Did JTR ever change his M.O. intentionally?

[Prosector]

Hello Prosector.

How many of the bodies did Bond examine?

Cheers.
LC

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

[Sam Flynn]

There is nothing to say that, "Obviously the work was that of an expert..", was not the reporters interpretation

I agree, Jon.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Gareth. Perhaps he referred to the cuts themselves?

Cheers.
LC

Um.. and if serial killer like Jack the Ripper were common place it might all mean something…but it doesn't.

The medical evidence does indeed contradict itself and give different perspective depending on which source you read.

But any assumption that differences in the MO mean anything is just that…an assumption.

What we know is that serial killers per ce vary their MO to large extents. What is important is what Jack wanted to Do. And that was attack the female genitals. Cutting their throats was a simple side product of the 'MO'

He did this to stop blood pressure and avoid getting covered in blood. So whether he cut the throat from front or behind is irrelevant and he probably did both.

But there is not enough evidence to conclude whether he did or did not have any medical knowledge. And most of the leading JtR suspects have some link to medical knowledge, even if they were not doctors?

So we are back to square one. This argument has lead everyone nowhere because you are all bogged down in the detail not the MO?

But I'll keep checking in and see how you all get on

regards Jeff

[lynn cates]

cuts

Hello Gareth. Perhaps he referred to the cuts themselves?

Cheers.
LC

[Hunter]

Phillips was consulted about his opinion on the McKenzie murder by both Supt. Arnold and Chief Insp. West. He WAS the physician in charge of this case on behalf of the Metropolitan Police as the murder took place within the jurisdiction of H Division, and Phillips attended the body in situ and at the dead house.

Phillips, himself, also consulted with Dr. Gordon Brown as they both had done with each other since the murders of Sept. 30 the previous year.

[Michael W Richards]

Phillips' own report contradicts Phillips! He painstakingly noted that Annie Chapman's abdomen was opened by (asymmetrically) cutting away three flaps of flesh; that a spit of flesh containing her navel went AWOL; that the killer left one-third of the bladder inside the body; and that her colon had been inadvertently cut through. Yet, apparently, because Phillips saw that the uterus was removed with that famous "one sweep of the knife", he overlooks all the mess and collateral damage elsewhere.

Methinks there's an elephant in the womb.

Hi Sam, nice to see ya.

What I believe is missing from your observation is the story that I mentioned earlier, and in this case the story from Phillips is that "The whole inference seems to me that the operation was performed to enable the perpetrator to obtain possession of these parts of the body."...and also.... "My own impression is that that anatomical knowledge was only less displayed or indicated in consequence of haste", and " I think the mode in which they were extracted did show some anatomical knowledge".

The fact that some cuts did not seem as "surgical" as others didn't phase Phillips when it came to what he believed those cuts were really all about, he believed they were to obtain a complete uterus. Which "Jack" certainly did. The haste that Phillips assures us he saw in those wounds is his explanation for any contradiction. Bonds contradictory comments when comparing what he believes were the 5 Fall of '88 murders to a more recent Alice McKenzie are a matter of record as well.

My point is that among equals, which I see no reason to consider Bond and Phillips otherwise, the first hand experience must weigh heavily I think. Even autopsy physicians, as educated and as highly trained as they are, are human,... and what is seen may not always be eloquently or completely conveyed in language. I don't believe that we should expect that if someone witnesses something which brings on some kind of personal epiphany, that they would then automatically be able to convey exactly what that event appeared like to them and precisely why they came to their conclusions. The eyes and the brain can record everything when experienced, they can imagine everything when they are reading a synopsis.

Ill stick with 4-1 on the Canonicals and 4-2, including McKenzie. Which isn't really fair because I don't recall Phillips being consulted for any kind of professional opinion on Alice.

Nos da, Gareth, cheers.

[Wickerman]

There is nothing to say that, "Obviously the work was that of an expert..", was not the reporters interpretation.
Given the doctors apparent reluctance for sensationalism, conclusions like "obviously" may be more the vocabulary of the reporter.

[DVV]

Alas, Phillips doesn't need the Lancet to ridicule Phillips.

[Sam Flynn]

Wrong. Phillips contradicts his own report.

Ooh, nit-picky! It adds up to much the same, anyway. Bottom line is, Phillips records crude butchery on the one hand, and reports expertise and anatomical knowledge on the other. To be fair, perhaps he was misrepresented in the Lancet, which is where, if I'm not mistaken, the "obviously the work of an expert... one sweep of the knife" soundbites first appeared.

[DVV]

Phillips' own report contradicts Phillips! .

Wrong.
Phillips contradicts his own report.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Gareth

Methinks there's an elephant in the womb.

Love it...

But seriously, you're right...there is an integral contradiction here...on a mammoth scale...(sorry!)

All the best

Dave

[Wickerman]

Hello Wickerman,

I certainly was not implying that my opinion is superior to that of the doctors of the time.

No, I do understand that, that you were not offering your own in place of theirs.
My question was just, who else do we have to listen to?
Doctor Phillips never gave his conclusions on the subject, though some reporters were not adverse to suggesting he had.

They would be in the best position to judge. The problem is that we don't have the details of how they formed their opinions. Hence my admonition to not take their conclusions as being the word of God.

Even if we did have an exhaustive autopsy report, who else here is qualified to interpret it?
We would be unlikely to have the autopsy, and the doctor's interpretation of it. I'm not altogether sure they wrote their conclusions down except, in brief, for presentation at the Inquest.
Other than that we would have an extremely detailed description of mutilations, organs & tissue structures using 19th century medical terminology which most of us would be at great pains to translate, never mind interpret as to it's overall implications.

[Sam Flynn]

Clean excision of a uterus in near dark conditions seems to support Phillips.

Phillips' own report contradicts Phillips! He painstakingly noted that Annie Chapman's abdomen was opened by (asymmetrically) cutting away three flaps of flesh; that a spit of flesh containing her navel went AWOL; that the killer left one-third of the bladder inside the body; and that her colon had been inadvertently cut through. Yet, apparently, because Phillips saw that the uterus was removed with that famous "one sweep of the knife", he overlooks all the mess and collateral damage elsewhere.

Methinks there's an elephant in the womb.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Wickerman,

I certainly was not implying that my opinion is superior to that of the doctors of the time. They would be in the best position to judge. The problem is that we don't have the details of how they formed their opinions. Hence my admonition to not take their conclusions as being the word of God.

c.d.

When you have an autopsy report to use as reference, you get the straight goods.....where a cut starts, how deep it goes, how long it is, what organs and tissues were impacted, yada yada...and you get an opinion on how the victim died based on the wounds. But the story that can go along with that information is for me the most critical part, because it reveals the physicians impressions of the injuries as a whole for one, and because it is from someone who inspected the actual wounds. Physicians may differ on what an autopsy report reveals about the manner in which the knife was used or the objective of the knife user, largely because any absolute proof can only be ascertained by viewing the actual cuts.

Bond didn't see evidence in the reports to validate Phillips opinions on the skill and knowledge of the killer of Polly and Annie, but he didn't have the benefit of the first hand experience with the cuts themselves either.

Bond saw 2 possible Canonicals....Mary and Alice. His comments on any other victim are relevant as opinion, but they do not supersede the opinions of the attending physicians... in my opinion.

Unless of course there is evidence that there was some incompetence or a lack of evidence to support the "story".

Clean excision of a uterus in near dark conditions seems to support Phillips.

Cheers

[c.d.]

Hello Wickerman,

I certainly was not implying that my opinion is superior to that of the doctors of the time. They would be in the best position to judge. The problem is that we don't have the details of how they formed their opinions. Hence my admonition to not take their conclusions as being the word of God.

c.d.