Does anything rule Bury out?

[Joshua Rogan]

Dr Brown saw at least three victims; Eddowes, Kelly and McKenzie. It wouldn't surprise me if he viewed Stride's body, too.

[Sam Flynn]

Dr Brown's opinion is disclosed in The Life and Memoirs of John Churton Collins, 1912 http://www.casebook.org/witnesses/fr...don-brown.html

To be more precise, it's stated that he thought the Whitechapel murderer was a medical student

Thanks for that, John, although I'm not sure how much store we should set by Churton Collins' memoirs, written almost a quarter of a century after the Ripper murders, and 17 years after his meeting with Dr Brown. For what it's worth, the memoirs go on to report Brown as saying "...but that [the killer] was also a butcher, as the mutilations slashing the nose, etc., were butchers' cuts." As any butcher will no doubt tell you, them's not butchers' cuts.

Perhaps Brown actually mentioned butchers, but Churton Collins got his wires crossed. By the same token, whilst Brown might have said that the killer had "undoubted" anatomical knowledge, perhaps Collins surmised from this that the killer would have to have formally studied anatomy. Therefore (thinks Collins), Brown must have meant that the Ripper was a medical student.

but I believe Eddowes was the only victim he examined.

Not according to Collins' memoirs, who states that Brown "[saw] most of the corpses just after they were murdered, conducting postmortems, etc."

It's evident that Churton Collins' memoir should be treated with extreme caution.

[John G]

Are you sure about Dr Brown's opinion, John?

Hi Joshua,

I have given a reference in my previous post.

[John G]

Philips' own account of Chapman's wounds run completely counter to the idea that her killer was skilled, and I never knew that Brown said he thought Eddowes' killer was a medical student.
Yes. Or at least misrepresented.

Hi Gareth,

Dr Brown's opinion is disclosed in The Life and Memoirs of John Churton Collins, 1912 http://www.casebook.org/witnesses/fr...don-brown.html

To be more precise, it's stated that he thought the Whitechapel murderer was a medical student, but I believe Eddowes was the only victim he examined.

[Joshua Rogan]

That's an interesting conclusion, Gareth. Of course, Dr Phillips' believed Chapman's perpetrator had anatomical knowledge, and would have demonstrated even greater skill if it wasn't for the time pressures he was under; whilet Dr Brown seemed to think Eddowes' killer was a medical student.

Do you think they were wrong?

Are you sure about Dr Brown's opinion, John?
Neither of the other doctors who gave evidence thought he saw much evidence of medical skill;

"Dr W.F. Saunders, 13 Queen street, Fellow of the Chemical Society, and public analyst of the City of London deposed:... I was present at the post mortem examination, and had ample opportunity of seeing the wounds, and I agree with Drs. Brown and Sequeire that the wounds were not inflicted by any one having great anatomical skill. I also agree that the person who inflicted the wounds had no design on any particular organ - internal organ."

[Sam Flynn]

That's an interesting conclusion, Gareth. Of course, Dr Phillips' believed Chapman's perpetrator had anatomical knowledge, and would have demonstrated even greater skill if it wasn't for the time pressures he was under; whilet Dr Brown seemed to think Eddowes' killer was a medical student.

Philips' own account of Chapman's wounds run completely counter to the idea that her killer was skilled, and I never knew that Brown said he thought Eddowes' killer was a medical student.

Do you think they were wrong?

Yes. Or at least misrepresented.

[John G]

I don't believe he had skill at all, Jon, nor that somehow being careful with Kelly would have given him as much of a thrill as hacking her to pieces. The earlier evisceration murders perhaps only appeared "neater" due to necessity; he simply didn't have time to do as much damage. That said, Chapman was pretty crudely excavated - abdominal skin asymmetrically removed in three flaps of flesh - compared to the single zig-zag wound to Eddowes' abdomen.

That's an interesting conclusion, Gareth. Of course, Dr Phillips' believed Chapman's perpetrator had anatomical knowledge, and would have demonstrated even greater skill if it wasn't for the time pressures he was under; whilet Dr Brown seemed to think Eddowes' killer was a medical student.

Do you think they were wrong?

[Sam Flynn]

As Kelly was killed indoors he had time to be even more careful when eviscerating, demonstrating an even greater level of skill. But the opposite occurs.

I don't believe he had skill at all, Jon, nor that somehow being careful with Kelly would have given him as much of a thrill as hacking her to pieces. The earlier evisceration murders perhaps only appeared "neater" due to necessity; he simply didn't have time to do as much damage. That said, Chapman was pretty crudely excavated - abdominal skin asymmetrically removed in three flaps of flesh - compared to the single zig-zag wound to Eddowes' abdomen.

[Abby Normal]

Unless we go with the "kid in a candy store" theory.

Getting back on track, re: the killer's behaviour. There was a serial killer whose name eludes me. He kidnapped his last victim, allowed her to see his face and his apartment, before letting her get away. Naturally, she went to the cops and they brought him in. They were able to link him to a series of unsolved murders.

If we go by Ripper logic, this man could never have been a notorious serial killer. People would be arguing that this was an inexperienced offender who'd never killed before. Why else would he be so sloppy and self-destructive? Same applies to Bury.

Same with kemper.

Bundy lost it in the end too and totally went off his MO. Both seemed to become unraveled to an extent and were the cause of there own destruction.

I'm sure there are many other examples.

[Harry D]

As Kelly was killed indoors he had time to be even more careful when eviscerating, demonstrating an even greater level of skill. But the opposite occurs.

Unless we go with the "kid in a candy store" theory.

Getting back on track, re: the killer's behaviour. There was a serial killer whose name eludes me. He kidnapped his last victim, allowed her to see his face and his apartment, before letting her get away. Naturally, she went to the cops and they brought him in. They were able to link him to a series of unsolved murders.

If we go by Ripper logic, this man could never have been a notorious serial killer. People would be arguing that this was an inexperienced offender who'd never killed before. Why else would he be so sloppy and self-destructive? Same applies to Bury.

[John G]

Compared to Ellen, yes, he went to town on those women. Not Stride, though, as I don't believe she was a Ripper victim; even if she were, she wasn't mutilated anyway.Kelly, I'd say, more than Tabram. Kelly was killed indoors, as was Ellen Bury, and neither the manner of their deaths, nor their mutilations, even begin to compare.

As Kelly was killed indoors he had time to be even more careful when eviscerating, demonstrating an even greater level of skill. But the opposite occurs.

[Abby Normal]

This is the problem, Sam. People have preconceived ideas on how the Ripper should have acted. He wasn't caught, so none of us can state authoritatively what he would or would not have done. There is logic to what you are arguing, but I also think that a serial killer (and substance-abuser) who was losing his grip on everything might also have behaved in the manner I've presented.

Slicing the throat was a practical choice. Killing women in a public space where anyone could hear them scream out required a swift death. It also facilitated exsanguination so that he could raid the innards without making too much of a mess. William Beadle makes the point that the throat-cutting was unnecessary in Ellen Bury's case.

I agree with this. The throat cutting was MO. Post mortem mutilation to the abdomen was part of the SIG. More important.

Different circumstances different MO.

[Abby Normal]

It's not so much about preconceived ideas, it's just a case of going with what we know that he did.

Incidentally, that last bit is a key point: "what he did". I'm sticking to the results of the killer's actions - i.e. the physical evidence - rather than making assumptions about the motives behind his actions or his state of mind. Motives and the mind leave no fingerprints

Well then Post mortem mutilation with knife to the abdomen. Close enough for me.

[Sam Flynn]

How do you know what "he" did? It's not even proven how many victims belong to "him".

By "the killer", I'm talking about killers generically. As in "the farmer tills the soil" - I'm not referring to one particular farmer, and I'm certainly not suggesting there's only of them.

So, I meant "the killer of Nichols", "the killer of Chapman", "the killer of Stride", "the killer of Archduke Ferdinand", "the killer of John Lennon" (etc)

In each case, I look at what "he" (or it could be a "she") did to the victim, and I try not to make assumptions about the killer's state of mind.

[Harry D]

It's not so much about preconceived ideas, it's just a case of going with what we know that he did.

Incidentally, that last bit is a key point: "what he did". I'm sticking to the results of the killer's actions - i.e. the physical evidence - rather than making assumptions about the motives behind his actions or his state of mind. Motives and the mind leave no fingerprints

How do you know what "he" did? It's not even proven how many victims belong to "him".