Who did kill Nichols and Kelly ?

[Michael W Richards]

Dr Bond didn't think that Kelly's murderer had any skill at all, not even that of a common horse slaughterer. Dr Phillips concurred, describing the injuries inflicted on Kelly as "most wanton".

This is far removed from the level of skill Dr Phillips ascribed to Chapman's murderer, or Dr Brown to Eddowes killer.

Precisely why myself and others had posited that 2, maybe 3 women, were victims of the same killer.

[Sam Flynn]

If the killer were a medical man or had any skill, he would not necessarily need to use his skills during the murders.

He'd want to minimise wasteful cuts, though, simply because he was under severe time pressure, but the manner by which he opened up Nichols, Chapman and Kelly was incredibly messy and inefficient. Anyone with genuine medical skill would not have wasted so much valuable time and energy, especially as he risked capture (and death on the gallows) for every minute spent out in the open.

[Sam Flynn]

This is far removed from the level of skill Dr Phillips ascribed to Chapman's murderer, or Dr Brown to Eddowes killer.

When we have three opinionated doctors, it's small wonder that we have three rather different opinions. This may say more about the holder of those opinions than the holder of the knife.

[Fisherman]

Dr Bond didn't think that Kelly's murderer had any skill at all, not even that of a common horse slaughterer. Dr Phillips concurred, describing the injuries inflicted on Kelly as "most wanton".

This is far removed from the level of skill Dr Phillips ascribed to Chapman's murderer, or Dr Brown to Eddowes killer.

And still, you have the exact same parameter with Kelly as you have with Eddowes: the kidneys having been taken out from the front. To Brown, that spelt skill, to Bond it didn´t. Don´t take that as any investement i you being correct. Take it instead as evidence of how the doctors disagreed. Indeed, Bond assessed Eddowes too, and he did not recognize any skill there either.
What does that tell you?

[Fisherman]

When we have three opinionated doctors, it's small wonder that we have three rather different opinions. This may say more about the holder of those opinions than the holder of the knife.

You beat me to it, Gareth - on the point!

[elleryqueen74]

He'd want to minimise wasteful cuts, though, simply because he was under severe time pressure, but the manner by which he opened up Nichols, Chapman and Kelly was incredibly messy and inefficient. Anyone with genuine medical skill would not have wasted so much valuable time and energy, especially as he risked capture (and death on the gallows) for every minute spent out in the open.

Messy and inefficient for what motive?? You can't deduce that with out knowing his motive. If he were trying to preserve life yes very messy and inefficient for sure. But he wasn't.

Again without knowing his motive we don't know why he would of wasted his time doing what he did.

What we do know is we have murders where there are elements that look like there are some degree of skill and other elements where there are no skill involved at all. Medical man or no, it is much easier to slash someone to open them up than to carefully make an medical incision designed to preserve life etc.

So I don't see how it is not possible for the killer to be a medical man or a man of some skill, but not have to use said skill unless it warranted it, like removing a particular organ he wanted that would be hard to without skill. It would explain why there are both elements of skill and non skill through out the murders.

[John G]

And still, you have the exact same parameter with Kelly as you have with Eddowes: the kidneys having been taken out from the front. To Brown, that spelt skill, to Bond it didn´t. Don´t take that as any investement i you being correct. Take it instead as evidence of how the doctors disagreed. Indeed, Bond assessed Eddowes too, and he did not recognize any skill there either.
What does that tell you?

Dr Bond didn't undertake Eddowes' post mortem. However two Doctors who examined Kelly determined that her perpetrator possessed no skill. Crucially, Dr Phillips also carried out Chapman's post mortem and arrived at a quite different conclusion.

[John G]

When we have three opinionated doctors, it's small wonder that we have three rather different opinions. This may say more about the holder of those opinions than the holder of the knife.

Exactly so. Which means that any attempt to determine whether JtR possessed a certain degree of skill, or anatomical knowledge-as many have argued- is probably doomed to failure, at least as far as arriving at a definitive conclusion.

[Fisherman]

Dr Bond didn't undertake Eddowes' post mortem.

I know that. But he was asked by Anderson to assess all the victims and their damages, so he was informed about the kidney having been taken out from the front. He was apparently left unimpressed by that, so he differed from Brown.
Similarly, Bond will have taken part of the victims´damages by reading the various reports, where the thoughts of the post mortem doctors were expressed. Did that make him think the killer was skilled? No.

Your point is therefore of no consequence.

[Fisherman]

Exactly so. Which means that any attempt to determine whether JtR possessed a certain degree of skill, or anatomical knowledge-as many have argued- is probably doomed to failure.

Then why do you argue that Kelly was an unskilled murder whereas Chapman and Eddowes were skilled murders, John?

[Sam Flynn]

Exactly so. Which means that any attempt to determine whether JtR possessed a certain degree of skill, or anatomical knowledge-as many have argued- is probably doomed to failure.

I'm not so pessimistic. On the contrary, I think it's a legitimate pursuit for one main reason; namely, there's a difference between what is on record in terms of evidence, and what is on record in terms of opinions. The latter can change between, and indeed within, individuals and over time; the evidence, however, stays the same. We have a better chance of establishing the truth by sticking to the evidence as closely as possible, than we have by listening to what the doctors said. Or, to be fair, what the papers said they said, in most cases.

[Fisherman]

I'm not so pessimistic. On the contrary, I think it's a legitimate pursuit for one main reason; namely, there's a difference between what is on record in terms of evidence, and what is on record in terms of opinions. The latter can change between, and indeed within, individuals and over time; the evidence, however, stays the same. We stand a better chance of getting to the truth by sticking to the evidence as closely as possible, than we are by listening to what the doctors said. Or what the papers said they said, in most cases.

And the evidence said that BOTH Kelly and Eddowes had kidneys taken out from the front. Ergo, in that respect, they were both subjected to a killer who either possesed knowledge about the placement of the kidneys, or who stumbled upon them by chance, cutting the membrane open as a sort of collateral damage.
Any which way, the evidence does not allow for stating that the two victims were subjected to different levels of skill, which is what I am trying to impose on John.

[Sam Flynn]

Similarly, Bond will have taken part of the victims´damages by reading the various reports, where the thoughts of the post mortem doctors were expressed. Did that make him think the killer was skilled? No.

Interestingly, Fish, Bond appears to have conducted a meta-analysis of the evidence... which is probably a much more sensible approach than picking off one murder (or opinion) at a time.

[Fisherman]

Interestingly, Fish, Bond appears to have conducted a meta-analysis of the evidence... which is probably a much more sensible approach than picking off one murder (or opinion) at a time.

That is an interesting thought. The problem is that we don´t have all the medicos assessing all the victims in the same way - it would have been truly useful! After the Mylett business, I have never felt all that reassured by Bond... If anything, Phillips is my man.

[Sam Flynn]

And the evidence said that BOTH Kelly and Eddowes had kidneys taken out from the front. Ergo, in that respect, they were both subjected to a killer who either possesed knowledge about the placement of the kidneys...

I think that a surprisingly large percentage of people would have known where the kidneys were; even if they didn't, it would have been fairly easy to find out. As to method of removal, I suspect that most people would assume that they should be taken out from the front.

Besides, if you're confronted by an emptied abdominal cavity, with the intestines bagpiped over the shoulders, there's not much else in the mid/lower abdomen you can go for, apart from the uterus, bladder and kidneys*. And there's little choice except to remove them from the front.

* Edit: I'll add to that, by saying that if the intestines are bagpiped over the right shoulder, there's not much else in the mid/lower abdomen you can go for, apart from the uterus, bladder and LEFT kidney. And guess what happened in Mitre Square?