Could Hutchinson have been a minder?

[Ben]

Glad to hear it, John!

Just a brief observation about the seemingly "discarded" nature of Hutchinson's account. The Star of 15th November reported that the account was "now discredited". What I've always found intriguing about this is the fact that the 15th November was the day after various press versions of Hutchinson's evidence had entered into public circulation. Did the police become concerned upon reading these that Hutchinson's press admissions had rather seriously compromised his initial police statement? If so, it could feasibly account for the subsequent lack of interest in Hutchinson's account. An inference based on facts, timing etc, but I feel a logical one.

All the best,
Ben

[Dr. John Watson]

Very good point, Ben. I've been responding strictly from memory, concentrating more on interpretation and less on particulars, but I confess I'm not sure I ever read the press accounts of Hutchinson's story. Now that I've got some time, I'll check them out. I can also see that you fellows have really studied this case, so I think before I contribute my two cents again, I'd better bring myself up to snuff on things!

[perrymason]

Hi John,

I use Ben as my go to guy when it comes to facts concerning Hutchy...hes very well versed in what can be known. By the way, I heartily agree on the attention paid to Lawende and Schwartz...I believe Lawende received a hotel stay during that period...and an allowance if Im not mistaken. Yet had his sighting supressed at Inquest. Interesting situation there.

On the issue of the value of his suspect description, as Ben indicated it was reported as such, and police referred to Blotchy Man as the suspect wanted in connection with Marys murder. He may well have been seen and slipped away some days later when a Mr Galloway spotted him by his description, and an officer who was approached declined to follow him as he fled.

I think the only angle that is viable to approach Hutchinson and his 3 day late statement from, is by looking for what possible personal gain was there for him. Some of the possible answers involve his culpability.

Best regards gents, all.

[Natalie Severn]

Ben:

I'm happy to say, we are in total agreement!

John

....this thread isnt part of an "all boys club" now is it?.....Ally--------help!!!!!

There is no actual "evidence" that Abberline did not believe Hutchinson"s story----absolutely none.
His belief that George Chapman was the Ripper,supported by H L Adam"s editorship of The Trial"s of George Chapman , in my opinion,suggests the very opposite.
Adam was able to use material evidence from ex Chief Inspector Godley,who actually arrested Chapman.Not only that but Godley had worked with Abberline on the Ripper Investigation.According to Adam ,Abberline thought Chapman and the Ripper were the same person.When Godley made his arrest Abberline is reputed to have said "You"ve got Jack the Ripper at last".
I now quote from Don Rumbelow:
The arguments in favour of Chapman being the Ripper can be briefly summarised as follows..........The DESCRIPTION OF THE MAN SEEN WITH "KELLY"_[note-not Annie Chapman or Kate Eddowes]WAS _YET AGAIN AN ACCURATE DESCRIPTION OF CHAPMAN HIMSELF [page 193-The Complete JtR].
Add to this Stanislaus Baderski"s[his ex" brother in law" comment about him recogising Chapman immediately---that he had not changed a jot etc "-all top hat ,umbrella ,la di dah" etc
and Abberline"s own written words on why he suspected Chapman-extract from Abberline"s long rationale---"The victims too continue to be women but of a different class and calling for different methods of despatch".
Putting all this together the logical explanation is that Abberline not only certainly suspected Chapman was the Ripper,some 15 years after the Rippers ,"Autumn of Terror",but he had based his beliefs on a number of factors that tallied with his observations and conclusions and one of these factors was the " description of the man seen with Kelly".

Regarding doctors:

I dont know why you persist with this prejudice about the idea that a "doctor" or a "toff" could possibly be have been Jack the Ripper the serial killer.Two of the most famous cases of murder by two serial killers at this time were committed by "Doctors" viz Dr Cream [ 1890"s]who killed a number of prostitutes and George Chapman,a Whitechapel immigrant from Poland,[not Jewish BTW] who had trained as a surgical student under a senior Polish Surgeon for five years,failing to get the degree of junior surgeon,but obtaining a post as a " hospital attendant " or "feldsher" -barber surgeon,so a man with extensive medical and anatomical experience encompassing more than five years training. This is quite important because many at the time who saw the Rippers victims,believed he was a doctor as can be witnessed to this day in Kew Public Record Office where there are dozens of references of them seeking out a doctor/someone who knew what they were doing etc.*
Chapman had lived and worked in Whitechapel .He was hanged in 1903 having also committed "serial murder"-also in rthe 1890"s.These two doctor villains are followed soon afterwards by the notorious Dr Crippen who murdered his wife.
And ofcourse much more recently we have the most prolific serial killer in the UK of all time-our own Dr Shipman!


Best
Nats
* -none of us here saw these murder victims injuries but from all accounts, the two Senior Police surgeons who did see the victims Dr Phillips [met] and Dr Brown [City] saw them as the work of someone knowledgeable in anatomy .

[Ben]

Hi Natalie,

There is no actual "evidence" that Abberline did not believe Hutchinson"s story----absolutely none. His belief that George Chapman was the Ripper,supported by H L Adam"s editorship of The Trial"s of George Chapman , in my opinion,suggests the very opposite

Completely wrong, I'm afraid.

In the 1903 Pall Mall Gazzette article I referenced earlier he stated, in effect, that the only witnesses to have described a man of foreign appearence had seen the man from behind. This excludes Hutchinson for obvious reasons: "They however only saw his back", not "They however only saw his back apart from this brilliant witness I forgot to mention who got to see his front, and who might superficially tally with this new Polish suspect I'm trying to push". It's an overwhelmingly logical inference that Abberline came to dismiss Hutchinson's suspect as the killer, and when you say "no evidnece, like many people who get the terminology wrong, you really mean there's no proof.

Add to this Stanislaus Baderski"s[his ex" brother in law" comment about him recogising Chapman immediately---that he had not changed a jot etc "-all top hat ,umbrella ,la di dah" etc

He had not changed a jot since his time in Tottenham High Road in 1895 when he was purportedly dressing "la di da", and passing himself of as an American. Absolutely no evidence that Klowowski was remotely la di da or well-dressed in 1888 (he couldn't have been an impoverished immigrant), and even less evidence that he could speak English at that time. On two counts, then, he's a physical misfit for Mr. Astrakhan; a third, if you include the imcompatibility with the suspect's age. It is for this very crucial reason (in addition to Hutchinson's evidence being disregarded as a tool with which to catch the killer), that Abberline did not try to draw tenuous paralells between Hutchinson's suspect and Klosowski, but instead compared him to rear-view sightings, and sightings which involved peaked caps - the sightings ajudged reliable by the police elsewhere. No coincidence.

Abberline clearly did not use Hutchinson's evidence to support his Klosowski theory. That much is overwhelmingly apparent, at the very least, from his Pall Mall Gazette interview. Don Rumbelow isn't remotely endorsing the view that "the man seen with Kelly" is a credible argument in favour of Chapman. He's merely listing some of the reasons that others' have suspected him, including some of the dotty ones - that being one, another being the "Americanisms" in the Dear Boss letter.

I dont know why you persist with this prejudice about the idea that a "doctor" or a "toff" could possibly be have been Jack the Ripper the serial killer

I never used the expression "couldn't possibly", although I believe he was very unlikely to have been one. You, on the other hand, are apparently so eager for the killer to fall into this catergory that in tends to creep into a great many of your posts, from my humble and hopefully non-antagonistic observations. If you look at the "doctor" suspects you referenced, you'll notice that most of them used poison and subterfuge, rather than extreme violence and mutilation.

This is quite important because many at the time who saw the Rippers victims,believed he was a doctor

No.

Of all the doctors examining the bodies, only one singled out a member of his profession; the one who mysteriously (and almost certainly wrongly) attributed Eddowes and Chapman to two different killers. The Doctor Jack hypothesis was a minority-endorsed contemporary view amongst the doctors who assessed the victims' injuries, certainly not the majority.

Best regards,
Ben

[Dr. John Watson]

Sorry Natalie! I should have said, " . . . you fellows and gals have really studied this case." When I stumbled onto this thread and foolishly tossed my two cents into the ring, I had no idea I was stepping into a mine field, or perhaps battle zone would be a better description! Honestly, I have no fixed position on Hutchinson, either as a suspect or a witness. I don't see Chapman as the Ripper. No one could go from ripping women open to merely poisoning them, and weren't Chapman's murders done for profit? At any rate, Natalile, keep up the struggle. I greatly admire anyone who fights for his/her cause - just as long as they keep an open mind!

[Natalie Severn]

Hi John,
I find it a bit boring and tedious though to tell the truth!Also I am not particularly "anti Hutchinson at all.
I just think ,like you, that Abberline,a man as intelligent as anyone else,an experienced policeman/detective,chosen by Anderson and Warren as a man more than capable to lead the investigation at street level was a man who believed Hutchinson.
Thats good enough for me to think Abberline had good reason to believe him.
Best
Natalie

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Natalie,



Completely wrong, I'm afraid.

In the 1903 Pall Mall Gazzette article I referenced earlier he stated, in effect, that the only witnesses to have described a man of foreign appearence had seen the man from behind. This excludes Hutchinson for obvious reasons: "They however only saw his back", not "They however only saw his back apart from this brilliant witness I forgot to mention who got to see his front, and who might superficially tally with this new Polish suspect I'm trying to push". It's an overwhelmingly logical inference that Abberline came to dismiss Hutchinson's suspect as the killer, and when you say "no evidnece, like many people who get the terminology wrong, you really mean there's no proof.



He had not changed a jot since his time in Tottenham High Road in 1895 when he was purportedly dressing "la di da", and passing himself of as an American. Absolutely no evidence that Klowowski was remotely la di da or well-dressed in 1888 (he couldn't have been an impoverished immigrant), and even less evidence that he could speak English at that time. On two counts, then, he's a physical misfit for Mr. Astrakhan; a third, if you include the imcompatibility with the suspect's age. It is for this very crucial reason (in addition to Hutchinson's evidence being disregarded as a tool with which to catch the killer), that Abberline did not try to draw tenuous paralells between Hutchinson's suspect and Klosowski, but instead compared him to rear-view sightings, and sightings which involved peaked caps - the sightings ajudged reliable by the police elsewhere. No coincidence.

Abberline clearly did not use Hutchinson's evidence to support his Klosowski theory. That much is overwhelmingly apparent, at the very least, from his Pall Mall Gazette interview. Don Rumbelow isn't remotely endorsing the view that "the man seen with Kelly" is a credible argument in favour of Chapman. He's merely listing some of the reasons that others' have suspected him, including some of the dotty ones - that being one, another being the "Americanisms" in the Dear Boss letter.



I never used the expression "couldn't possibly", although I believe he was very unlikely to have been one. You, on the other hand, are apparently so eager for the killer to fall into this catergory that in tends to creep into a great many of your posts, from my humble and hopefully non-antagonistic observations. If you look at the "doctor" suspects you referenced, you'll notice that most of them used poison and subterfuge, rather than extreme violence and mutilation.



No.

Of all the doctors examining the bodies, only one singled out a member of his profession; the one who mysteriously (and almost certainly wrongly) attributed Eddowes and Chapman to two different killers. The Doctor Jack hypothesis was a minority-endorsed contemporary view amongst the doctors who assessed the victims' injuries, certainly not the majority.

Best regards,
Ben

Hi Ben,
I am not really prepared to conduct any more truly idiotic "he said this/ he said the other" load of crap ,of the kind you seem to have enjoyed with Mr Poster.

You are wrong about the doctors views- you just keep raking up this tired old out of context stuff about what Dr Phillips said about Chapman versus Eddowes to try to prove your layman"s point about Dr Phillips being an idiot.An absurd view for anyone to have who has ever read Phillips detailed reports with an open mind
I am aftraid the same has to be said over this nonsense you quote from the Pall Mall Gazette. Unfortunately I am in Wales,away from my books but I remember reading Abberline"s reasons,in his own words, for believing the description of Chapman matched the descriptions that the "kelly" witness described and I dont recall any of this you quote from the PMG.
Nor do I recall a date of 1895 for Baderski"s remarks.The remarks refer to 1889 when his sister was marrying Chapman.
How on earth do you know Chapman was an "impoverished immigrant"?He came from a reasonably off family in Poland,who had allowed him to undertake a lengthy period of training there ,so that would need to be at least investigated before drawing the conclusion that he was an "impoverished immigrant".Like another Polish immigrant Kosminski,it may turn out that in actual fact his family were rather better off than had been thought.

If you ever go to Kew Public Record Office and look at the Ripper files you will see with your own eyes,not the Pall Mall Gazette"s or any other spurious report,that time and time again the Whitechapel Investigation papers reveal they were looking all over ----France as well as the UK.....for doctor suspects.


I know what evidence means Ben,so no I was not mixing the word up with proof.
I repeat:There is not one single jot of evidence that links Hutchinson to the Killer.Nothing at all.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Nats,

Nor do I recall a date of 1895 for Baderski"s remarks.The remarks refer to 1889 when his sister was marrying Chapman.

The "la-di-da, 'igh 'at and umbrella" remark (in slightly less dramatic form) came from Wolff Levisohn, and definitely refers to Chapman's appearance at a point after Levisohn saw him sometime after 1894. The relevant part of the Police Court proceedings (reproduced in HL Adam) reads as follows:

"The witness [Levisohn] ceased to see the accused from 1890 until 1894, when he saw him as an assistant at 5 West Green Road, South Tottenham. [...] The witness lost sight of him for some little time, and next saw him at a shop opposite Bruce Grove Station. This was his [Chapman's] own shop. [...] When at Tottenham the accused could talk a little English.

Cross-examined by Mr. SYDNEY -- 'You saw him at Tottenham. What sort of man was this Zagowski?'

'He was la de da, then; with black coat, patent boots, and high hat. There he sits. He has not changed a bit. He has not a grey hair on his head.' ..."

Baderski's evidence, at the same hearing, went as follows: "He [Baderski] had not seen the accused from that time [1892/93] until he saw him in the dock - an interval of ten years. The accused had not changed in appearance."

[Natalie Severn]

Thankyou Sam.That settles that then.I do seem to remember thinking Levishon was implying that Chapman had not changed/did not change much in his manner and in his appearance.
But Levishon had indeed known Chapman first in 1888,[I know I said Baderski 1889]in Whitechapel,when Chapman "was working in the High Street"-----ie He knew him from when he worked in Whitechapel High Street in 1888!If he was working in that shop under The Whiteheart,then he was right next to where Martha Tabram was found dead .This date of 1888 is according to Don Rumbelow.I do have Don Rumbelow"s book here thankfully,"The Complete Jack the Ripper".It is on pages 204/5.I hadnt realised myself that Levishon had Chapman actually in Whitechapel High Street in 1888.Very interesting.

[Ben]

You are wrong about the doctors views- you just keep raking up this tired old out of context stuff about what Dr Phillips said about Chapman versus Eddowes to try to prove your layman"s point about Dr Phillips being an idiot.

Complete and utter nonsense. What am I wrong about? The bit about most medical officials not believing the killer to have been a doctor, and only one of them singling out a member of their profession? Cuz I'm afraid that's a fact whether people accept it or not. I couldn't care less either if you think it's "an absurd view" to argue that Phillips attributed Eddowes and Chapman to different killers because that's a fact too; a fact which naturally impacts upon his other observations. Of the four medicos who examined Eddowes, only one detected appreciable anatomical knowledge. Far from me trying to prove Phillips an idiot, you've been grasping at straws trying to discredit the evidence of Thomas Bond purely because he didn't believe the killer possessed any anotomical knowledge, hence all the conspiracy-talk involving Anderson and Bond deliberately lying and suppressing evidence etc etc. I'm afraid that was just a bad excuse you came up with for dismissing a contemporary view that didn't sit well with your mental image of the killer.

I remember reading Abberline"s reasons,in his own words, for believing the description of Chapman matched the descriptions that the "kelly" witness described

Err...nope, there's no evidence that Abberline said anything of the kind at any point. You're asking us to dismiss as "nonsense" Abberline's 1903 Pall Mall Gazzette, but instead accept as gospel something that you think you remembered reading about somewhere, and that nobody else has ever heard of. Ask away, but don't be surpirsed if it doesn't fly.

that time and time again the Whitechapel Investigation papers reveal they were looking all over ----France as well as the UK.....for doctor suspects.

In the wake of the Hanbury Street murder, yes, because that was the latest medical view. Subsequent opinions and findings cast doubt on that. Too bad it wasn't shared by very many others, including the majority of contemporary medical men who studied the murders. They were also looking for foreigners, lunatics, butchers etc.

I repeat:There is not one single jot of evidence that links Hutchinson to the Killer.Nothing at all.

Repeat it all you want but you're still confounding circumstantial evidence with proof. The sort of "evidence" you would describe as such doesn't exist for any other suspect either. Too bad.

[Natalie Severn]

Ben,
Your first paragraph contains such a lot of muddled up statements regarding what I said and what I did not .
First off I do not believe the Whitechapel murderer had to be a doctor.He may have been.Two of his contemporaries were ----the serial killer Dr Cream, who poisoned a series of prostitutes in 1892 in London.And Dr Crippen.
George Chapman was also a Whitechapel resident in the same year as these murders took place in 1888 -another serial killer in fact who possessed medical knowledge and who murdered a series of women in the 1890"s.
So my point is that unlike you I do not discount a doctor,per se, as having been the Whitechapel murderer.
I keep such options open, as I do about whether or not he was a policeman for example,ie a person such as a doctor or a policeman would have aroused little suspicion-like the local milkman being seen about in the early hours doing what they had to do and no one really noticing them enough to make a mental note.
With regards to Dr Phillips,I have read each of his reports in detail and to me he seems to have been a man of significant intelligence and medical expertise,training and learning. It simply is not a sound argument to try to dismiss him on the basis you give.Likewise Dr Brown,both senior doctors who observed various levels of skill in the rippers "work"--rushed though it was,brutal though it was----after all whatever his "real profession"or job or lack of it, he had his "murderer"s hat" on when he was performing these mutilations---not his "professional hat[and white coat!] ".Almost all were done in dreadful lighting when speed was of the essence---though whether he had more time regarding Annie Chapman we just dont know but this was the case FOR CERTAIN with Catherine Eddowes -less than half an hour.

One last point I feel very strongly about.The reason I doubt the evidence of Dr Bond has nothing at all to do with my own knowledge of his medical expertise.It has to do with the POLICE SURGEON IN CHIEF ie HIS BOSS and FOUR OTHER POLICE SURGEONS "contradicting" him in January 1889 over his observations on the death of Rose Mylett.All five surgeons believed he was WRONG.

Regarding Robert Anderson.There is no doubt whatsoever that the man was a SELF CONFESSED LIAR.Read the Daily News of April 7th 191under the banner of "AMAZING CONFESSION".Or read up on the storm that erupted in the House of Commons- immediately afterwards despite efforts to hush it up.
Anderson was a SPYMASTER.At his best he was a brilliant spymaster.He acted on behalf of the Times newspaper in 1888 in order to scotch Irish Home Rule.He was, I admit,superb at his job,defending his Orangemen compatriots to the n"th degree,but duplicitous, of necessity, throughout his career as Head of CID and a ruthless enemy.
I do happen to think he acted very dishonourably over the democtratically elected Member of Parliament ,Charles Parnell.He deliberately lied about this man,tried to imply he was part of the murder plot in Phoenix Park in 1882 where two government men were assassinated and he wrote articles in The Times to this effect which the Times printed alongside the forged letters of Richard Pigott.He later confessed that he had lied about what he had said.
His behaviour over Rose Mylett was extraordinary.Even over Mary Kelly where he was sent ,again by Robert Anderson to "over rule" the Senior Police Surgeon there on the spot-he was police surgeon for Whitehall as you know.He made"medical assessments"- on Robert Anderson"s say so,- about ALL the murders on 10th November ie the day after the Kelly murder,complete with a "profile of the murderer".Dr Bond had not actually seen the other four victims and was therefore not even in a position to contradict or revise the evidence of the times of death,which he admitted himself,as the other doctors had done who had been there at the time.His findings are otherwise reasonable,but did not throw new or significant light on what had been said before.

Finally, I would be grateful,Ben, if you did not "de- contextualise" my posts - separating the sentences like that distorted my meaning in several of them.
Many Thanks
Norma

[Ben]

Natalie,

So my point is that unlike you I do not discount a doctor,per se, as having been the Whitechapel murderer.

Nor do I. But I don't consider it remotely likely, given the preponderance of evidence.

With regards to Dr Phillips,I have read each of his reports in detail and to me he seems to have been a man of significant intelligence and medical expertise,training and learning.

So was Bond, so was Sequira and so was Saunders. Doesn't mean he couldn't have been wrong about a few things. He was almost certainly wrong in attributing the Chapman and Eddowes murders to different killers, which naturally invites the possibility that he could have been equally wrong about the surgicial skill he controverisially attributed to Chapman's killer. When it comes to Dr. Brown, his views on the level of anatomical skill necessary to perform the Eddowes mutilations were not shared by three other medical men who included Dr. Phillips himself. Saunders, Phillips and Sequira detected markedly less knowledge in the mutilations.

Dr Bond had not actually seen the other four victims and was therefore not even in a position to contradict or revise the evidence

Yes, he was.

He was professionally qualified to opine as to whether or not the contents of another doctor's report tallied well with the conclusions that other doctor arrived at from it. If they didn't mesh up, it was his professional duty to say so. Unless Phillips carelessly or deliberately omitted details from his report, the salient details were all there for any qualified doctor to draw assessments from. Bond could have said "Hang on, there's nothing remotely indicative of skill in this crude butchery. Clearly Phillips didn't tell me everything", but he knew better from experience that a colleague as experienced as Phillips would have passed on everything.

All the Mylett episode demonstrates is that the police were inclined to place great credence in Bond's views. No, he wasn't a hapless sponge to the whim of Anderson. His views on the number of victims attributed to the same hand contrasted markedly with those of Anderson. The latter believed Tabram to have been a victim of the ripper; there's no evidence that Bond did. Bond included Alice McKenzie, no evidence that Anderson did.

All the best,
Ben

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Ben,
I see you continue to take my posts out of context .... very courteous of you .......
Anyway. Regarding evidence.You state there is a "preponderance" of evidence.There is not.There is some "disagreement "between doctors but no "preponderence of evidence" to suggest that they did not think the Ripper was not a doctor.Their views changed as time went by----like everyone else"s.I am not saying the Ripper was a doctor----I am saying that he could have been.That there was evidence in the method of strangulation and subdue that could have arisen from knowledge of the performance of the carotid artery-its "anaesthetising power" when compressed by someone knowing what they are about.Similarly his knowledge of how to avoid blood spurt.This is what doctor Phillips observed in several of these murders but not in the case of Alice McKenzie.Interestingly it was Dr Bond who thought she might be a ripper victim because he thought he detected this
feature in her neck area as the otherRipper victims.
When the suspected method of subdue was taken together with the knowledge of blood spurt avoidance and these were looked at in the context of the swiftness in the method of despatch,the extraction of wombs /kidneys and heart all showing a sure swift [not clumsy] use of the knife ,the doctors were clearly baffled .Was he a butcher, a doctor,how come he could pull all this off, in the dark,in a hurry with no sound or sight of him?
I myself wonder whether he could have been a professional killer ----a soldier for example.But certainly the doctors were perplexed about what he did and it comes through in several reports.
With regards to the aristocratic Irishman,Robert Anderson.He was no ordinary "policeman".This was the head of CID.He had never been on a beat in his entire life.But Abberline had,and so had a few others, and none of them gave any credence at all to Anderson"s wacky theory about a Polish Jew who hated women,had died soon after he was incarcerated,had had a problem down below of a "fiendish unstoppable nature"-so much so he had to have his hands tied at the back when taken to the bin .Only Swanson,his "good and faithful servant" and Macnaghten ,his old Etonion counterpart [another who had never been on the beat in his life],gave kind of credence to it ,and Chief Commissioner, Macnaghten thought better of it and decided to opt for the "drowned DOCTOR", see Ben ----they WERE looking for a DOCTOR.

Anyway, from a look at Swansongs"s "marginalia" ,he seems to be stretching credibility in so many directions that its more like the script of a "carry on" movie with a place full of sick policemen involved in an incredibly batty caper with some poor sod from the loony bin--some" seaside home ".
Best
Natalie

[Ben]

Hi Natalie,

I don't think I've been remotely discourteous, nor have I taken you out of context. By quoting you directly, I've ensured that doesn't happen.

I'm afraid there is a preponderance of evidence against the ripper being a doctor. Yes, there was disagreement, but there were more medical officials angling for a layman than there were medicos angling for a doctor. Nobody stated that the "method of strangulation" showed signs of medical knowledge or surgical skill, and the killer needn't have known that strangulation had an "anaesthetising power". If the killer strangled his victims, it was more than likely done to prevent the victims screaming and alerting passers-by. If he was responsible for the Ada Wilson attack, for example, he'd have learned "on the job" that a direct attack with a knife wouldn't silence the victim. As for avoiding bloodspurts, you do that by tilting the body away from you. No medical degree required for that commonsense expedient.

You perfect something by practicing at it, and murder and mutilation of prostitutes is no exception. If he was "no stranger to the knife" by the double event murder, for example, it was because he'd already got some practice in on other victims. He learned on the job rather than being a ready-made product, and believe, you'll find far more serial killers belonging in the former category.

and none of them gave any credence at all to Anderson"s wacky theory about a Polish Jew who hated women

Sure they did. How about Donald Swanson - the guy in overall charge of the Whitechapel murders? Or Macnaghten who mentioned him in the memoranda, and believed that various "circs" made him a strong suspect? Even less credence was given to the even wackier theory involving a suicidal cricket-loving barrister, but because Druitt is more "Gentleman Jack" than shabby old Kosminski, some people are inclined to focus on the problems with (and contemporaneous unpopularity of) Kosminski and his champions, rather than the problems with (and contemporaneous unpopularity of) Druitt and his champion.

Macnaghten thought better of it and decided to opt for the "drowned DOCTOR", see Ben ----they WERE looking for a DOCTOR

How does that prove that "they" were looking for a doctor? It doesn't. It proves that Macnaghten confused Druitt's profession - nothing more than that. It also highlights the illogicality of criticising some senior policeman for making errors with regard to their suspects, but letting other senior policeman off the hook entirely for making far more glaring errors with regard to theirs.

Best regards,
Ben