Did JTR ever change his M.O. intentionally?

[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

[DVV]

Phillips' own report contradicts Phillips! .

Wrong.
Phillips contradicts his own report.

[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]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[lynn cates]

cuts

Hello Gareth. Perhaps he referred to the cuts themselves?

Cheers.
LC

[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

[Sam Flynn]

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

I agree, Jon.

[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

[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

[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

[Hunter]

Agree again. The first two showed indications of skill.

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

[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