Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Victimology, MO, signature

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Varqm View Post

    7) experience with a knife and inside the body,animals and/or human - slaughtering/butchery/post mortem/vivsection

    8) human anatomical knowledge

    All based on the inquests only.
    However, Dr. Bond, who was MJK's medical examiner was given all the details from Nichols to Eddowes by Anderson in order to compile what we call today a meta-review of data.

    10 November he reported his finding.

    8. In each case the mutilation was inflicted by a person who had no scientific nor anatomical knowledge. In my opinion be does not even possess the technical knowledge of a butcher or horse slaughterer or any person accustomed to cut up dead animals.

    What Dr. Bond is saying here is that Dr. Philips is mistaken and not only that but there is evidence AGAINST even experience cutting up dead animals.

    This is coming from a man who was the examiner of MJK whom JtR got to spend the most time on and used his knife the most with.
    Last edited by Batman; 12-01-2018, 02:34 PM.
    Bona fide canonical and then some.

    Comment


    • Dr. Bond's profile of the killer is what I find most interesting.

      “The murderer must have been a man of physical strength and of great coolness and daring. There is no evidence that he had an accomplice.....
      The murderer in external appearance is quite likely to be a quiet inoffensive looking man probably middleaged and neatly and respectably dressed. I think he must be in the habit of wearing a cloak or overcoat or he could hardly have escaped notice in the streets if the blood on his hands or clothes were visible.
      …..he would probably be solitary and eccentric in his habits, also he is most likely to be a man without regular occupation, but with some small income or pension. He is possibly living among respectable person's who have some knowledge of his character and habits and who may have grounds for suspicion that he is not quite right in his mind at times.”


      I agree with that in every respect.
      Regards, Jon S.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Batman View Post
        .....

        8. In each case the mutilation was inflicted by a person who had no scientific nor anatomical knowledge. In my opinion be does not even possess the technical knowledge of a butcher or horse slaughterer or any person accustomed to cut up dead animals.

        What Dr. Bond is saying here is that Dr. Philips is mistaken and not only that but there is evidence AGAINST even experience cutting up dead animals.

        This is coming from a man who was the examiner of MJK whom JtR got to spend the most time on and used his knife the most with.
        You say Bond was MJK's medical examiner?, he was invited to the autopsy by Phillips. Any surgeon's attending the autopsy required the consent of the physician in charge, that was Dr Phillips.
        Dr Phillips was the chief "medical examiner" in the Kelly case.

        The principal document to assess the mutilations would have been the autopsy notes by Phillips. Dr Bond's report for Anderson is both secondary in importance, and brief.
        Phillips saw the mutilations of Chapman, Stride, Eddowes & Kelly first hand, so I would defer to Phillips with respect to the mutilations. Dr Bond was known to voice contrary opinions to those of his peers on other occasions.
        Regards, Jon S.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
          Agree with all accept foreign accent. Any witness who heard suspects speak never mention an accent. On the contrary, its normal english. Only mrs long mentions anything about a foreigner... but only saying he looked foreign, and she only saw him from the back.

          Id wager he was english local and gentile to boot.
          9) should be,he killed between past midnight and 5:20 AM - Cadosche "I heard a voice say "No".

          Agreed on foreign accent.He looked foriegn. not talked.Wrong memory/interpretation.Brown,Lawende and co.,Cox did not hear anything from the "man".


          ---
          Last edited by Varqm; 12-02-2018, 12:22 AM.
          Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced, otherwise people run back to the hills,no towns).
          M. Pacana

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Batman View Post
            However, Dr. Bond, who was MJK's medical examiner was given all the details from Nichols to Eddowes by Anderson in order to compile what we call today a meta-review of data.

            10 November he reported his finding.

            8. In each case the mutilation was inflicted by a person who had no scientific nor anatomical knowledge. In my opinion be does not even possess the technical knowledge of a butcher or horse slaughterer or any person accustomed to cut up dead animals.

            What Dr. Bond is saying here is that Dr. Philips is mistaken and not only that but there is evidence AGAINST even experience cutting up dead animals.

            This is coming from a man who was the examiner of MJK whom JtR got to spend the most time on and used his knife the most with.

            I have been reading some of Prosectors's posts and it's interesting.Prosector had experience "I have operated on the abdomen many hundreds of times".
            All quoted text from Prosector.

            It seems JTR nedded to know how to a) severe the intestines from their mesenteric attachments (Chapman,Eddowes),not to "cause the abdominal cavity to fill with liquid small bowel content,lift the small intestines out of the abdomen so he could have a clear field" in (b) removing the uterus (Chapman,Eddowes),c) "deliberately removed a section of the descending colon in order to get direct access to the left kidney" (Eddowes), d) Invaginating the sigmoid into the rectum (Eddowes),"done to stop faeces, which is largely stored in the sigmoid and rectum", "from oozing back into the abdominal cavity",e) possibly the choosing of the left kidney instead of the right (Eddowes), researching why the left kidney not the right,it's mostly used today for kidney transplant because the left renal vein is longer,easier to cut and "sew back in".

            "I believe that he might have been a failed medical student or an enthusiastic amateur. In the mid 19th century it was possible to pay for access to dissecting rooms to watch or even take part and I have plenty of evidence for that if anyone is interested".

            ----
            Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced, otherwise people run back to the hills,no towns).
            M. Pacana

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
              Dr. Bond's profile of the killer is what I find most interesting.

              “The murderer must have been a man of physical strength and of great coolness and daring. There is no evidence that he had an accomplice.....
              The murderer in external appearance is quite likely to be a quiet inoffensive looking man probably middleaged and neatly and respectably dressed. I think he must be in the habit of wearing a cloak or overcoat or he could hardly have escaped notice in the streets if the blood on his hands or clothes were visible.
              …..he would probably be solitary and eccentric in his habits, also he is most likely to be a man without regular occupation, but with some small income or pension. He is possibly living among respectable person's who have some knowledge of his character and habits and who may have grounds for suspicion that he is not quite right in his mind at times.”


              I agree with that in every respect.
              I agree it is interesting especially the first sentence.The last paragraph though were not in the inquests,


              -----
              Last edited by Varqm; 12-02-2018, 12:41 AM.
              Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced, otherwise people run back to the hills,no towns).
              M. Pacana

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                You say Bond was MJK's medical examiner?, he was invited to the autopsy by Phillips. Any surgeon's attending the autopsy required the consent of the physician in charge, that was Dr Phillips.
                Dr Phillips was the chief "medical examiner" in the Kelly case.

                The principal document to assess the mutilations would have been the autopsy notes by Phillips. Dr Bond's report for Anderson is both secondary in importance, and brief.
                Phillips saw the mutilations of Chapman, Stride, Eddowes & Kelly first hand, so I would defer to Phillips with respect to the mutilations. Dr Bond was known to voice contrary opinions to those of his peers on other occasions.
                Is it really the case that we know that it was Philips who invited him or was his function as a Metropolitan Police's 'A Division' surgeon sufficient to have him present?

                Also, for the Kelly inquest, Philips doesn't mention any signs of medical knowledge or anatomical knowledge. This with Bond there with him.
                Bona fide canonical and then some.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Varqm View Post
                  I have been reading some of Prosectors's posts and it's interesting.Prosector had experience "I have operated on the abdomen many hundreds of times".
                  All quoted text from Prosector.

                  It seems JTR nedded to know how to a) severe the intestines from their mesenteric attachments (Chapman,Eddowes),not to "cause the abdominal cavity to fill with liquid small bowel content,lift the small intestines out of the abdomen so he could have a clear field" in (b) removing the uterus (Chapman,Eddowes),c) "deliberately removed a section of the descending colon in order to get direct access to the left kidney" (Eddowes), d) Invaginating the sigmoid into the rectum (Eddowes),"done to stop faeces, which is largely stored in the sigmoid and rectum", "from oozing back into the abdominal cavity",e) possibly the choosing of the left kidney instead of the right (Eddowes), researching why the left kidney not the right,it's mostly used today for kidney transplant because the left renal vein is longer,easier to cut and "sew back in".

                  "I believe that he might have been a failed medical student or an enthusiastic amateur. In the mid 19th century it was possible to pay for access to dissecting rooms to watch or even take part and I have plenty of evidence for that if anyone is interested".

                  ----
                  For every piece of evidence of what could be medical/anatomical knowledge, there are dozens of slashes, stabs, organ penetrations that aren't. This tells us there is no reason why the pieces he took away weren't in the same knifed up condition. It seems to me he took out what he probably damaged the least so it wouldn't leak on his persons but even then there were faeces and blood on the apron piece on Goulston St.

                  I agree with Bond. I think JtR had no knowledge of these things and I think he just learned them as he went along.
                  Bona fide canonical and then some.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                    You say Bond was MJK's medical examiner?, he was invited to the autopsy by Phillips. Any surgeon's attending the autopsy required the consent of the physician in charge, that was Dr Phillips.
                    Dr Phillips was the chief "medical examiner" in the Kelly case.

                    The principal document to assess the mutilations would have been the autopsy notes by Phillips. Dr Bond's report for Anderson is both secondary in importance, and brief.
                    Phillips saw the mutilations of Chapman, Stride, Eddowes & Kelly first hand, so I would defer to Phillips with respect to the mutilations. Dr Bond was known to voice contrary opinions to those of his peers on other occasions.
                    Jon,

                    I would be very careful about placing Phillips at the top, just because he attended the most murders.
                    I Find much that Phillips gives as evidence completely unrealistic, such has his estimate for the time need for the Chapman murder.
                    I have no doubt he was more than competent for the time, but I sense he lacked imagination and found it very difficult to look at the wounds from a non surgical/recovery point of view.

                    Now Bond also had faults, particularly TOD, but that was common I fear. A simple lack of knowledge in the period accounts for that.

                    Unfortunately it is NOW down to our personal views of each medic involved.
                    And while i place Phillips way ahead of Llewellyn, I personally feel he was not on the same level of intuition as Bond.


                    Steve

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Batman View Post
                      For every piece of evidence of what could be medical/anatomical knowledge, there are dozens of slashes, stabs, organ penetrations that aren't. This tells us there is no reason why the pieces he took away weren't in the same knifed up condition. It seems to me he took out what he probably damaged the least so it wouldn't leak on his persons but even then there were faeces and blood on the apron piece on Goulston St.

                      I agree with Bond. I think JtR had no knowledge of these things and I think he just learned them as he went along.

                      It did not or necessarily had something to do with JTR being a practicing surgeon,in 1888 it was rare to open an abdomen in practice.

                      -"In 1888 99 out of a hundred surgeons had never so much as made the tiniest incision in a living human's abdomen.."

                      -"Abdominal surgery on living patients involving resection of the colon hadn't been invented in 1888.."

                      - Even then, as late as 1890 in a major English hospital, “To open the
                      abdomen was an event.” Cuthbert Wallace

                      So it was only in post-mortems/vivisection that abdomens were opened and organs inside studied and/or taken out.Medical students had to do post-mortem (Prosector said he did 12 I think as a medical student) but non-medical students could attend/participate in a demonstration,
                      It's quite clear JTR had experience with the insides of the body,perhaps as a butcher/slaughterman,and he studied human anatomy or parts of it enough to do the "job",the rest of the damage as a collateral or in haste in the dark or just for the hell of it..There was a progression,as Prosector noted,from Nichols to Eddowes.But a) to d) or e) in post #110 shows he had studied the human body or had "anatomical knowledge",It was no ordinary Joe who just suddenly decided to open abdomens and take organs.

                      ----
                      Last edited by Varqm; 12-02-2018, 11:10 AM.
                      Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced, otherwise people run back to the hills,no towns).
                      M. Pacana

                      Comment


                      • The characteristics,in my opinion that somehow mattered,left by the killer:
                        Thanks Abby for the correction on foreign accent...amended profile:

                        1) he killed between past midnight and 5:20 AM - Cadosche "I heard a voice say "No".

                        2) little taller than the victim,then compared to the
                        height of the victim.

                        3) not uncomfortable to be seen with the victims minutes before their murders.

                        4) Dates of the murders,end of the month or the 8th,fixed schedule,a visitor.

                        5) direction from Mitre Square to Goulston.

                        6) Tied to Spitalfields/Whitechapel due to work,residence,etc.

                        7) experience with a knife and inside the body,animals and/or human - slaughtering/butchery/post mortem/vivisection

                        8) human anatomical knowledge

                        9) Killed between Aug 31 - Nov 8-9 (arguably seen on the 8th by Cox)

                        10) Cox's description.

                        My opinion,a Spitalfileds market trader/buyer/seller.At early in the morning the best place to be anonymous.


                        ---
                        Last edited by Varqm; 12-05-2018, 07:44 PM.
                        Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced, otherwise people run back to the hills,no towns).
                        M. Pacana

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Batman View Post
                          For every piece of evidence of what could be medical/anatomical knowledge, there are dozens of slashes, stabs, organ penetrations that aren't. This tells us there is no reason why the pieces he took away weren't in the same knifed up condition. It seems to me he took out what he probably damaged the least so it wouldn't leak on his persons but even then there were faeces and blood on the apron piece on Goulston St.

                          I agree with Bond. I think JtR had no knowledge of these things and I think he just learned them as he went along.
                          "Prosector" is Wynne Weston Davies MRCS,LRCP,MBBS,FRCS,ECFMG.

                          You are someone who has no idea what forensic pathology really involves.

                          Kindly list the dozens of slashes,stabs and organ penetrations that are pertinent to JtR's MO if he was anatomically and medically trained,or not.

                          I do accept that JtR lost the plot with Eddowes and especially Kelly.
                          Last edited by DJA; 12-05-2018, 10:30 PM.
                          My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by DJA View Post

                            I do accept that JtR lost the plot with Eddowes and especially Kelly.
                            This is where Ripperology is interesting. I actually don't think the killer kept to the plot in any other case than Kelly. She is the one that comes closest to representing what he really wanted to do. And given how she is the obey one with some lever of privacy and with no severe time limitations, why would she NOT be?

                            Comment


                            • In a BBC interview in 1973, an elderly nun at the refuge claimed that she had been a novice there in 1915 and was told by an old sister who was there in 1888 that "if it had not been for the Kelly woman, none of the murders would have happened".
                              My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                              Comment


                              • Philips is the origin of all the claims about medical knowledge and anatomical knowledge and skill with the knife, one sweep of the blade and all that...

                                ... yet when it comes to Kelly, who by far has the most amount of injuries and organ removal of any of them, what does Philips say about medical knowledge then?

                                Nothing. Why is that?

                                I think we know why. Dr. Bond was standing over his shoulder watching him. Simple as that. A second opinion present.

                                Furthermore, said second opinion was given the task of a meta-analysis by Anderson to examine all the cases again. Bond after that concludes that the unsub doesn't even have the skill of a butcher.

                                I would be interested in reading if Dr.Philips in later life said anything about JtR medical/anatomical knowledge or if by Kelly he had stopped that interpretation.
                                Bona fide canonical and then some.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X