Did JTR ever change his M.O. intentionally?

[Michael W Richards]

I believe it did in Chapman's case. But he seemed to link Chapman and Nichols together by default, rather than actual physical evidence. Then he presumes to use physical evidence to debunk Eddowes while once again ignoring it with Stride.

One of the first Ripperologist... or a least an early prototype.

He linked those first 2 deaths because they were murders that followed the exact same routine and methodology. Pick up a somewhat incapacitated street woman working for her doss, cuts her with 2 deep throat cuts, and then proceed to abdominal mutilations. One had substantial cuts to the abdomen, one did not. That's because one was in the street and offered little security for extra time with the body, hence the move to a backyard next kill....less than 10 days later.

Phillips concluded that any deviation from the precise cuts that he saw on Annie was due to haste, not light. He acknowledged that the killer had some education with anatomy, and that he had some skill with a knife.

Its no surprise that of the suspects looked at after Annie death and before Liz Strides, medical students and physicians were most prominent.

Changing your MO is one thing, however becoming less skilled and less knowledgeable isn't in that realm. Particularly when he gained experience with every kill.

Cheers

[Wickerman]

I'd hazard a guess that if you put 'medical knowledge' in the search criteria, chances are you'll find a suspect with some medical knowledge.

PS. Wasn't Kozminski 16 when he arrived in England?
How much medical training would he have had?

[DVV]

Hi Jeff,

I'm fine, thanks. The suspects you name proves me right in a recent discussion I had with Jon about Abberline...

Cheers

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Jeff

I don't get you. Does it mean darkness prevents us to decide whether he had some medical knowledge or none ?

No just that Jack operated largely in the dark, especially if the gas lamp in Bucks row wasn't there.

It could well have been day break when he chopped chapman but at best it was a dull over cast day.

Eddows…Dark, apart from a candal in the opposite window.

Kelly…light candal, fire and time.

But as I said earlier nearly every suspect in the case Tumbelty, chapman, Druitt, Kosminski, Gull, Cream, etc etc is said to have had some medical knowledge there are very few who do not. Just read a rather amusing book on Donston and guess what yes he had medical knowledge.

Its all rather a red herring therefore as whether he had medical knowledge or not it was dark and not under surgical conditions and all the suspects had some medical knowledge or may have done..

So I don't quite see where the various postulation actually takes anyone.

Trusting you are well

Yours Jeff

PS Hi Lynn trusting you are well. Thanks for clarity but I would again ask don't almost all of our suspects have the possibility that they either new how to use a knife and were psychotic enough to use a knife with considerable force…he was after all Jack the Ripper lol

[lynn cates]

cutting remarks

Hello Jeff. Thanks.

You may notice that I make no claims of medical knowledge--only clean cutting skills. And that comes from the coroner.

Cheers.
LC

[Hunter]

Choice of suspects does.

[DVV]

Jack required no medical knowledge. He may have had some. But it was all a wild sweep in the dark. Jeff

Hi Jeff

I don't get you. Does it mean darkness prevents us to decide whether he had some medical knowledge or none ?

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Prosector. Thanks.

". . . only the last one but his case that they were all by the same person was based on his psychological profile of the killer . . ."

Yes. And such profiles are, in my humble opinion, the problem.

"I personally think he was barking up the wrong tree when he said that the killer had no anatomical knowledge. . ."

Agree again. The first two showed indications of skill.

". . . but then he only saw the last body which, by anyone's assessment, was a work of frenzied butchery - in my opinion deliberately as there was personal vindictiveness involved."

Agreed yet again.

Cheers.
LC

Jack required no medical knowledge. He may have had some. But it was all a wild sweep in the dark. Jeff

[lynn cates]

yup

Hello Cris. Thanks.

He was indeed.

Wish we could see the original notes.

Cheers.
LC

[Hunter]

I believe it did in Chapman's case. But he seemed to link Chapman and Nichols together by default, rather than actual physical evidence. Then he presumes to use physical evidence to debunk Eddowes while once again ignoring it with Stride.

One of the first Ripperologist... or a least an early prototype.

[lynn cates]

quote

Hello Cris. Thanks.

"Specifically, what "skill" is evidenced in the mutilations inflicted upon Mary Ann Nichols?"

Don't know. That was a Baxter quote. You may be right that he was talking through his, umm, hat; or, it may refer to clean cuts.

Cheers.
LC

[Observer]

Specifically, what "skill" is evidenced in the mutilations inflicted upon Mary Ann Nichols?

Very little. I could have carried out those mutilations. Not that I'd want to you understand. No definitely not, there's not a single frenzy in me in any way shape or form. Pardon me for butting in by the way.

Regards

Observer

[Hunter]

Agree again. The first two showed indications of skill.

Specifically, what "skill" is evidenced in the mutilations inflicted upon Mary Ann Nichols?

[lynn cates]

agreeable

Hello Prosector. Thanks.

". . . only the last one but his case that they were all by the same person was based on his psychological profile of the killer . . ."

Yes. And such profiles are, in my humble opinion, the problem.

"I personally think he was barking up the wrong tree when he said that the killer had no anatomical knowledge. . ."

Agree again. The first two showed indications of skill.

". . . but then he only saw the last body which, by anyone's assessment, was a work of frenzied butchery - in my opinion deliberately as there was personal vindictiveness involved."

Agreed yet again.

Cheers.
LC

[Jeff Leahy]

As you know, only the last one but his case that they were all by the same person was based on his psychological profile of the killer (possibly the first in criminal history) and he is still considered to have been very good at that. I personally think he was barking up the wrong tree when he said that the killer had no anatomical knowledge but then he only saw the last body which, by anyone's assessment, was a work of frenzied butchery - in my opinion deliberately as there was personal vindictiveness involved.

Prosector

Hi Prosector

Isn't this rather a red herring. After all nearly all of the leading suspects in the case appear to have had 'Some medical knowledge'

It's simply a question of degree surely?

Yours Jeff