Did he have anatomical knowledge?

[caz]

Darn it Caz! Next you'll be telling me that a plasterer wasn't good enough with his trowel or a groom who could shoe horses couldn't unshoe a kidney.

Mike

Hi Mike,

A plasterer wasn't good enough with his trowel and a groom who could shoe horses couldn't unshoe a kidney.

Oh, and a former fish porter would have had some trouble removing Kelly's heart with a herring.

Blimey, you're so good you'll have me believing in psychics next.

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

comparison

Hello Trevor. Thanks.

"To answer your request what springs to mind are the different times they say for removal. . ."

Different times? Are you, perchance, in jest?

". . . and then some say anatomical knowledge, some say limited anatomical knowledge Bond says no anatomical knowledge."

Bond saw ONE cadaver. And I think him correct regarding "MJK." I think you agreed also? But he attended no other post mortem--that we know of.

For there to be a contradiction, doctor X must do a PM on patient Z and say, "Nope. No surgical skill." Then doctor Y comes on and says, "Many signs of surgical skill."

Else, we have a fellow asking about "that delicious whitish substance which goes well with bread and tea." His mate replies, "Oh, I have a piece of it here. I use it to write messages on blackboards."

What I thought you had indicated was an overt contradiction of one doctor by another--and over a single post mortem.

No evidence of that--at least that I have found.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

red herring

Hello Caroline.

"Oh, and a former fish porter would have had some trouble removing Kelly's heart with a herring."

Why? I mean, if you can cut down the mightiest tree in the forest with one . . .

(heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

I know this is never going to happen, and Prosecutor has tipped his hand as well, but more might just be understood if we could forget about the 'suspects' and just take an honest look at the evidence.

But that ain't gonna happen and it will still be misinterpreted and misunderstood as most continue to drive a square peg into a round hole.

I'm sure yours was just a typo, Cris, but the name - very aptly - is Prosector. The prosecutors around here are all too obvious.

I agree with what you say, though, as others continue down their own blind alleys and some appear to be in denial.

Love,

Caz
X

[Jon Guy]

Bond saw ONE cadaver. And I think him correct regarding "MJK." I think you agreed also? But he attended no other post mortem--that we know of.

Mylett and McKenzie?

[caz]

Hello Caroline.

"I am busy eliminating suspects mentally as I read on."

Now you're talking!

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

But I didn't have to eliminate your man.

I already did that a long time ago and I see no earthly reason to reconsider him now. (heh-heh chortle etc)

Didn't your man collect sheep's heads, feet and kidneys from the market, ready separated from the rest of the animal?

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

Mac

Hello Jon. Thanks.

I thought it was just given that I referred to Mac's 5?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

One size fits all.

Hello Caroline. Thanks.

Not to contradict, but did you not eliminate him because a single hand HAD to be responsible for all?

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

So in summary, we are looking for a man who has had some previous experience of the dissecting room, either hands-on as part of his chosen (and possibly failed at) profession, or as a close and enthusiastic amateur observer.

I suppose in theory that could apply to practically anyone with a fascination for the subject (probably from an early age) and enough money to pay to observe the basics if in a different job entirely.

I may have to go back on what I said earlier, since even unemployed grooms could have had the cash at some point to fund an unhealthy obsession to watch such procedures on human corpses.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Dragons' Den

Hello Caroline. Thanks.

Not to contradict, but did you not eliminate him because a single hand HAD to be responsible for all?

Cheers.
LC

I'd be grateful if you could point to where I have EVER said that a single hand HAD to be responsible for 'all' (whatever 'all' means, and please don't say the blessed C5 or I shall scream).

I eliminated your man because, for me, the theory has never worked on too many levels. But elimination only requires a single good reason. Therefore I'm out.

Love,

Caz
X

[The Good Michael]

So in summary, we are looking for a man who has had some previous experience of the dissecting room, either hands-on as part of his chosen (and possibly failed at) profession, or as a close and enthusiastic amateur observer.

I suppose in theory that could apply to practically anyone with a fascination for the subject (probably from an early age) and enough money to pay to observe the basics if in a different job entirely.

I may have to go back on what I said earlier, since even unemployed grooms could have had the cash at some point to fund an unhealthy obsession to watch such procedures on human corpses.

This takes us back about 7 years to the Kosminski as feldscher conversation. And that led to barber-surgeon talks and it all seemed doable. Makes Tumblety look better now as well as Chapman. Nothing's really changed and all the newish speculations about grooms and plasterers and Jewish Anarchistic conspiracies and Fenian cover-ups have been a fun lark and nothing more.

Mike

Mike

[Observer]

Hi Caz

As I implied in another thread Cutbush would fit the bill regarding your suggestions. Macnaughton didn't fancy him however.

Regards

Observer

[Jon Guy]

Hello Jon. Thanks.

I thought it was just given that I referred to Mac's 5?

Cheers.
LC

Sorry Lynn, I didn`t realise there were parameters that excluded the other victims in the files.

[caz]

Hi Lynn,

All along your theory has been based on Nichols and Chapman being the more skilfully slaughtered, while Eddowes was the victim of a copycat with a different motive who didn't have much of a clue with his knife. The murders of Stride and Kelly had to be unrelated to each other and unconnected with the other three.

Well it turns out, thanks to Prosector's invaluable nuggets of information, that whoever killed Eddowes, in the dark and in limited time, knew at the very least what to do to get at her left kidney, and did it, even if his 'surgery' was quite crude overall. He also knew the trick of avoiding the navel by deviating to the right when cutting vertically, and Chapman's killer had also avoided cutting through the navel (a happy coincidence if this was someone else, or a butcher not used to thinking about navels).

I can't, in all conscience, accept that two or more men acting independently would or could have produced the mutilations we see with Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly, or the organ extractions we see from three of those four. Theoretically just possible, but so highly unlikely as to be beyond reasonable doubt - IMHO - the work of one sick individual who had seen, if not done something similar with freshly dead bodies.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz

As I implied in another thread Cutbush would fit the bill regarding your suggestions. Macnaughton didn't fancy him however.

Regards

Observer

Indeed, Observer, and as usual you live up to your name well.

I don't understand why Macnaghten thought Cutbush was Supt. Charles Cutbush's nephew, unless it was an assumption that he didn't bother to check out. Maybe he thought this was good enough reason to prepare his three 'more likely' in case of need.

Love,

Caz
X