Rating The Suspects.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Lewis C,

That's a good way of putting it too. A bit of it depends on how one interprets the medical statements at the "no knowledge/skill" end. If the doctors at the time who expressed the "no skill/knowledge" simply meant nothing in the crime behaviour requires either, that means the killer need not have either, but also, having it isn't a deal breaker. However, if they intended it to mean "the killer clearly does not have the skill/knowledge", then having those things reduces the fit with their opinions (though increases the fit with other doctors).

In some ways, because it is so unclear whether or not JtR needs to have either, this item is probably a bit suspect as to its information value. But, given that mutilator killers tend to have a history of mutilating animals (even if they are not specifically trained, they gain their own practical experience), I think suspects who can be shown to have such knowledge/skill probably are better than those form whom as far as we know would cut themselves at the dinner table if they didn't take care.

I'm trying to think of a single medically trained serial killer who was also a mutilator, and at the moment I can't think of one. Most medically trained serial killers that come to mind (as in doctor's or nurses) tend to kill patients through overdoses, basically medical poisoners. Even Dr. Cream was a poisoner, although his victims weren't his "patients" per se, he was tricking his London victims into taking his pills by telling them it was medicine, and had killed patients in Canada and the US. I'm not saying it's impossible, and I may just be overlooking someone, but none come to mind. Note, I'm not considering doctors/nurses who kill a spouse and may dismember them in order to dispose of the body as that's a very different thing to a serial killer who mutilates strangers as their victims.

I may have overlooked someone, or simply be unaware of them, but is anyone aware of any medically trained serial killers who killed strangers and (call this category A) performed mutilations? What about "category B": killed with knife, blunt force trauma, manual strangulation - meaning up close and personal type killings and not guns, poison, etc?

- Jeff

A modern day medical expert states that "In both the removals of the uterus and the kidney he says that in his opinion it would not be the skill, but the level of anatomical knowledge that would determine the time needed at the crime scene to effect these removals. He also believes that if the killer did remove the organs then he must have had sufficient anatomical knowledge, otherwise, he would not have had the time to search for the organs and work out how to remove them within that “at least five-minute window”

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

The way I look at it, The Ripper may or may not have needed some degree of anatomical skill/knowledge. Therefore, all else being equal, if a suspect had that, he would be a stronger suspect than one that didn't have that, because if that was necessary, that would mean that someone who didn't have it couldn't have been the Ripper. However, if someone did have that knowledge/skill, he could have been the Ripper whether he needed to have that skill or not.

Hi Lewis C,

That's a good way of putting it too. A bit of it depends on how one interprets the medical statements at the "no knowledge/skill" end. If the doctors at the time who expressed the "no skill/knowledge" simply meant nothing in the crime behaviour requires either, that means the killer need not have either, but also, having it isn't a deal breaker. However, if they intended it to mean "the killer clearly does not have the skill/knowledge", then having those things reduces the fit with their opinions (though increases the fit with other doctors).

In some ways, because it is so unclear whether or not JtR needs to have either, this item is probably a bit suspect as to its information value. But, given that mutilator killers tend to have a history of mutilating animals (even if they are not specifically trained, they gain their own practical experience), I think suspects who can be shown to have such knowledge/skill probably are better than those form whom as far as we know would cut themselves at the dinner table if they didn't take care.

I'm trying to think of a single medically trained serial killer who was also a mutilator, and at the moment I can't think of one. Most medically trained serial killers that come to mind (as in doctor's or nurses) tend to kill patients through overdoses, basically medical poisoners. Even Dr. Cream was a poisoner, although his victims weren't his "patients" per se, he was tricking his London victims into taking his pills by telling them it was medicine, and had killed patients in Canada and the US. I'm not saying it's impossible, and I may just be overlooking someone, but none come to mind. Note, I'm not considering doctors/nurses who kill a spouse and may dismember them in order to dispose of the body as that's a very different thing to a serial killer who mutilates strangers as their victims.

I may have overlooked someone, or simply be unaware of them, but is anyone aware of any medically trained serial killers who killed strangers and (call this category A) performed mutilations? What about "category B": killed with knife, blunt force trauma, manual strangulation - meaning up close and personal type killings and not guns, poison, etc?

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

Maybe part of the answer is to ignore comments that are patently absurd, where the weakness of the argument is so easily seen that it isn't even necessary to say anything. It may be that rebutting that kind of comment just encourages that poster to do more of it.

Hi Lewis,

It’s good advice and you’re not the first to give it. I prefer honest discussion/debate where people actually answer questions so I keep trying to get an honest response but I realise that I’m wasting my time with some because all that I get is ducking and diving, obfuscation, semantics and worse. Time to stop giving time to time wasters.

[Lewis C]

I don’t consider myself ‘in charge’ of this thread because I’m not but I did start the thread with one very clear aim which was to place the suspects into a tick box list to see what might be the likeliest type of person to have been the killer and how the suspects stack up. So the whole purpose of this thread is clear to all and it was definitely not to focus on just two suspects. We now find that this thread has been hijacked and is being used as a tool for criticising one suspect whilst promoting another for purely personal reasons.

If certain posters aren’t interested in the thread as a whole and it’s original aim wouldn’t it be a better idea to simply not bother posting instead of trying to discourage anyone else from posting on it by turning it into a farce for their own agendas? There is a name for this kind of activity.

Hi Herlock,

Maybe part of the answer is to ignore comments that are patently absurd, where the weakness of the argument is so easily seen that it isn't even necessary to say anything. It may be that rebutting that kind of comment just encourages that poster to do more of it.

[Lewis C]

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

Hi Jeff,

The way I look at it, The Ripper may or may not have needed some degree of anatomical skill/knowledge. Therefore, all else being equal, if a suspect had that, he would be a stronger suspect than one that didn't have that, because if that was necessary, that would mean that someone who didn't have it couldn't have been the Ripper. However, if someone did have that knowledge/skill, he could have been the Ripper whether he needed to have that skill or not.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Don't let the barstools drag you down old boy. Chin up etc. Plus if they want to contribute away from this thread they can answer mine about the bloody rib cages and kidney... had no bites yet haha.



There is a few I think, 'doing a Fisherman' is one I believe haha

Cheers Geddy. ‘Contributing’ is a problem though when all that it entails is making largely irrelevant points and then refusing point blank to respond directly to the points and questions of others.


Herlock’s Maxim No 5 - “If you can’t answer a question just say so. Don’t ignore it or pretend that you’ve already answered it.”

[Geddy2112]

If certain posters aren’t interested in the thread as a whole and it’s original aim wouldn’t it be a better idea to simply not bother posting instead of trying to discourage anyone else from posting on it by turning it into a farce for their own agendas?

Don't let the barstools drag you down old boy. Chin up etc. Plus if they want to contribute away from this thread they can answer mine about the bloody rib cages and kidney... had no bites yet haha.

There is a name for this kind of activity.

There is a few I think, 'doing a Fisherman' is one I believe haha

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don’t consider myself ‘in charge’ of this thread because I’m not but I did start the thread with one very clear aim which was to place the suspects into a tick box list to see what might be the likeliest type of person to have been the killer and how the suspects stack up. So the whole purpose of this thread is clear to all and it was definitely not to focus on just two suspects. We now find that this thread has been hijacked and is being used as a tool for criticising one suspect whilst promoting another for purely personal reasons.

If certain posters aren’t interested in the thread as a whole and it’s original aim wouldn’t it be a better idea to simply not bother posting instead of trying to discourage anyone else from posting on it by turning it into a farce for their own agendas? There is a name for this kind of activity.

[Herlock Sholmes]

What was Macnaghten’s window cleaners opinion?

This isn’t a Druitt thread. You are attempting to derail and thread with irrelevancies. No answers to questions as ever.

Still, at least we now know that you are now Team Gull and believe him a stronger suspect than Kosminski.

[The Baron]

In 1972, two years before she died, Macnaghten's daughter told her friend Michael Thornton that in nominating Druitt her father was "only following the official line. The truth could make the throne totter."
Thornton reported this in the Sunday Express in 1992.

Even Macnaghten's own daughter didn't believe Druitt was the ripper.


The Baron

[rjpalmer]

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

That wouldn't necessarily be a deal breaker for the True Believers. The theory in "From Hell" is that Gull was secretly confined in a private asylum under the pseudonym "Thomas Mason," while his brethren framed Monty Druitt.

[Herlock Sholmes]

A little birdie in my head is telling me that this thread is well on it's way to ending up like Woolworths.

Just a feeling.


haha!



RD

Hello RD,

The thread was started with a simple and very clear aim. I never claimed that any issues would be solved. I received many constructive comments and suggestions and made changes accordingly. It was downhill quickly as soon as Fishy posted because he felt that he had to defend his own suspect. Baron, because of his issue with me, felt the need to join in. Discussion could be purposeful could have continued if a) they put aside their longstanding, personal issues me, b) if they didn’t feel the need to support a suspect as he if was their football team and c) if they actually did what is reasonable to expect on a thread….the answering of questions.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It was said of Gull that he was a man of firm and outspoken views, and could be blunt to the point of rudeness, to one patient he replied, when asked if there was any hope, 'There is very little life left in you, in fact you are heart dead now'.


Sadism?!

• Sadomasochism, the giving or receiving of pleasure from acts involving the receipt or infliction of pain or humiliation
• Sadistic personality disorder, an obsolete term proposed for individuals who derive pleasure from the suffering of others

The Baron

This kind of thing isn’t worthy of response but I’ll just thank you for making us aware of this…

That because Gull’s medical knowledge makes him a better suspect than a man without it (Druitt) then you must of course accept that it also makes him a better suspect than Kosminski who also had no medical knowledge.

Thank you for the clarification Baron.

[The Rookie Detective]

A little birdie in my head is telling me that this thread is well on it's way to ending up like Woolworths.

Just a feeling.


haha!



RD

[The Baron]

It was said of Gull that he was a man of firm and outspoken views, and could be blunt to the point of rudeness, to one patient he replied, when asked if there was any hope, 'There is very little life left in you, in fact you are heart dead now'.


Sadism?!

• Sadomasochism, the giving or receiving of pleasure from acts involving the receipt or infliction of pain or humiliation
• Sadistic personality disorder, an obsolete term proposed for individuals who derive pleasure from the suffering of others

The Baron