ireland. I then began to look in depth at the dynamite campaign in London which eventually led me to the Jack the Ripper case. There is no connection by the way rather than location. I digress, the case then became of interest to me moreover for the social aspect of which there is more myth yet again(a look at Charles Booth's map shows this clearly). When trying to research connections with the crimes I think the vast majority are in agreement that the Ripper killed at least four, probably six and possibly eight. That is not really up for discussion. In fact the discussion has moved far beyond that.

The Doctors and Surgeons who looked at the case settled on five definite victims. They were there. They saw the bodies and saw the reports. They analysed documents we can only dream of seeing. How someone 135 years later believes they have a better idea of things I just do not know. That is even more pertinent when they are not a doctor nor a surgeon.

Who I quoted has 50 plus years studying this and a London Police background to boot. I dont dispute that the first hand aspect makes a "guess" somehow more compelling, but as I recall the man who saw more of the Canonicals in death than any other medical expert didnt see the same hand in all Five victims. So you may think this 5 Canonicals theory has more legs because it was started by some contemporary investigators who were there and did see the results of the killers actions, the man who saw 4 of Five didnt see evidence of 1 killer for even just those 4. So, if the discussions you engage in have moved beyond questioning whether it was 5 or more victims by Jack you are accepting a premise that Dr Phillips didnt agree with, and he was as up close and personal as it gets with the victims.

I would think with your background and source materials like Fenian Fire and the like, that the concurrent investigations taking place at the Parnell Commission do reveal some ties with the senior investigators and investigations involved with the Ripper cases. And at least 1 senior investigator suggested that General Millen was Jack. And I also believe that in anyones definition of what Terrorists do, the violent crimes that Fall in the East End fit under that sort of umbrella.

[c.d.]

I'm certainly not downplaying Dr. Phillips's opinion but do we know anything of how he arrived at that opinion? Do we know what factors he took into consideration? How much weight did he give each of those factors? Were there factors he did not consider at all or perhaps gave little weight too? Did he discuss his conclusions with other doctors at the time? Were they all in agreement with his assessments? Was he challenged at all on his opinions?

Respect his opinion but don't treat it as the final word unless the above questions can be answered.

c.d.

[Holmes' Idiot Brother]

That is an excellent point.

If the killer was concerned about time, he would have taken her kidney from behind; before laying her on her back.

That would imply that the Kidney was not his primary target, but he pushed his curiosity so to speak


I believe the killer had no surgical ability in the clinical sense, but he did have anatomical knowledge. He knew where everything was, but his interests postmortem were all about the act of cutting and what he could do with his knife.

That puts him more in line with a butcher and slaughterer, than a surgeon.
It also puts him more in line with the Torso killer who I believe could have been the same man.

He was skilled with his knife; and skilled at cutting, but outside of that, he was just exploring his kink of cutting a female body to see what she was made of.

His primary focus IMO was always the Uterus; the area where new life is created and grown.

Also, he may have attacked the Uterus to see whether his victim was pregnant. Interestingly, all of his outdoor victims were all around the age they were possibly entering/experiencing menopause.
They were also women who may have been perceived as having fallen from grace through their life choices; personal break-ups, alcohol, prostitution, ex-marital status etc...

I think he had a thing for exploring the Uterus to see what was inside, but he primarily targeted older women (of child bearing age) from a combination of disgust, punishment, and curiosity.

How would a man who attacked women; and who enjoyed cutting into them, feel about women whom he perceived as choosing a life of prostitution?

The correlation between prostitutes and the increased statistical likelihood that they would conceive illegitimate offspring; I believe was also part of his motive; his underlying driving force that carried his rage, possibly brewing from his adolescence and experiences in his formative years.

I think one of the reasons why he decimated Kelly, was because she may have been pregnant. That's conjecture of course, but I do wonder whether he discovered she was pregnant as he cut into her, and that automatically drove his rage and he went berserk.

I also believe that he intended to take her head as a trophy, but may have been disturbed by activity in the court.

The idea that he was interrupted as he was cutting Kelly may seem strange; because it's always assumed that because he was inside her room, he would have taken his time. However, I believe he hadn't quite finished with her and he had to abort his attempt at taking her head, to escape the court undetected.

I believe he did indeed carry a black bag...but as a means for transporting the head. Only on this occasion, he left with just her heart. He may have desired to display her as heartless; literally a heartless woman.

His bag perhaps reminiscent of Goldstein's black bag, when he was seen walking hurriedly past the murder site of Stride.

RD

That is an excellent point.

If the killer was concerned about time, he would have taken her kidney from behind; before laying her on her back.

That would imply that the Kidney was not his primary target, but he pushed his curiosity so to speak


I believe the killer had no surgical ability in the clinical sense, but he did have anatomical knowledge. He knew where everything was, but his interests postmortem were all about the act of cutting and what he could do with his knife.

That puts him more in line with a butcher and slaughterer, than a surgeon.


Thank you! It's clear that these murders are more to do with the killer than the victims; if you want someone dead, you don't risk the time it takes to do this. Personally, I believe Jack was not unaccustomed to the practices of a mortuary, though he may well have been a butcher. I am told the pig is the closest animal anatomically to a human. If the Ripper were a butcher, the problem is solved. But if he was not.....? Then how did he acquire the knowledge. I have worked in hospitals for the last decade after my retirement, and I have seen a lot of procedures, especially in the Level 1 Trauma Center. While I kinda know what/where *some* organs are, I certainly could never come anywhere close to Jack's work; in fact, the opposite is true: I would likely vomit from disgust and the fear of discovery! I certainly would never know what I am looking at/cutting into in near-dark amidst all that gore! So our man obviously knew what he was about in the context of finding/extracting the organs.


It also puts him more in line with the Torso killer who I believe could have been the same man.


I'm afraid I don't know much about the Torso killer, save what I read in Sugden's book. I do recall that it was similar to the much-later "Black Dahlia" murder in 1947 Los Angeles.

He was skilled with his knife; and skilled at cutting, but outside of that, he was just exploring his kink of cutting a female body to see what she was made of.


Totally agree. This was all about him.

His primary focus IMO was always the Uterus; the area where new life is created and grown.


Also agree.

How would a man who attacked women; and who enjoyed cutting into them, feel about women whom he perceived as choosing a life of prostitution?

In my experience as a Corrections Officer, I have known so many prostitutes and also abusers of prostitutes. So many of both display what is/was called the "Madonna/Whore Complex," where a woman is either put on a pedestal and subject to near-worship, or conversely, treated as objects of contempt and easily disposable. I would see this attitude in many offenders. One particularly contemptible rapist of a 15-year-old girl attempted to justify his actions to me by stating, with absolute sincerity, "It ain't like she's a virgin. She's been run through before. The damage is already done! What did I do that was different?" Fortunately, he will not leave prison until he is quite old, if at all.

I also believe that he intended to take her head as a trophy, but may have been disturbed by activity in the court.


Intriguing! In many of the post-mortem reports I have read, I see it repeated: "her throat was cut all the way back to the spinal column..." I doubt if Jack would have had time in all the other killings, but I think he could have easily taken Mary's head. I doubt that he was disturbed, but who knows?

I believe he did indeed carry a black bag...but as a means for transporting the head. Only on this occasion, he left with just her heart. He may have desired to display her as heartless; literally a heartless woman.

His bag perhaps reminiscent of Goldstein's black bag, when he was seen walking hurriedly past the murder site of Stride.

With the police at that time on the lookout for doctor types, I think anyone not known as a medical man in the district carrying the proverbial Gladstone bag, might open himself to unnecessary scrutiny from the public. Unless he were appropriately dressed....in which case he would not be "poor." But I believe the Ripper was indeed local. In fact, when I first started researching the case, my suspicions were drawn to Dr. Llewellyn, because he appeared to conveniently miss the fact that Polly had been gutted. (I was young, okay??) Jack being a doctor has always been a bias of mine. I *want* him to be a mad Harley Street surgeon, stalking the Whitechapel alleys in search for prey. But now that I am older and (presumably) wiser, I know that he was in all likelihood a sad social cripple, terrified of women, mad as a hatter, and no more distinctive than any inmate in my prison.


RD
[/QUOTE]

[The Rookie Detective]

That is an excellent point.

If the killer was concerned about time, he would have taken her kidney from behind; before laying her on her back.

That would imply that the Kidney was not his primary target, but he pushed his curiosity so to speak


I believe the killer had no surgical ability in the clinical sense, but he did have anatomical knowledge. He knew where everything was, but his interests postmortem were all about the act of cutting and what he could do with his knife.

That puts him more in line with a butcher and slaughterer, than a surgeon.


Thank you! It's clear that these murders are more to do with the killer than the victims; if you want someone dead, you don't risk the time it takes to do this. Personally, I believe Jack was not unaccustomed to the practices of a mortuary, though he may well have been a butcher. I am told the pig is the closest animal anatomically to a human. If the Ripper were a butcher, the problem is solved. But if he was not.....? Then how did he acquire the knowledge. I have worked in hospitals for the last decade after my retirement, and I have seen a lot of procedures, especially in the Level 1 Trauma Center. While I kinda know what/where *some* organs are, I certainly could never come anywhere close to Jack's work; in fact, the opposite is true: I would likely vomit from disgust and the fear of discovery! I certainly would never know what I am looking at/cutting into in near-dark amidst all that gore! So our man obviously knew what he was about in the context of finding/extracting the organs.


It also puts him more in line with the Torso killer who I believe could have been the same man.


I'm afraid I don't know much about the Torso killer, save what I read in Sugden's book. I do recall that it was similar to the much-later "Black Dahlia" murder in 1947 Los Angeles.

He was skilled with his knife; and skilled at cutting, but outside of that, he was just exploring his kink of cutting a female body to see what she was made of.


Totally agree. This was all about him.

His primary focus IMO was always the Uterus; the area where new life is created and grown.


Also agree.

How would a man who attacked women; and who enjoyed cutting into them, feel about women whom he perceived as choosing a life of prostitution?

In my experience as a Corrections Officer, I have known so many prostitutes and also abusers of prostitutes. So many of both display what is/was called the "Madonna/Whore Complex," where a woman is either put on a pedestal and subject to near-worship, or conversely, treated as objects of contempt and easily disposable. I would see this attitude in many offenders. One particularly contemptible rapist of a 15-year-old girl attempted to justify his actions to me by stating, with absolute sincerity, "It ain't like she's a virgin. She's been run through before. The damage is already done! What did I do that was different?" Fortunately, he will not leave prison until he is quite old, if at all.

I also believe that he intended to take her head as a trophy, but may have been disturbed by activity in the court.


Intriguing! In many of the post-mortem reports I have read, I see it repeated: "her throat was cut all the way back to the spinal column..." I doubt if Jack would have had time in all the other killings, but I think he could have easily taken Mary's head. I doubt that he was disturbed, but who knows?

I believe he did indeed carry a black bag...but as a means for transporting the head. Only on this occasion, he left with just her heart. He may have desired to display her as heartless; literally a heartless woman.

His bag perhaps reminiscent of Goldstein's black bag, when he was seen walking hurriedly past the murder site of Stride.

With the police at that time on the lookout for doctor types, I think anyone not known as a medical man in the district carrying the proverbial Gladstone bag, might open himself to unnecessary scrutiny from the public. Unless he were appropriately dressed....in which case he would not be "poor." But I believe the Ripper was indeed local. In fact, when I first started researching the case, my suspicions were drawn to Dr. Llewellyn, because he appeared to conveniently miss the fact that Polly had been gutted. (I was young, okay??) Jack being a doctor has always been a bias of mine. I *want* him to be a mad Harley Street surgeon, stalking the Whitechapel alleys in search for prey. But now that I am older and (presumably) wiser, I know that he was in all likelihood a sad social cripple, terrified of women, mad as a hatter, and no more distinctive than any inmate in my prison.


RD

One of the best posts I've read in a very long time.

I like your way of thinking and I agree with your comments.

I know of one particular person of interest who had worked as a butcher; and a man who had murdered his wife by mutilating and dismembering her; but who evaded capture and was never apprehended, because he altered his appearance.

He is my prime suspect and nobody has ever linked him to the Ripper killings.

He has been considered as a person of interest in the torso killings, but not directly. There is another researcher working on that as we speak and so it will be interesting to see what they submit later in the year.

I am currently working on a dissertation as we speak, but am just trying to ensure my case is as water-tight as it can be and trying to navigate the issue of making sure I don't cross over into someone else's research.

The hardest thing isn't collating the data; it's the bureaucracy that comes with Ripperology in general.

But like most things relating to Ripperology; unless you're part of the elite, it's likely that nobody will take it seriously.

But, we shall see.


Watch this space...

RD

[Holmes' Idiot Brother]

One of the best posts I've read in a very long time.

I like your way of thinking and I agree with your comments.

I know of one particular person of interest who had worked as a butcher; and a man who had murdered his wife by mutilating and dismembering her; but who evaded capture and was never apprehended, because he altered his appearance.

He is my prime suspect and nobody has ever linked him to the Ripper killings.

He has been considered as a person of interest in the torso killings, but not directly. There is another researcher working on that as we speak and so it will be interesting to see what they submit later in the year.

I am currently working on a dissertation as we speak, but am just trying to ensure my case is as water-tight as it can be and trying to navigate the issue of making sure I don't cross over into someone else's research.

The hardest thing isn't collating the data; it's the bureaucracy that comes with Ripperology in general.

But like most things relating to Ripperology; unless you're part of the elite, it's likely that nobody will take it seriously.

But, we shall see.


Watch this space...

RD

Thank you for your kind words! I am looking forward to learning more about the Torso Killings and who your prime suspect is.

With me, I am not concerned in engaging in petty arguments, as I have read many times on here. I have no dog in this fight and could not care less who is "right" after 136 years; rather, I am more interested in the possible motivations driving the killer, why he does what he does, and many other psychological aspects of the case. For the record, I consider Tabram an early victim of JTR, the killer quite possibly had surgical skill, and a strong argument can be made that Stride was not killed by the Ripper. If I am wrong on any of these....oops! LOL! Can't wait for your information!

[NotBlamedForNothing]

I believe the killer had no surgical ability in the clinical sense, but he did have anatomical knowledge. He knew where everything was, but his interests postmortem were all about the act of cutting and what he could do with his knife.

That puts him more in line with a butcher and slaughterer, than a surgeon.
It also puts him more in line with the Torso killer who I believe could have been the same man.

...on a black paling opposite the arch under which the unknown body was hidden some one had written the word 'Lipski' in large chalk letters. Whether done before the discovery or after no one seems to know, but the name was there.

[Michael W Richards]

I'm certainly not downplaying Dr. Phillips's opinion but do we know anything of how he arrived at that opinion? Do we know what factors he took into consideration? How much weight did he give each of those factors? Were there factors he did not consider at all or perhaps gave little weight too? Did he discuss his conclusions with other doctors at the time? Were they all in agreement with his assessments? Was he challenged at all on his opinions?

Respect his opinion but don't treat it as the final word unless the above questions can be answered.

c.d.

I think cd that you have an obligation to take the medical assessments at face value until and unless at such time you have evidence that the source of the opinion did not have the capacity to accurately identify wound patterns and knife injuries. This man was at the top of his game, thats why he was called upon for these crimes in the first place. Opinions without peer consensus happen everyday in all walks of life, and we have historical evidence that some ideas that challenged the existing status quo one day became the status quo themselves.

In other words, whether any other physician agreed with his assessment or not isnt important, because the bottom line is that he saw first hand more of these injuries and almost all the victims when his contemporaries, and perhaps critics, did not. Its one reason I dont take Bond too seriously, his summary report suggesting the killer had no anatomical skill or knowledge was based on his reading of reports. He didnt see Annie, or her wounds. He interpreted the data, and I believe, incorrectly. Because there was a skilled and knowledgeable killer working that Fall, but few physician assessments of victims suggested these skill sets. Was he right and they were wrong? Or maybe the degree of skill and knowledge Phillips saw only appears when that killer kills. And other killers didnt have those skills but mistakenly their murders were assumed to be by Jack..like Liz for example. There is nothing to suggest she was killed by someone who was perhaps medically trained, in fact anyone with a knife might have left that same mark.

[The Rookie Detective]

...on a black paling opposite the arch under which the unknown body was hidden some one had written the word 'Lipski' in large chalk letters. Whether done before the discovery or after no one seems to know, but the name was there.

That is very interesting and intriguing, because if it's true; we now have a pattern.

So let's say for arguments sake that someone did indeed write the word Lipski

As we know, Lipski was the word alleged to have shouted by BS man towards either Schwartz and/or pipeman.
That is according to Schwartz and Schwartz alone.

Pinchin Street is within minutes walk of Berner Street

And Lipski was the man who many people believed was innocent, despite his 11th hour confession from his cell the day before he was hanged.

Let's also envisage that there would have been family members in the locality that may have been disgruntled by the manner in which the police dealt with the Lipski case.

We also know that the man who butchered Eddowes just after Stride; and whom we consider to be Jack the Ripper; chose to cut a piece of bloodied apron and place it directly under an older chalk marking that referred in part to Jewish men being blamed for nothing.

My personal interpretation of the GSG is that the Ripper was being flippant and ironic.
Imagine a child crying for no apparent reason, not hurt, not in danger, but simply crying, and a parent warning the child that I'd they continued to cry for no reason, then they would "give them something to cry about."

For me, that is the meaning behind the Ripper placing the torn apron under the GSG.
The Ripper is the parent and the author of the GSG the child.

The GSG is possibly a political statement from a Jew; the kind of statement that would be made by a man who was part of the club in Berner Street.
The moderate Jews disliked what the club members represented in terms of their less moderate approach.

The club being located in the street next to the location of the murder alleged to have benn committed by Lipski a year earlier.


So...what does all this combined tell us?


Is the chalk marking of Lipski that was alleged to have been found at the Pinchin Street murder site; the link that connects Pinchin to Stride and therefore to Eddowes and the Ripper?

By placing the apron under the GSG, was the Ripper sending a message to the Jews that if they wanted to be blamed for something, then he would be happy to oblige, by placing the apron under the GSG, and cutting a woman's throat outside a Jewish club with extremist beliefs?

If the author of the GSG was a club member from Berner Street, then the actions of the Ripper begin to make more sense in context with the murders.


Was Jack toying with the Jews?


RD

[Holmes' Idiot Brother]

I think cd that you have an obligation to take the medical assessments at face value until and unless at such time you have evidence that the source of the opinion did not have the capacity to accurately identify wound patterns and knife injuries. This man was at the top of his game, thats why he was called upon for these crimes in the first place. Opinions without peer consensus happen everyday in all walks of life, and we have historical evidence that some ideas that challenged the existing status quo one day became the status quo themselves.

In other words, whether any other physician agreed with his assessment or not isnt important, because the bottom line is that he saw first hand more of these injuries and almost all the victims when his contemporaries, and perhaps critics, did not. Its one reason I dont take Bond too seriously, his summary report suggesting the killer had no anatomical skill or knowledge was based on his reading of reports. He didnt see Annie, or her wounds. He interpreted the data, and I believe, incorrectly. Because there was a skilled and knowledgeable killer working that Fall, but few physician assessments of victims suggested these skill sets. Was he right and they were wrong? Or maybe the degree of skill and knowledge Phillips saw only appears when that killer kills. And other killers didnt have those skills but mistakenly their murders were assumed to be by Jack..like Liz for example. There is nothing to suggest she was killed by someone who was perhaps medically trained, in fact anyone with a knife might have left that same mark.

Yes! This!!!!! Hit the nail on the head for me! What we call "ground truth" is vital and cannot be underestimated. From what I have read, Phillips was based īn the hood" and saw just about every wound and injury there was to see. Add his medical qualifications and there is no reason to dismiss his professional opinions based on what another perhaps more esteemed physician says after merely looking at a couple of pics and reading a report!

[c.d.]

Yes! This!!!!! Hit the nail on the head for me! What we call "ground truth" is vital and cannot be underestimated. From what I have read, Phillips was based īn the hood" and saw just about every wound and injury there was to see. Add his medical qualifications and there is no reason to dismiss his professional opinions based on what another perhaps more esteemed physician says after merely looking at a couple of pics and reading a report!

I agree that there is no reason to dismiss his professional opinion but I also see no reason to take it as the Word of God that can't be questioned given all of the unknowns that I listed in post no. 127.

c.d.