The profession of Jack the Ripper.

[Craig H]

Hi Rosella

Many thx for that .... I didn't know that.

So what would he have done for money ? Was it a career or more if an army reserve ??

Craig

[Rosella]

Smith was in the Militia. They didn't serve overseas. The militia were reservists, kept for emergency defence of the homeland. According to the A-Z Smith was commissioned in the Suffolk Artillery Militia (as an officer) in 1869 and reached the rank of Major. After the army was reorganised in the late 1860's militia units trained regularly alongside regiments of the regular British army (by region.) They would take part in exercises several times a year and stay in camp. They weren't regular Army, however

[John G]

[QUOTE=Abby Normal;372633]

and yet he was able to remove her uterus in difficult circumstances and in little time.

I'm not saying he was a world class surgeon, but obviously he knew what he was doing and what he wanted. and since he removed the uterus in his next victim, its clear he was targeting specific internal organs, and how to get them.

we also have to keep in mind, that if he did have some kind of medical experience, if he was performing the same operation in clinical conditions, the wounds would have appeared more clean and "professional".
But he wasn't. and quickness was the key.

at the very least, he was used to cutting up bodies (even perhaps just animals) combined with some hands on experience with human anatomy.

the least likely scenario IMHO is that he had absolutely no experience in either and was just doing smash and grabs, fumbling around for what he could find.

Hi Abby,

But if the contemporary doctors were correct then he must have been exercising an extremely high level of skill; that's the problem. In fact, if anything, even more skill was evident in respect of Eddowes, and than Chapman, which seriously undermines the different killers argument, i.e. that Eddowes killer was less adept. One of Trevor's experts said this:

" To work in such an intricate manner and to remove the kidney carefully and the uterus without damaging the surrounding tissue with a six-inch knife would be very difficult. In the time the perpetrator had with their heightened levels of awareness and the prospect of being caught makes it even more difficult...only a person with an expert knowledge of anatomy would be able to remove the organs in the manner described and would find it very difficult if not impossible in almost total darkness." (Marriott, 2013).

To my mind, by today's standards the Victorian GPs carried out only a relativelycursory examination of the bodies-as evidenced by the fact that Dr Phillips was not expecting to give a detailed autopsy report at the Chapman inquest-and therefore their conclusions, as regards the skill of the perpetrator, cannot be relied upon.

As Dr Biggs remarked, in respect of the Eddowes inquest testimony:

"Much of the description is vague and potentially ambiguous. Repeated use of 'about' implies estimations rather than measurements of wpunds, and the assumption that a long bladed knife must have been used is not valid: a short or medium blade could have been used to inflict such injuries." (Marriott, 2013).

Mind you, if I'm wrong than one of my favourite suspects, Francis Thompson, must surely be propelled to the top of the list, as no other significant suspects had anything like the level of surgical skill that would have been required

[Craig H]

Major Henry Smith - military service

Sorry to interrupt the flow ... can anyone find out information on Major Henry Smith's previous military history ?

In the 1881 Census, he was a Captain in the Suffolk Artillery Brigade Militia .

From Google, I understand this corps assumed the title 3rd Brigade,Eastern Division,Royal Artilllery in 1882 and became The Suffolk Artillery ( Eastern Division R.A.) in1889.

Does anyone know where Smith served and when ? I think it was between 1860 - 1887 and also think most of time was in India ?

Appreciate any assistance

Craig

[Rosella]

That is, only if Jack had a perfect batting average.

Yes, exactly. Jack could have been on the prowl two or three nights a week, for all we know. The women that he attempted to pick up could have been on their guard, he could have been interrupted by passers by as he was about to attempt a strangling, the location could just have been too dark or unsafe for his operations. I doubt very much that he had a perfect success rate.

[SirJohnFalstaff]

Hi,


And the "selection" you mention is not random. That is the point. He made the selection himself. He chose the nights on which he would kill.

Best regards, Pierre

That is, only if Jack had a perfect batting average.

[Michael W Richards]

How do we know that Chapman's killer didn't have her legs flat and open while he was extracting the uterus and later drew up the legs to make it appear more lewd to the person discovering Annie's body?

Thats possible, but the crux of your reply was essentially what I was going to say. We dont know when the legs were drawn up.

It actually not a very debatable point really...after Annie Chapmans murder the investigation changed, thats a tangible factoid, and skilled and knowledgable was the profile for the man they sought. Which means at the very least that the police felt Phillips determination on these 2 points was accurate.

[Albert]

If Long or Cadosh were correct,and I'm far from convinced,then Chapman was killed in broad daylight.
It's Eddowes where the lack of light becomes near impossible with no moonlight, overcast and drizzly and the darkest corner of mitre square...
No doubt in my mind of artificial light,or not killed on the spot and I know people will be up in arms about that lol.Finding and removing a kidney with no light at all is too much to be expected to believe

I am in agreement with you over this. The mutilations and extractions in Mitre Square would seem impossible without some sort of light. As you say, it could have been daylight in Hanbury Street.
Regards
Albert

[packers stem]

Hi Pierre, thanks. I take your point but this doesn't help to explain how Jack was able to see well enough to carry out the extractions. John G has pointed out that a bulls-eye lantern would not have provided enough light for this work.
Regards
Albert

If Long or Cadosh were correct,and I'm far from convinced,then Chapman was killed in broad daylight.
It's Eddowes where the lack of light becomes near impossible with no moonlight, overcast and drizzly and the darkest corner of mitre square...
No doubt in my mind of artificial light,or not killed on the spot and I know people will be up in arms about that lol.Finding and removing a kidney with no light at all is too much to be expected to believe

[Pierre]

Yes, a very good point. The apparent connection with moon phases may be simply coincidental.

Hi John,

No, it is NOT a good point at all. It is wrong. See my explanations to GUT above.

Best regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

If we had many more killings we may be able to draw some conclusion based on moon phases, but with a mere handful random selection give about a 20% chance if him killing on a full moon.

Hi,

You canīt apply experimental thinking to one serial killer or deduce from aggregate data to one single man. Especially not as research has shown this particular serial killer to be extremely rare in many aspects.

And the "selection" you mention is not random. That is the point. He made the selection himself. He chose the nights on which he would kill. At least we must hypothesize a rational killer, who was thinking in terms of what he wanted to do as well as how and when he wanted to do it.

So you have to make an idiographic analysis for this serial killer and try to connect many well established facts to one another to understand how he was working.

Actually, of all the sciences at hand, history is the best one to use if you want to get reliable and valid knowledge about him.

You should try to understand the particular, and to describe the unusual, instead of putting him in a frame of structural, nomothetic thinking.

This is one unique serial killer. It is not the economical and social creation of the British Empire.

Best regards, Pierre

[Abby Normal]

[QUOTE=John G;372625]

You do not need to remove the intestines in order to remove the uterus because the uterus sits in the lower abdomen. I would therefore have thought that this unnecessary operation would have increased the amount of time the killer had to spend with the body.

Moreover, the original reports show that Chapman's body was discovered with both her legs drawn up. And, as one of Trevor's experts pointed out, "with the legs in those positions it would have been an hindrance to the killer in attempting to remove the organs. The normal position would be to have both legs flat and open to give free and unrestricted access to the abdomen." (Marriott, 2013)

A medically skilled perpetrator would obviously have known this, wheras an unskilled person would not. This clearly adds weight to the argument that Dr Phillips seriously overestimated the level of skill exhibited by Chapman's murderer. And once again, I would point out that he was a Victorian GP working in a poor area of London, and not a modern CSI expert/pathologist.
Medical knowledge has clearly advanced since 1888 and therefore we need to be extremely cautious when relying on contemporary medical testimony, particularly as the extent to which Dr Phillips assessed Chapman's injuries would have been perfunctory compared to that of a modern expert (and, as I noted in my earlier post, he clearly was not expecting to discuss the matter in any detail until promoted by the coroner to do so.)

and yet he was able to remove her uterus in difficult circumstances and in little time.

I'm not saying he was a world class surgeon, but obviously he knew what he was doing and what he wanted. and since he removed the uterus in his next victim, its clear he was targeting specific internal organs, and how to get them.

we also have to keep in mind, that if he did have some kind of medical experience, if he was performing the same operation in clinical conditions, the wounds would have appeared more clean and "professional".
But he wasn't. and quickness was the key.

at the very least, he was used to cutting up bodies (even perhaps just animals) combined with some hands on experience with human anatomy.

the least likely scenario IMHO is that he had absolutely no experience in either and was just doing smash and grabs, fumbling around for what he could find.

[Rosella]

How do we know that Chapman's killer didn't have her legs flat and open while he was extracting the uterus and later drew up the legs to make it appear more lewd to the person discovering Annie's body?

[John G]

[QUOTE=Michael W Richards;372619]

Nor do you have to remove the stomach flaps first, but it did make the whole operation move quickly. Someone experienced might have ideas about how to be not only be effective but also very quick...just like Phillips suggests the skill is shown.

You do not need to remove the intestines in order to remove the uterus because the uterus sits in the lower abdomen. I would therefore have thought that this unnecessary operation would have increased the amount of time the killer had to spend with the body.

Moreover, the original reports show that Chapman's body was discovered with both her legs drawn up. And, as one of Trevor's experts pointed out, "with the legs in those positions it would have been an hindrance to the killer in attempting to remove the organs. The normal position would be to have both legs flat and open to give free and unrestricted access to the abdomen." (Marriott, 2013)

A medically skilled perpetrator would obviously have known this, wheras an unskilled person would not. This clearly adds weight to the argument that Dr Phillips seriously overestimated the level of skill exhibited by Chapman's murderer. And once again, I would point out that he was a Victorian GP working in a poor area of London, and not a modern CSI expert/pathologist.
Medical knowledge has clearly advanced since 1888 and therefore we need to be extremely cautious when relying on contemporary medical testimony, particularly as the extent to which Dr Phillips assessed Chapman's injuries would have been perfunctory compared to that of a modern expert (and, as I noted in my earlier post, he clearly was not expecting to discuss the matter in any detail until promoted by the coroner to do so.)

[Michael W Richards]

[QUOTE=John G;372613]

The point is this: It is questionable as to whether he had any skill at all, for instance, even a butcher would know that you don't need to remove the intestines in order to access the uterus. Therefore, Dr Bond may well have been correct.

Nor do you have to remove the stomach flaps first, but it did make the whole operation move quickly. Someone experienced might have ideas about how to be not only be effective but also very quick...just like Phillips suggests the skill is shown.