Rating The Suspects.

[Herlock Sholmes]

How surprising. Fishy and The Baron don’t have a single person supporting their position on Gull and Druitt or the fairness of the suspects table. Just the two of them

[Herlock Sholmes]

Gull also defended Vivisection "Vivisection (from Latin vivus 'alive', and sectio 'cutting') is surgery conducted for experimental purposes on a living organism" and we know that many serial killers love to torture animals, one can interpret this as a sign of violence.

The problem with this is so obvious that it really should need stating Baron. Yes serial killers are often found to have tortured animals in their early lives but we never find serial killers who didn’t actually torture animals but supported the fact that others did it. Gull didn’t experiment on animals himself, he simply believed along with most other medical men that science benefitted from vivisection and that those benefits outweighed any opposition to it. So unless you have evidence that Gull used to turn up to watch vivisection being performed as a spectator your point is completely invalid. A point that everyone but you would have seen immediately.

But you may understand if those who don't like him as a suspect will ignore this of course.

There’s nothing to ignore. And no one in ripperology ‘likes’ Gull as a suspect except for Fishy….and now you.

Imagine if Druitt was known to have an honour in Surgery, and was famous for defending Vivisection !!!

We have already tried to explain the nature of Gull’s degree but you simply ignore it so I’m not going to waste time explaining it for the third or fourth time. Druitt probably did defend vivisection, it’s likely that his father did too and his uncle (who wrote the standard textbook on surgery) but then again, you would probably have been hard-pressed to have found a medical man at that time that didn’t support vivisection.

Do you think that medical people these days that support (and benefit from) experimentation on animals are all potential serial killers or is this solely applicable to Gull? I’m afraid that you are making weak points even weaker Baron.

From your post Fishy, it shows that Gull recovered in great measure, so nothing there to say he was physically unfit other than opinions of those who dislike this particular suspect.

Again….look at the table Baron. There’s is a point available for medical/anatomical knowledge and a zero for none. I’ve given Gull the point and not Druitt. Please explain how this could possibly show bias?


The Baron

Isn’t it strange that in all of the time that you’ve posted on here you’ve never shown the slightest inclination toward saying anything in Gull’s favour but then as soon as Fishy criticises me in relation to Gull you suddenly come out as Mr Gull-defender. What a weird coincidence.

You keep sidestepping a very obvious point Baron but, then again, that’s hardly unusual for you. If you believe that Gull’s medical knowledge makes him a likelier suspect than Druitt then it has to follow (because you’re a fair-minded, unbiased chap of course) that it also makes him a better suspect than Kosminski. You have to believe this of course because if you didn’t it would mean that you think that Druitt should be judged using different criteria to other suspects. And you would never do that would you.

And finally, I’ll repeat a question for you to dodge before you run away:

Why do you think it a problem that Macnaghten had a different job before joining the Met but you don’t think it a problem that Anderson had a different job before joining the Met?

[JeffHamm]

What Jeff said


Just an incredibly brilliant post from start to finish.


RD

Thanks RD. The extent of both anatomical knowledge and skill is an ongoing question in the JtR cases, and it is all too easy to focus on the end of the range of medical opinion that matches best with one's preferred suspect.

- Jeff

[The Rookie Detective]

Also, it is critical that one keeps separate the difference between "anatomical knowledge" and "anatomical skill". When the medical professionals mention "knowledge", they are saying to some extent or another that the killer knew where things were in the body cavity - this usually is based upon removing the kidneys as they are behind a membrane. Skill refers to having had experience with removing things from the body. I, for example, know where the kidneys are located (more or less), but I've never removed them. So I may have some anatomical knowledge, but I do not have anatomical skill. Dr. Brown, for example, thought Eddowes' killer had both the knowledge of where the kidneys were located, and of how to remove them.

[Coroner] Would you consider that the person who inflicted the wounds possessed anatomical skill? - 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 parts removed be of any use for professional purposes? - None whatever.
[Coroner] Would the removal of the kidney, for example, require special knowledge? - It would require a good deal of knowledge as to its position, because it is apt to be overlooked, being covered by a membrane.
[Coroner] Would such a knowledge be likely to be possessed by some one accustomed to cutting up animals? - Yes.

Note, the last question by the coroner (would someone who cuts up animals know where the kidneys were located) doesn't mention skill. However, it sort of goes without saying that if someone is accustomed to cutting up animals to the point they have gained the knowledge of where the kidneys are located, then they will have acquired skills to do so as well.

Dr. Sequeira did not directly comment upon anatomical knowledge in his testimony, but was not of the opinion that the killer had any real skill:

By Mr. Crawford: I am well acquainted with the locality and the position of the lamps in the square. Where the murder was committed was probably the darkest part of the square, but there was sufficient light to enable the miscreant to perpetrate the deed. I think that the murderer had no design on any particular organ of the body. He was not possessed of any great anatomical skill.

I've underlined the "no design" section, as this indicates that Dr. Sequeira did not think the killer necessarily even had anatomical knowledge (because, if the killer wasn't specifically targeting the uterus and kidneys, then they were taken simply because he found them, not because he knew where to look!).

So I think your pointing out that there was disagreement at the time is spot on (obviously, Dr. Phillip's suggestion that Chapman's killer had experience in the dissection room means the upper range of knowledge, and presumably skill, is even higher than Dr. Brown's opinion). And as you point out, Dr. Bond's review of the case files at the time lead him to the "no knowledge/experience" end of things.

Which brings us to whether or not this item should be on Herlock's checklist at all? The idea is to tick off bits that correspond to JtR, but which end of the scale corresponds?

If, for example, one views the medical opinion of "no knowledge/skill" as the one to fit to, then the more knowledge and skill a suspect should have, the less they correspond to that set of views. At the moment, the checklist presumes that suspects with that knowledge are a better fit, but there is the possibility that less is more on this particular item.

However, the exact opposite argument could also be made, and that one could argue the more knowledge/skill a suspect can be shown to have, the greater the correspondence with JtR, which in a way is how Herlock originally scored this (2 for medical level knowledge/skill 1 for animal level, and 0 for none).

In my view, the current 1 or 0 coding strikes the right balance. The range of opinions is so wide that I think there is no reason to weight surgical experience as more indicative of JtR than experience with cutting up animals. Also, given that it is very common for those who end up engaging in mutilation murders to have started out by cutting up animals, I think if it can be shown that a suspect has had that experience then that at least does make sense. In fact, if we were to have a "level 2" match, I think it would have to be something extraordinary, such as finding out that a suspect, as a child, had engaged in cutting up animals in a deviant way (killing neighborhood cats or dogs, type thing). That would be a red flag of interest, raising them above someone who, through the course of their profession, has gained such knowledge and skill. All butchers, slaughterman, and doctors will have gained the knowledge of where organs tend to be, how to find them, and will have obtained some degree of experience (doctors will all have done some sort of dissections during their medical training, even if they don't go on to practice surgery, for example).

- Jeff

What Jeff said


Just an incredibly brilliant post from start to finish.


RD

[Kattrup]

This article is from a US paper, the Oakland Tribune, it is dated 24 December 1910 , it claims that "unwritten police annals" showed the Ripper to be a physician who had treated King Edward (i.e. Edward VII).

Dr Brown - “a great deal of knowledge”

Dr Phillips - "seemed to indicate great anatomical knowledge.”


The Baron

The article also mentions that he was caught and confined to a private institution.

[The Baron]

This article is from a US paper, the Oakland Tribune, it is dated 24 December 1910 , it claims that "unwritten police annals" showed the Ripper to be a physician who had treated King Edward (i.e. Edward VII).

Dr Brown - “a great deal of knowledge”

Dr Phillips - "seemed to indicate great anatomical knowledge.”


The Baron

[JeffHamm]

...

Doctors who examined the Ripper victims disagreed on the level of anatomical knowledge the killer had. We cannot with certainty reach any conclusions about the level of anatomical skill that the killer had.

Also, it is critical that one keeps separate the difference between "anatomical knowledge" and "anatomical skill". When the medical professionals mention "knowledge", they are saying to some extent or another that the killer knew where things were in the body cavity - this usually is based upon removing the kidneys as they are behind a membrane. Skill refers to having had experience with removing things from the body. I, for example, know where the kidneys are located (more or less), but I've never removed them. So I may have some anatomical knowledge, but I do not have anatomical skill. Dr. Brown, for example, thought Eddowes' killer had both the knowledge of where the kidneys were located, and of how to remove them.

[Coroner] Would you consider that the person who inflicted the wounds possessed anatomical skill? - 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 parts removed be of any use for professional purposes? - None whatever.
[Coroner] Would the removal of the kidney, for example, require special knowledge? - It would require a good deal of knowledge as to its position, because it is apt to be overlooked, being covered by a membrane.
[Coroner] Would such a knowledge be likely to be possessed by some one accustomed to cutting up animals? - Yes.

Note, the last question by the coroner (would someone who cuts up animals know where the kidneys were located) doesn't mention skill. However, it sort of goes without saying that if someone is accustomed to cutting up animals to the point they have gained the knowledge of where the kidneys are located, then they will have acquired skills to do so as well.

Dr. Sequeira did not directly comment upon anatomical knowledge in his testimony, but was not of the opinion that the killer had any real skill:

By Mr. Crawford: I am well acquainted with the locality and the position of the lamps in the square. Where the murder was committed was probably the darkest part of the square, but there was sufficient light to enable the miscreant to perpetrate the deed. I think that the murderer had no design on any particular organ of the body. He was not possessed of any great anatomical skill.

I've underlined the "no design" section, as this indicates that Dr. Sequeira did not think the killer necessarily even had anatomical knowledge (because, if the killer wasn't specifically targeting the uterus and kidneys, then they were taken simply because he found them, not because he knew where to look!).

So I think your pointing out that there was disagreement at the time is spot on (obviously, Dr. Phillip's suggestion that Chapman's killer had experience in the dissection room means the upper range of knowledge, and presumably skill, is even higher than Dr. Brown's opinion). And as you point out, Dr. Bond's review of the case files at the time lead him to the "no knowledge/experience" end of things.

Which brings us to whether or not this item should be on Herlock's checklist at all? The idea is to tick off bits that correspond to JtR, but which end of the scale corresponds?

If, for example, one views the medical opinion of "no knowledge/skill" as the one to fit to, then the more knowledge and skill a suspect should have, the less they correspond to that set of views. At the moment, the checklist presumes that suspects with that knowledge are a better fit, but there is the possibility that less is more on this particular item.

However, the exact opposite argument could also be made, and that one could argue the more knowledge/skill a suspect can be shown to have, the greater the correspondence with JtR, which in a way is how Herlock originally scored this (2 for medical level knowledge/skill 1 for animal level, and 0 for none).

In my view, the current 1 or 0 coding strikes the right balance. The range of opinions is so wide that I think there is no reason to weight surgical experience as more indicative of JtR than experience with cutting up animals. Also, given that it is very common for those who end up engaging in mutilation murders to have started out by cutting up animals, I think if it can be shown that a suspect has had that experience then that at least does make sense. In fact, if we were to have a "level 2" match, I think it would have to be something extraordinary, such as finding out that a suspect, as a child, had engaged in cutting up animals in a deviant way (killing neighborhood cats or dogs, type thing). That would be a red flag of interest, raising them above someone who, through the course of their profession, has gained such knowledge and skill. All butchers, slaughterman, and doctors will have gained the knowledge of where organs tend to be, how to find them, and will have obtained some degree of experience (doctors will all have done some sort of dissections during their medical training, even if they don't go on to practice surgery, for example).

- Jeff

[Fiver]

I started this thread for one reason only. To assess suspect-types in line with certain criteria.

So lets do that. I will continue to pitch that you have rated Dr Gull too highly as a suspect. It's not just that he showed no signs of misogyny, Gull actively promoted women joining the medical profession.

[Fiver]

Yer he did , there is no error in that .

Go back and read your post #147. It clearly shows that Herlock did not says Gull's strokes happened during the Ripper murders.

[Fiver]

I think there is enough evidence to say that the some of doctors involved in the case were of the opinion that some degree of medical knowledge took place


Dr sequeira quote could be interpruted as ' not any great' but indeed some knowledge , just not great .

Dr Phillips - "seemed to indicate great anatomical knowledge. ill take that as a yes .

All that and more is mentioned in my post that you quote. Here it is again.

Here are the opinions of the medical types.

Dr Llewellyn - “some rough anatomical knowledge”

Coroner Baxter - "considerable anatomical skill and knowledge”

Dr Phillips - "seemed to indicate great anatomical knowledge.”

Dr Sequeira - "not possessed of any great anatomical skill"

Dr Brown - “a great deal of knowledge”

Dr Saunders did not think the killer showed anatomical skill.

Dr Bond - "no scientific nor anatomical knowledge" IIRC, Thomas Bond read the reports in the victims, he did not examine the bodies.

If it was a "near certainty that the Ripper had a degree medical skill", then why did so many of the doctors disagree with that opinion?

The assessments of anatomical skill are:
None - Bond, Saunders
Some - Lllewellyn, Sequeira
A lot - Baxter, Brown, Phillips

Another point to consider is that doctors who examined both Torso and Ripper victims thought that the Torso killer showed more anatomical knowledge than the Ripper, but not as much knowledge as a surgeon would have.

Another complication is the Ripper mutilations had an emotional component that seems lacking in the Torso dismemberment. The Torsoman clearly had a lair, so they had more time and better lighting, which would tend towards more consistent actions.

Doctors who examined the Ripper victims disagreed on the level of anatomical knowledge the killer had. We cannot with certainty reach any conclusions about the level of anatomical skill that the killer had.

[The Baron]

Gull also defended Vivisection "Vivisection (from Latin vivus 'alive', and sectio 'cutting') is surgery conducted for experimental purposes on a living organism" and we know that many serial killers love to torture animals, one can interpret this as a sign of violence.

But you may understand if those who don't like him as a suspect will ignore this of course.

Imagine if Druitt was known to have an honour in Surgery, and was famous for defending Vivisection !!!

From your post Fishy, it shows that Gull recovered in great measure, so nothing there to say he was physically unfit other than opinions of those who dislike this particular suspect.



The Baron

[The Baron]

I suggest sticking to the evidence, speaking of which Wilks and Bettanys Biographical Histoy of Guys Hospital 1892 Edition .


''While enjoying himself in Scotland he was seized with ''SLIGHT'' paralysis the right side in october 1887. He recovered in ''Great Measure'' and returned to London''.

Thanks for posting this Fishy.



The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

I did a final check in Kevin O’Donnell’s book which can hardly be described as an anti-Gull book but there’s little said about Gull that hasn’t been mentioned in other sources.

Gull had his stroke in Scotland when he became paralysed but didn’t lose consciousness. He fell to one knee but could walk back to the house with assistance. He wasn’t completely incapacitated as he took part in public/committee work but he felt unable to continue his medical practice. He remained on the Medical Register of 1888 and 1889 but saw no patients. He later had three epileptiform attacks which he recovered from (but we don’t know how long it took to recover from each one - and his death certificate only records two attacks) On January 29th 1890 he had a seizure and fell into a coma and died.

So to sum up - I’ve seen suspects of around 50 considered to have been too old. The upper age of an average serial killer appears to be 34 so this would make Gull more than double the upper age. This fact alone can’t but fail to put him on the outer edges of likelihood. Gull would be considered an old man in 2024. In 1888 he was a very old man.

Then when we add his strokes and attacks which didn’t completely debilitate him (and I have never suggested that they did) then I have absolutely no problem with restating that if Gull doesn’t deserve the lowest score possible on age and health then no one does.

There should be no need for further comment.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Btw, from C.J. Morley’s Jack the Ripper Suspects:

“Gull, while walking at his home in Scotland, suffered a minor stroke in the autumn of 1887, which left him slightly paralysed in the right side. Over the next couple of years, he suffered three further epileptiform attacks and two strokes.”

Whilst Gull looked and sounded the same to friends he certainly admitted that he wasn't the same man and this caused him to retire from a job that was hardly strenuous or taxing.

So…three strokes and three attacks between the ages of 69 and 71. And although the suggestion that I’d claimed that Gull had strokes during the period of the murder is clearly untrue (and of course no evidence has been produced, surprise, surprise) we have no way of knowing when these other strokes and attacks occurred. So it’s not impossible that he did suffer strokes or attacks during that period. The point of course is this - how can anyone who is professing to be unbiased and serious not accept that a 71 year old man in poor health is hardly the type one would expect in a serial killer, or that it would be dishonest to award him any points on this particular criteria.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I agree. It's a shame Herlock. I have nothing against The Baron or Fishy mind. Ive found some of there comments about the non suspect Lechmere amusing in the past.

It’s a pity that those two spend so much time posting specifically because of issues that they have with me. It feels like I’ve spent the last 3 or 4 years banging my head against a wall.