Arbitrary Selective Rejection and Acceptence of Coincidences

[Errata]

As it happens, any idiot can do smash and grab on a uterus if they have a little imagination. A kidney is more difficult, but I could do it and I've never been in a human body. Though I did dissect a frog in eighth grade.

The heart I wouldn't do. Not that I couldn't, I just wouldn't do it THAT way. Because that's a weird way.

My father was until three years ago the Chief of OB/GYN Surgery and the head of OB/GYN at a fairly prestigious teaching hospital who pioneered fetal surgery. And he says you'd have to know anatomy, but there's no reason you would have had to actually have cut into a person before. The shock of injury, even for a short time after death covers a multitude of sins. He also said that there is no way to know without finding the organs at a later date whether or not they came out undamaged, or even in one piece.

I have a penis to swing about. Figuratively at least.

[Batman]

Smash and grab this...

Chapman
The abdomen had been entirely laid open: the intestines, severed from their mesenteric attachments, had been lifted out of the body and placed on the shoulder of the corpse; whilst from the pelvis, the uterus and its appendages with the upper portion of the vagina and the posterior two thirds of the bladder, had been entirely removed. No trace of these parts could be found and the incisions were cleanly cut, avoiding the rectum, and dividing the vagina low enough to avoid injury to the cervix uteri. Obviously the work was that of an expert -- of one, at least, who had such knowledge of anatomical or pathological examinations as to be enabled to secure the pelvic organs with one sweep of the knife, which must therefore must have at least 5 or 6 inches in length, probably more. The appearance of the cuts confirmed him in the opinion that the instrument, like the one which divided the neck, had been of a very sharp character. The mode in which the knife had been used seemed to indicate great anatomical knowledge.

Eddowes
The peritoneal lining was cut through on the left side and the left kidney carefully taken out and removed. The left renal artery was cut through. I would say that someone who knew the position of the kidney must have done it.

The condition of many of the organ parts removed can be accounted for in Eddowes and especially MJK. They were left around the victim.

The idea of a random smash and grab doing this is the dark has never been demonstrated to my knowledge despite the availability of animal organs for a model. Yet in Nick Warrens demonstration you can see why. Its just a mass of red. No nice diagrams to follow. No nice colour coded chart. I wonder how many people had to have a Google image of human biology open to follow this let alone do it.

Random chance? Notice the title of this thread?

[Jeff Leahy]

Smash and grab this...

Chapman
The abdomen had been entirely laid open: the intestines, severed from their mesenteric attachments, had been lifted out of the body and placed on the shoulder of the corpse; whilst from the pelvis, the uterus and its appendages with the upper portion of the vagina and the posterior two thirds of the bladder, had been entirely removed. No trace of these parts could be found and the incisions were cleanly cut, avoiding the rectum, and dividing the vagina low enough to avoid injury to the cervix uteri. Obviously the work was that of an expert -- of one, at least, who had such knowledge of anatomical or pathological examinations as to be enabled to secure the pelvic organs with one sweep of the knife, which must therefore must have at least 5 or 6 inches in length, probably more. The appearance of the cuts confirmed him in the opinion that the instrument, like the one which divided the neck, had been of a very sharp character. The mode in which the knife had been used seemed to indicate great anatomical knowledge.

Eddowes
The peritoneal lining was cut through on the left side and the left kidney carefully taken out and removed. The left renal artery was cut through. I would say that someone who knew the position of the kidney must have done it.

The condition of many of the organ parts removed can be accounted for in Eddowes and especially MJK. They were left around the victim.

The idea of a random smash and grab doing this is the dark has never been demonstrated to my knowledge despite the availability of animal organs for a model. Yet in Nick Warrens demonstration you can see why. Its just a mass of red. No nice diagrams to follow. No nice colour coded chart. I wonder how many people had to have a Google image of human biology open to follow this let alone do it.

Random chance? Notice the title of this thread?

BOND report:

8. In each case the mutilation was inflicted by a person who had NO scientific nor anatomical knowledge. In my opinion he does not even posses the technical knowledge of a butcher or horse slaughterer or any person accustomed to cut up dead animals.

10. The murderer must have been a man of physical strength and of great coolness and daring. There is no evidence that he had an accomplice. He must in my opinion be a man subject to periodical attacks of Homicidal and errotic mania. The character of the mutilations indicate the the man may be in condition sexually, that may be called satyriasis. It is of course possible that the Homocidal impulse may have developed from a revengeful or brooding condition of the mind, or religious mania may have been the original disease. but i do not think either hypothesis is likely. etc etc. A to Z P 61.

further on p62. he sets up immediate conflict with Dr Philips, who argued the five murders were not by the same hand and that skill was shown in Chapmans, Stides and kelly's cases, though not apparently in that of Eddows.

So the conflict of whether Jack the Ripper requires medical skill has been a long standing debate in the field and the 90 minute 'Jack the Ripper the Definitive Story' documentary goes into some detail reconstructing both Dr Philips and Dr Bonds evidence. However there is more source opinion and evidence and Ripper expert Gareth Jones discusses this in more detail.

The documentary is subject to copyright and broadcast in the USA so I cannot supply a link but is freely available on Amazon and will play on american DVD players.

So the argument really depends on which Dr you find more reliable Philips or Bond, and frankly I think that is a no brainer

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

By accident or Design?

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rip-accident-or-design.html

I believe Garath's input on the subject of anatomical knowledge were posted under the pseudonym, Sam Flynn

And I quote: "In the case of each of these villains, as with the mythical “Dr Jack”, we see considerable skills, power and knowledge diverted from the cause of goodness and redeployed in the service of evil. This is an idea that resonates at the very heart of human experience, the key to its appeal perhaps echoed in the ambivalent role of mother as provider and punisher. Small wonder, then, that we find the notion of Jack the Ripper as “saint-turned-sinner” so seductive, stubborn and widespread.

However ingrained those beliefs may be, a strong case can be made for casting them aside. This article seeks to demonstrate that the Ripper neither needed, nor exhibited any such surgical skill throughout this dreadful sequence of murders. We focus on the Mitre Square murder primarily because it was in this case, uniquely so in the Whitechapel series, that the medical testimony focused on the qualitative aspects of the wounds, and to this extent we are indebted to Dr Frederick Gordon Brown, who saved for posterity the true, vicious horror of the Ripper’s technique. It is thus to Dr Brown’s meticulous notes that we must first turn."

I think Garath postulates that Browns detailed analysis supports Dr Bond and it is largely Dr Philips who is out on his own. This has given the perceived wisdom that Jack the Ripper required no surgical skill. Its what the sources tell us.
Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

Further and just so there can be no doubt that JAck the Ripper required no surgical knowledge I draw you to Garath's final conclusion and supports the satements he made in 'Jack the Ripper the Definitive Story' and is clearly the position held by most notable commentators who have studied the surgeon reports in detail:

"A close examination of the evidence, preserved for posterity by Dr Frederick Gordon Brown, leads inexorably to the conclusion that the amateur killer of Catherine Eddowes employed methods that were crude in the extreme. There is little or no evidence the killer possessed anything more than a broad knowledge of where the organs were located, and although Dr Brown believed that the killer possessed such knowledge, he never once stated that the killer possessed any surgical skill. To pretend otherwise, to perpetuate the notion that Kate died by the hands of some angel turned devil, or saint turned sinner, is to romanticise her death unnecessarily and seems somehow disrespectful.

Was Catherine Eddowes killed by accident? From her perspective, certainly. However, she was surely selected as a victim of Jack the Ripper by his design, and he clearly intended to mutilate and eviscerate her that night. Beyond that, however, any semblance of design, purpose or skill on the killer’s part emphatically ends."

So there we have it…Jack the Ripper required No surgical knowledge

Yours Jeff

[Batman]

http://www.casebook.org/dissertation...or-design.html

I believe Garath's input on the subject of anatomical knowledge were posted under the pseudonym, Sam Flynn

I think Garath postulates that Browns detailed analysis supports Dr Bond and it is largely Dr Philips who is out on his own. This has given the perceived wisdom that Jack the Ripper required no surgical skill. Its what the sources tell us.
Yours Jeff

I just want you to clarify a few things here for us who are following this.

Is Garath a medical expert? Or is he a researcher who is quoting and writing about the medical opinion of medical experts? Are the experts contemporary or modern?

I am reading the article you posted and not dismissing it but want you to clarify the above points, thanks.

[Batman]

BOND report:

8. In each case the mutilation was inflicted by a person who had NO scientific nor anatomical knowledge.

'Jack the Ripper the Definitive Story' documentary goes into some detail reconstructing both Dr Philips and Dr Bonds evidence.

Yours Jeff

As I stated before I have seen the documentary. More than once now I recall.

With your research on Bond how did you deal with the fact that at the time the medical community had come under massive pressure as suspects because of prior pathology statements concerning medical skill? When you factor this in, one has cause to believe that Bond, who only saw the body of MJK, tried to play down concerns over medical skill. He doesn't actually demonstrate why the 'medical skill' interpretation was wrong, but says just that it is.

[Hunter]

Who is Gareth Jones?

[Observer]

Hey Batfan

Talk about clutching at straws! So you are only too willing to accept a contemporary source (Philips) to demonstrate that the doctors of the time considered there was medical skill displayed regarding the wounds to the victims; but low and behold, when we have a doctor of the period(Bond) stating that he did not think that medical skill was in evidence, you bleat

" the medical community had come under massive pressure as suspects because of prior pathology statements concerning medical skill?

I take it Philips was under the same massive pressure as Bond? Why did he not play down "concerns over medical skills" as Bond did.

What's it to be? Do we accept the contemporary medics findings or not?

[Observer]

Who is Gareth Jones?

Mr's Jones son?

[Batman]

I take it Philips was under the same massive pressure as Bond? Why did he not play down "concerns over medical skills" as Bond did.

What's it to be? Do we accept the contemporary medics findings or not?

Why should he be under any pressure? He gave his "reasons" for why he saw medical skill. It was following George Bagster Phillips pathology report that the pressure started and then escalated after his Eddowes pathology report.

Bond only saw MJK and btw his pathology report omits important details visable in her crime scene photo.

Philips also saw MJK and was supposed to give additional evidence of Pathology which never appeared. I wonder why? Maybe there was some pressure there after all.

[Observer]

With your research on Bond how did you deal with the fact that at the time the medical community had come under massive pressure as suspects because of prior pathology statements concerning medical skill? When you factor this in, one has cause to believe that Bond, who only saw the body of MJK, tried to play down concerns over medical skill. He doesn't actually demonstrate why the 'medical skill' interpretation was wrong, but says just that it is.

No, one has cause to believe that Bond said what he meant. That is, in his opinion, upon studying the findings of other doctors, and his examination of Mary Kelly medical skill was distinctly absent.

[Batman]

No, one has cause to believe that Bond said what he meant. That is, in his opinion, upon studying the findings of other doctors, and his examination of Mary Kelly medical skill was distinctly absent.

Yes, I believe he said what he meant. So what is his reasoning again? How did he explain away Baxter's interpretation? That is what he hasn't done has he. Just 'says its so, therefore it must be true'?

I would rather an argument from reason and authority (Baxter) than just authority alone (Bond).

Baxter saw 4 of the canonical 5 including 1 Bond saw.

[Jeff Leahy]

The argument put forward in the Definitive Story is that Dr Philips believed some medical knowledge was required to perform the mutilations on Annie Chapman and Dr Fredrick Brown observed that no surgical skill was required to mutilate Cathrine Eddows, which is argued by Garath in the documentary. The documentary goes on to highlight Dr Bonds opinion that no medical knowledge , not even that of a horse slaughterer was required..

So the weight of contemporary source evidence is that the killer required know surgical skill.

The script was written largely by Paul Begg who has some background in the subject being the Co-author of JtR AtoZ which had been updated at the time of the documentaries release.

I believe this argument is also supported by Donald Rumblow who also features in the documentary, hence my satement perceived wisdom is that Jack required no 'surgical' skill.

I trust that clarifies Yours Jeff

[Observer]

Why should he be under any pressure? He gave his "reasons" for why he saw medical skill. It was following George Bagster Phillips pathology report that the pressure started and then escalated after his Eddowes pathology report.

Bond only saw MJK and btw his pathology report omits important details visable in her crime scene photo.

Philips also saw MJK and was supposed to give additional evidence of Pathology which never appeared. I wonder why? Maybe there was some pressure there after all.

Who was putting pressure on the medical profession by the way?

Listen, whether there were pressure put onto the medical profession regarding whether a level of medical skill was on display or not, each of the doctors involved had their opinions, and I'm quite sure pressure did not influence their findings, and what they subsequently recorded in their notes, which later found itself into print.