Who did kill Nichols and Kelly ?

[Sam Flynn]

Similarly, Bond will have taken part of the victimsīdamages 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]

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]

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]

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?

[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 victimsīdamages 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.

[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.

[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 didnīt. Donīt 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.

[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.

[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!

[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 didnīt. Donīt 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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[elleryqueen74]

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".

If the killer were a medical man or had any skill, he would not necessarily need to use his skills during the murders, as the skills he would have are for the preservation of life. In the instances of the murders he is clearly not preserving life so he would not need to be so methodical in the use of his skills. So he could just cut and slash as he wishes. There are no laws saying that if he were a Dr or skilled that he has to keep using those skills during a murder. However if during the murder he decides he wants and organ like a Kidney which is hard to get to then of course his skills then would come into play as he would have the skill to be able to know how to get it.

[John G]

Then clearly Bond was not impressed with taking the kidneys out from the front - and there goes the argument. Kellyīs innards were not damaged as far as we know, and they were not torn out as far as we know. They were excised by means of knife - which does not take a surgeon.

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.