Doctor Jack?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think you should read again the review of the post-mortem reports by modern-day medical experts that I have provided. The level of skill required by the killer is clearly documented

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...659#post857659

And this is from Prosector (an actual surgeon)

“…that's one reason why I don't think he was a surgeon, just a very dextrous person with good anatomical knowledge.“

Are you a surgeon Trevor?

[Lewis C]

I'll put forward Thomas Cutbush as a maybe. He supposedly spent considerable time studying anatomy books, but I don't know how strong the evidence is for this.

[The Rookie Detective]

And of course, Dr Barnardo.

He certainly had medical and surgical training but failed to complete (initially) his training.

He essentially went around calling himself a "Dr"...when he wasn't even qualified.

It was alleged that he insisted on being addressed as "Dr" Barnardo.

He eventually DID get his qualifications, but not at first.

He was a man on a mission when it came to trying to save children from destitution; even to the point where he was accused of taking children without prior consent from their respective destitute mothers.

He was also a paius man and an accomplished entrepreneur and philanthropist.

He also had a bee in his bonnet when it came to prostitutes, because he disagreed with their life choices; especially when it came to destitute children whos mothers were prostitutes.

He was also in the kitchen of the lodging house where Stride stayed just days before her murder. Stride was present in the kitchen when Barnardo gave a lecture/ talk.

This specfic lecture was later ridiculed in the press, who saw Barnardo as a bit of a joke.

Barnardo also appeared in court on multiple occasions accused of abduction and various other misdemeanours associated with his community work.

He had the confidence and bravado to confess to his crimes...and yet he still walked free.

Clearly a very powerful man who likely thought he was untouchable.

Barnardo certainly had the anatomical knowledge and clinical experience from his younger years as a medical student.

[Trevor Marriott]

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...659#post857659

And this is from Prosector (an actual surgeon)

“…that's one reason why I don't think he was a surgeon, just a very dextrous person with good anatomical knowledge.“

Are you a surgeon Trevor?

No, I am not a surgeon, that is why I have sought the help and assistance from experts in their different fields of anatomy relative to these murders.

You keep using prosector and his opinion, but not all surgeons specialise in the same field of anatomy. That is why I carefully selected the two different medical experts to review the post-mortem reports, given their expertise in evisceration, and a gynaecologist. What is the prosector's specialist field of expertise?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GBinOz]

No, I am not a surgeon, that is why I have sought the help and assistance from experts in their different fields of anatomy relative to these murders.

You keep using prosector and his opinion, but not all surgeons specialise in the same field of anatomy. That is why I carefully selected the two different medical experts to review the post-mortem reports, given their expertise in evisceration, and a gynaecologist. What is the prosector's specialist field of expertise?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

I don't believe that Prosector's opinions are as hostile to your theory as you are being led to believe, he just didn't propose your theory as an alternative. The link to his thread is:

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...ical-knowledge

While it is 72 pages in length, the early posts are the most informative. This is from page three:

"A lot of people have not really taken notice of what I said when I started the thread (and yes, I am a surgeon and have been a teacher of anatomy. I have also killed and gutted a lot of animals as a Special Forces doctor teaching survival skills).

First, I am not saying, nor do I believe, that Jack was a surgeon. Nor did I say that he had 30 years experience - I said that George Bagster Phillips did. I believe that Jack had fairly good anatomical knowledge and better than average manual dexterity. He undoubtedly improved his technique between Polly and Kate, as you would possibly expect. I believe that he might have been a failed medical student or an enthusiastic amateur. In the mid 19th century it was possible to pay for access to dissecting rooms to watch or even take part and I have plenty of evidence for that if anyone is interested.

One of the major differences between a butcher (and I fully accept that butchers are extremely skilled) and a surgeon or pathologist is that most butchers empty the abdomen whilst the animal is hanging vertically so that gravity helps a great deal. Jewish Schokets (hope I've spelled that correctly) often do it with the animal lying supine and I have some reason to believe that Jack, whilst not himself a Jew, may have observed this. Jack however used a pointed knife, Jewish butchers do not.".

Francis Thompson's father complained of the frequency of which he was asked to pay for cadavers for his son to dissect, while Francis could never be bothered to sit the exams required for a medical certificate. I feel sure that other medical students had the same requirement for cadavers.

Cheers, George

[Sam Flynn]

For me to whip out a kidney in near darkness under time pressure without doing much damaging to other areas

There was a fair bit of collateral damage to the surrounding areas - spleen, liver, colon - if one reads Brown's autopsy notes carefully.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Trevor,

I don't believe that Prosector's opinions are as hostile to your theory as you are being led to believe, he just didn't propose your theory as an alternative. The link to his thread is:

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...ical-knowledge

While it is 72 pages in length, the early posts are the most informative. This is from page three:

"A lot of people have not really taken notice of what I said when I started the thread (and yes, I am a surgeon and have been a teacher of anatomy. I have also killed and gutted a lot of animals as a Special Forces doctor teaching survival skills).

First, I am not saying, nor do I believe, that Jack was a surgeon. Nor did I say that he had 30 years experience - I said that George Bagster Phillips did. I believe that Jack had fairly good anatomical knowledge and better than average manual dexterity. He undoubtedly improved his technique between Polly and Kate, as you would possibly expect. I believe that he might have been a failed medical student or an enthusiastic amateur. In the mid 19th century it was possible to pay for access to dissecting rooms to watch or even take part and I have plenty of evidence for that if anyone is interested.

One of the major differences between a butcher (and I fully accept that butchers are extremely skilled) and a surgeon or pathologist is that most butchers empty the abdomen whilst the animal is hanging vertically so that gravity helps a great deal. Jewish Schokets (hope I've spelled that correctly) often do it with the animal lying supine and I have some reason to believe that Jack, whilst not himself a Jew, may have observed this. Jack however used a pointed knife, Jewish butchers do not.".

Francis Thompson's father complained of the frequency of which he was asked to pay for cadavers for his son to dissect, while Francis could never be bothered to sit the exams required for a medical certificate. I feel sure that other medical students had the same requirement for cadavers.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

Trevor says that it’s impossible that Jack could have did what he did in Mitre Square.

Prosector says that’s it’s absolutely possible that Jack could have done what he did in Mitre Square if he had the right knowledge and experience.

He even says that it could have been someone that observed a Shochet.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No, I am not a surgeon, that is why I have sought the help and assistance from experts in their different fields of anatomy relative to these murders.

But strangely, not from surgeons. People whose job includes removing organs.

You keep using prosector and his opinion, but not all surgeons specialise in the same field of anatomy. That is why I carefully selected the two different medical experts to review the post-mortem reports, given their expertise in evisceration, and a gynaecologist. What is the prosector's specialist field of expertise?

He’s a surgeon. That’s all that we need to know. He’s removed kidneys and uteri. Unlike your mortuary manager I assume (you ‘forgot’ to mention him)

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Two surgeons tell you that the ripper could have done what he did in Mitre Square (and one of them was a respected Ripperologist) but their opinions don’t fit your theory and so you try another angle.

Basically Trevor, you are telling two surgeons that they don’t know what they are talking about when it comes to the act of removing organs and that they should both heed your opinion.