Does anything rule Bury out?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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."

[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.

[John G]

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

Hi Joshua,

I have given a reference in my previous post.

[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.

[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.

[John G]

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.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.

Hi Gareth,

Although the memoirs were written some time after the meeting with Dr Brown, it's obvious that they were based upon contemporaneous notes: this is evident from the opening line, "Yesterday, Wednesday, April [1905]..."

The inquest report also makes it clear that Dr Brown thought Eddowes' perpetrator had exhibited a significant amount of skill:

Coroner: "Would you consider that the person who inflicted the wounds possessed anatomical skill?"

Dr Brown: " He must have had a good deal of knowledge as to the position of the abdominal organs, and the way to remove them."

Coroner: "Would the removal of the kidney, for example, require special knowledge?"

Dr Brown: "It would require a good deal of knowledge as to its position, as it is apt to be overlooked, being covered by a membrane."

And Edward Neal, a consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist, consulted by Trevor Marriott, opined: "It would require more medical knowledge to understand the need to severe the mesentery of the gut in order to identify the kidney and remove it." (Marriott, 2013)

Paul Harrison, an expert eviscerater, also consulted by Trevor Marriott (he assisted Dr Calder), observed: "To work in such an intricate manner, and to remove the kidney carefully and the uterus without damaging the surrounding tissue would be very difficult." (Marriott, 2013).

In fact, Dr Calder and Paul Garrison, in controlled experiment, attempted to remove a kidney using a six inch Victorian knife. Having made an initial incision, similar to the one inflicted on Eddowes, they found it impossible to remove the kidney with that size of knife. The problem was not only with the knife itself, but also on account of the abdominal cavity filing with blood (in the case of Eddowes there would have been even more blood as she'd just been killed. And the perpetrator had the added disadvantages of working in darkness and under time pressure.

[Sam Flynn]

The inquest report also makes it clear that Dr Brown thought Eddowes' perpetrator had exhibited a significant amount of skill

It's noteworthy that Brown refers more to knowledge than to skill, in fact, the specific reference to "skill" is in the Coroner's question, not Brown's reply. I've underlined the relevant bits:

Coroner: Would you consider that the person who inflicted the wounds possessed anatomical skill?
Dr Brown: He must have had a good deal of knowledge as to the position of the abdominal organs, and the way to remove them.
Coroner: Would the removal of the kidney, for example, require special knowledge?
Dr Brown: It would require a good deal of knowledge as to its position, as it is apt to be overlooked, being covered by a membrane.

What people tend to overlook, however, is Coroner's next question, namely, "Would such a knowledge be likely to be possessed by some one accustomed to cutting up animals?", to which Brown responds "Yes". This, perhaps, explains the origin of the "butchers' cuts" recalled by Churton Collins in his memoirs.

Whether we're talking about "anatomical skills" (whatever they are), "anatomical knowledge" or knowledge of butchery, that doesn't mean that the killer was a medical student or practitioner, nor that Brown ever said he was. He certainly doesn't say so in any primary source that I'm aware of.