Arbitrary Selective Rejection and Acceptence of Coincidences

[Errata]

I think you're onto something here. It'd certainly explain how he could avoid slicing his own hands up in the dark, working as quickly as he did, and how he worked quickly at all in public places, the stress of potential discovery, through his own excitation, the lighting, etc etc.

But this also implies a deal of practise, no?

Sure, but not at cutting dead women. If you can picture what you feel, you can do that if you are removing a clog, pulling an exhaust system, or trying to see if a horse is pregnant.

[Batman]

The left liver of a female human is the furthest back orange organ in the middle right hand side of the picture. It has the golden shape organ in front of it.



The kidney lays embedded in fat.

The kidney is well at the rear.
It is behind the (1)peritoneum.
overlain by the (2)stomach,
spleen(3), <---- The golden shape organ.
colon(4)
and
jejunum(5).

What smash and grab advocates would have us believe is that by sticking one's hand in and feeling around you get to the kidney. It just simply isn't like that.

The kidney in fat, is literally in fat. That alone is difficult to 'feel' out from the fat let alone get passed the spleen with the stomach on top. Why not the spleen for a smash a grab? Its round. Its there. Nope passed that and too the kidney with an accidental extraction that today fools us all into thinking JtR had medical skill.

Let's see what Dr. Bond has to say and smash and grab...

Dr. Bond - The peritoneal lining was cut through on the left side and the left kidney carefully taken out and removed.

That's not grabbing. So at best you got "smash and carefully taken out".

The left renal artery was cut through. Not pulled off. Not pulled up and snapped. Cut through. In with the fat ... take a look at what your accidental work needs to achieve..

<--- freed open left kidney from the fat with left renal artery shown.

I think smash and grab is literally existing only in the mind. An imaginary belief that the complexity of removing a kidney this way is nothing more than pure chance.

[Ausgirl]

Sure, but not at cutting dead women. If you can picture what you feel, you can do that if you are removing a clog, pulling an exhaust system, or trying to see if a horse is pregnant.

I'm not quite buying that he went in cold. For example - why were you given the ball exercise, instead of a pile of diagrams and texts? Because we learn to do manual things best by doing, not thinking.

It makes sense to me that he'd handled bodies before. It makes less sense to me that he had no idea but went in, in the dark under real (not simulated) stress, with a lot at risk, and in a matter of moments felt his way to exactly what he wanted.

[Batman]

Dr. Bond should be Dr. Brown of course above. Too late for correction in the post.

[Batman]

Speaking of Bond it has been pointed out that one reason Dr.Bond may have rejected JtR as having medical skill is because he 'failed' to sever their heads completely.

Bond attributed head severing and limb severing in the Thames Torso murders to someone with medical knowledge.

[Jeff Leahy]

Speaking of Bond it has been pointed out that one reason Dr.Bond may have rejected JtR as having medical skill is because he 'failed' to sever their heads completely.

Bond attributed head severing and limb severing in the Thames Torso murders to someone with medical knowledge.

Yes, it seems apparent that Jack tried to remove Annies head marks to the vertebra suggest this. Even though he had time he didn't try to remove Kellies head and appears to have switched to destroying the face. I think an expert would have known how to do this.

Further to your earlier post, you appear to attribute a single voice to those people who advocate Kosminski as a suspect and I don't think this true at all.

While the work of leading advocates in this area is to be admired, my experience is they often have very different pictures and theories about Aaron as the killer or even if Aaron was Kosminski. Most tend to prefer Lawende as the ID witness, this reduces the problem of the Stride murder scene and nearly all try and compress the Kosminski story into a single all encompassing theory that marry's the various accounts of Cox, Sagar and Ried. With all the problems you describe.

Many put forward Aaron Kosminski as requiring medical knowledge siting Simm's worked in a Hospital in Poland.

My new double event theory does away with all these problems by simply suggesting Kosminski enter the Asylum twice. First a private Asylum in March 1889 and secondly a public Asylum in Feb1891. The second event only known to Anderson and Swanson and a small selected group of officers sworn to secrecy because of the potential political fall out…'Hot Potatoe' Not a conspiracy but simply a gentleman keeps his word and doesn't reveal what would 'Serve no purpose'

The first event followed a surveylance by the police which never yielded any positive proof and an arrest was never made as the suspect was placed out of harms way. Thus these officers never believed the identity of the killer was known, because for all they knew, it wasn't. They had no idea if he was still in the asylum or dead. And explains why MacNaughten favours Druitt.

Clearly you seem to be arguing that because Dr Fredrick Brown preferred theory was Medical Student, that he was aguing for 'expertise' however when pushed by Baxter he failed to comment. So all we are looking at is the level of expertise, and that is the knowledge of organs in the abdominal cavity and as he says someone familiar with cutting up animals would have known this…

And its my personal 'Kosminskite' theory that the leather Apron story and the Butcher Row suspect might have been connected to Aaron. Thats because while Jacob cohen says 'hasn't done any kind of work in years' he was referring to Aaron going into a Private asylum in Surrey. I believe in reality that if he's the man described by Cox and Sagar then he'd been kept busy doing odd jobs, cleaning up, making deliveries, and watching premises (Hence why he had jacob's dog)

But please don't try and make the case that Kosminskites (And most of them hate that phrase, I don't) speak from a single voice. They all have very different theories. I prefer to call mine the 'Double event' (Sort of ironic) but it is different from others. And requires very different reasoning.

Yours Jeff

[Batman]

Yes, it seems apparent that Jack tried to remove Annies head marks to the vertebra suggest this. Even though he had time he didn't try to remove Kellies head and appears to have switched to destroying the face. I think an expert would have known how to do this.

Nick Warren suggested he wasn't trying to remove the head at all and if he failed with Chapman then you have two repeat failures after. Nich Warren took the approach that the majority of the wound was done while she was down during the neck slashing. That in very few slashes he accomplished a lot. The nicking is simply the stop point. Overkill, yes, but like medical believers like myself suggest, it is mix of random slashing and with deliberate targetting and removal.

Further to your earlier post, you appear to attribute a single voice to those people who advocate Kosminski as a suspect and I don't think this true at all.

While the work of leading advocates in this area is to be admired, my experience is they often have very different pictures and theories about Aaron as the killer or even if Aaron was Kosminski. Most tend to prefer Lawende as the ID witness, this reduces the problem of the Stride murder scene and nearly all try and compress the Kosminski story into a single all encompassing theory that marry's the various accounts of Cox, Sagar and Ried. With all the problems you describe. Many put forward Aaron Kosminski as requiring medical knowledge siting Simm's worked in a Hospital in Poland.

From the very start when you brought up Gull to show medical believers are only encouraging Gull believers and it comes from Hollywood, I told you this was simply a bad argument. It also appears in Sam Flynn's article at the start. Apart from being wrong about Hollywood (it was JtR as a medical man that started it, not the other way around) I suspected that you would be arbitraraly selective in your line of reasoning. When I tried to associate your non-medical view with the multi-killer hypothesis believers who came into the discussion you quickly distanced yourself from this type of reasoning (and rightly so). This just goes to prove my point about Kozminski believers and arbitrary selective use of and then rejection of the same line of reasoning.

My new double event theory does away with all these problems by simply suggesting Kosminski enter the Asylum twice. First a private Asylum in March 1889 and secondly a public Asylum in Feb1891. The second event only known to Anderson and Swanson and a small selected group of officers sworn to secrecy because of the potential political fall out…'Hot Potatoe' Not a conspiracy but simply a gentleman keeps his word and doesn't reveal what would 'Serve no purpose'

I think you will have to reserve judgement on how new this is to us until you have read Robert House on the matter.

The first event followed a surveylance by the police which never yielded any positive proof and an arrest was never made as the suspect was placed out of harms way.

An arrest was never made because they didn't see him do anything criminal even if he was put out of harms way.

Thus these officers never believed the identity of the killer was known, because for all they knew, it wasn't. They had no idea if he was still in the asylum or dead. And explains why MacNaughten favours Druitt.

Well that is what Kozminski believers favour. I think he just fit the crazed Jew profile of Bonds and that was good enough as the killings stopped. They stopped too when Tumblety went to America. Started and stopped when Chapman came and went away too. The list goes on...

Clearly you seem to be arguing that because Dr Fredrick Brown preferred theory was Medical Student, that he was aguing for 'expertise' however when pushed by Baxter he failed to comment.

How can you call this failure to comment?

[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 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.

So all we are looking at is the level of expertise, and that is the knowledge of organs in the abdominal cavity and as he says someone familiar with cutting up animals would have known this…

Yes but you claimed the medical skill question was put to him. It wasn't. Just the animal skill question. So he wasn't pushed by the Coroner on it.

He is asked if someone cutting up animals could have this knowledge. The knowledge he is referring to is - "as to the position of the abdominal organs, and the way to remove them." Dr. Brown answers yes as he believes this. It is indeed the case that cutting up animals would include knowing where organs are and the way to remove them. A vet for example would do this. A butcher would also do this. A medical person would also do this.

Now that's the 1888 view. The butcher hypothesis is just how they explained away the slaughtering of prostitutes, which is what this was. However JtR wasn't Jack the Butcher. He was Jack the Ripper. Butchers are not rippers. They be chopping and sawing according to a very precise plan for our meal time. It is this sort of planning combined with lust murder in mind that they had back then. In fact Bond's profile is pretty much that of a lust murderer. However ultimately the Butcher hypothesis within itself fails horribly. The inside of cows, horses, pigs are not even remotely close to that of a human. An ape, like Gorrila, Chimpanze, Bonoboo have similar layouts, but to propose a Perissodactyla Odd-toed ungulate is absolutely proposterious to the highest degree.



Sorry but lol....

There is 50 000 000 MYA of natural selection at work here. Our common ancestor even older. Gravitational forces and other selective pressure has caused a huge amount of adaptive change. Even if that human was down on all fours you don't have anything remotely like location as the differentiation is huge. You can easily have said a fishmunger would have this knowledge as to location and way to remove them!

Maybe a butcher would know how to spot the various human organs in a pile on a table and separate them out with a knife, but to suggest night time removal of the kidney as I showed in the diagram the page back is just not even comprehensible to medical people in the 21st century let alone 1888!

[Jeff Leahy]

From the very start when you brought up Gull to show medical believers are only encouraging Gull believers and it comes from Hollywood, I told you this was simply a bad argument. It also appears in Sam Flynn's article at the start. Apart from being wrong about Hollywood (it was JtR as a medical man that started it, not the other way around) I suspected that you would be arbitraraly selective in your line of reasoning. When I tried to associate your non-medical view with the multi-killer hypothesis believers who came into the discussion you quickly distanced yourself from this type of reasoning (and rightly so). This just goes to prove my point about Kozminski believers and arbitrary selective use of and then rejection of the same line of reasoning.

Well it could be argued tat this is 'the pot calling the kettle black' clearly any suspect theory is going to sit in line with how the proponent reads the various sources. However my position is and has always been the position taken in the Definitive Story. That after the Chapman murder the idea of the killer having expertise or surgical knowledge started to me discussed. Very Holloywood.

Following the Eddows murder this line was changed by Dr Brown who clearly thought NO EXPERTISE was required (a subject you constantly avoid because of your own Arbitary selection)

i quote; the postmotum was observed by drs sequoia, sedgwick saunders and george gagster philips. the two former gave evidence at the inquest suggesting that they did not think much expertise was evidenced by the murderer. and stated that in this they agreed with dr brown. philips did not contradict baxterr, who described the mitre sq murderer as an unskilled imitator. brown resounded to the coroners repeated questions as to whether the murder had surgical skill with the reply that he had anatomical knowledge…..(such knowledge might repossessed by someone in the habit of cutting up animals)

No mention of any expertise required

Bond goes on to say that no skill of any kind was required. And my views are balanced on the medical opinion as a WHOLE rather than being Arbitrary Selective as you appear to be.

From Sam Flynn: Much has been made of the supposed skill evidenced by the evisceration performed on Eddowes, in particular reference to the removal of the kidney. This perception has almost certainly been bolstered by the statement of Dr Brown that the killer must have had “some anatomical knowledge”. However, in deference to Dr Brown, I think it only fair to point out that not once did he state that the killer possessed surgical skill. A careful reading of the inquest transcripts and verbatim press reports will confirm that Brown only ever refers to anatomical knowledge and any skill that was shown was clearly not of the order required of a medical man. In Dr Brown’s own words, someone “in the habit of cutting up animals” would have known as much.

I think you will have to reserve judgement on how new this is to us until you have read Robert House on the matter.

WHile I haven't read Robs Book I did meet him in London on a couple of occasions. I'm aware that he postulated the Crawford letter, but I'm unaware if like me he connects Montagu to Crawford and Montagu to Butchers Row?

An arrest was never made because they didn't see him do anything criminal even if he was put out of harms way.

Absolutely thats what I've been saying.

Well that is what Kozminski believers favour. I think he just fit the crazed Jew profile of Bonds and that was good enough as the killings stopped. They stopped too when Tumblety went to America. Started and stopped when Chapman came and went away too. The list goes on...

Again I object to being branded with a single voice. I agree with some kosminski supporters on some areas. I agree with Martin Fido on some areas. At a push I might even agree with Russel Edwards on some areas.

However I have my own unique explanation for Kosminski as Jack the Ripper.

[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.

Dr Brown did not think the killer showed EXPERTISE, whether they were a medical student a Vet or a bad Butcher…he didn't have expertise.

On the Slashes to Eddows face: Many authors have made the “clown’s mask” analogy, or similar, to describe the mutilations, but it’s very unlikely that Jack set out with any preconceived “pattern” in mind. Indeed, any pattern that emerged could just as easily have occurred by accident. The killer seems largely to have improvised and little of what Dr Brown reports suggests anything particularly controlled or deliberate. On the contrary, the killer was simply hacking across the features, inflicting random cuts and wielding his knife violently in different directions and angles, combining almost side-to-side slashes with a deep, scoring action on those occasions he cut through bone or gum.

[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.

Yes but you claimed the medical skill question was put to him. It wasn't. Just the animal skill question. So he wasn't pushed by the Coroner on it.

It is this cutting of the sigmoid colon that suggests that the “hysterectomy” was a bigger mess than might appear at first glance—the implication being that Jack inadvertently cut through the colon in the process of removing Eddowes’ womb or its attachments. It is also highly probable that Jack’s hands became contaminated by faeces at the point at which the colon was accidentally severed. If so, then it is possible that the kidney was removed before the uterus, as it’s fair to assume that Dr Brown would have noted faecal contamination around the peritoneum near the left kidney if any such contaminants had been there.

NO EXPERTISE

He is asked if someone cutting up animals could have this knowledge. The knowledge he is referring to is - "as to the position of the abdominal organs, and the way to remove them." Dr. Brown answers yes as he believes this. It is indeed the case that cutting up animals would include knowing where organs are and the way to remove them. A vet for example would do this. A butcher would also do this. A medical person would also do this.

Clearly Dr Brown believed that someone used to cutting up animals would be able to perform these mutilations as they require NO EXPERTISE,

Now that's the 1888 view. The butcher hypothesis is just how they explained away the slaughtering of prostitutes, which is what this was. However JtR wasn't Jack the Butcher. He was Jack the Ripper. Butchers are not rippers. They be chopping and sawing according to a very precise plan for our meal time. It is this sort of planning combined with lust murder in mind that they had back then. In fact Bond's profile is pretty much that of a lust murderer. However ultimately the Butcher hypothesis within itself fails horribly. The inside of cows, horses, pigs are not even remotely close to that of a human. An ape, like Gorrila, Chimpanze, Bonoboo have similar layouts, but to propose a Perissodactyla Odd-toed ungulate is absolutely proposterious to the highest degree.

Butchers who cut up 'ofel' and the waist products and deliver them for pet food, might become Rippers. Could they not? They'd require a strong sharp six inch knife… given to them by an 'expert' butcher. But they would not require any EXPERTISE…to deliver pet food, just an ability to cut intestines.

And Might they deliver there products to a place that sells Pet Food?

WHere was Annie Chapmen murdered?

Was the killer familiar and felt safe with the location? It was after all the most dangerous murder site in terms of getting caught, was it not, little escape..

Maybe a butcher would know how to spot the various human organs in a pile on a table and separate them out with a knife, but to suggest night time removal of the kidney as I showed in the diagram the page back is just not even comprehensible to medical people in the 21st century let alone 1888!

Drs sequoia, sedgwick saunders and george gagster philips. the two former gave evidence at the inquest suggesting that they did not think much expertise was evidenced by the murderer. and stated that in this they agreed with dr brown.

Bond didn't even believe this was necessary.

"So the weight of medical opinion goes with someone with little 'expertise' but a lot of sexual frustration: We shouldn’t overlook the fact that at least two cuts went down as far as Eddowes’ thighs, both of them forming large flaps of skin that included both labia and other parts of the groin. Very similar wounds were later to be inflicted on Mary Kelly, albeit much more extensively and with even greater violence. It is worth considering that these wounds inflicted on Eddowes constituted the Ripper’s first attempt at denuding the flesh on the thighs."

Yours Jeff

[Batman]

Surgeon and Ripperlogist/Editor Nick Warren disagrees with your version and Sam's version of Dr. Brown's position.

I would agree having understood what Dr. Brown means when he says great deal of medical knowledge and we don't conflate this as being the same as a butcher as per your interpretation. As a biologist I side with the surgeon's interpretation of Dr. Brown. As a producer you side with Sam Flynn's interpretation of Dr. Brown.

You will not find me indulging in ideas of Jack the butcher or that butchers really have any human anatomical knowledge from any ungulate.

In end all you got is the old 'random/coincidence/no correlation' card to play. Nick says its easy to demonstrate this on pig guts. The non-medical believers instantly play it out like they would have to do this on a human being or make it difficult beyond their possible means... even though the whole of idea of Jack the Butcher is that it was an easy way to simulate cutting up a human.

Anyhow I digress. The argument for accidental kidney removal out of a fatty membrane as demonstrated by the 3D model on the prior page and the bodies levels of complexity show that a fluke grab and cutting the right parts for ways of removal without medical knowledge not just happened with the kidney, but with a womb a few times, a heart from below the rib-cage severed at the top. That's the smash and grab proposal.

Medical knowledge as per Dr. Brown's suggestion doesn't mean we are dealing with Dr.JtR. It just means someone who shadowed human anatomy location and removal is applying knowledge here. The Philip Sugden view as per Nick Warren in the acclaimed "The Complete History of Jack the Ripper". Even the very authors you bring up hail this book, sir. That is what you're up against when saying no medical knowledge.

[pinkmoon]

quite simple

The only way such knowledge could be acquired is by someone reading about kidney removal in a medical text book or seeing it done first hand or being told about its quite simple really.

[Jeff Leahy]

Surgeon and Ripperlogist/Editor Nick Warren disagrees with your version and Sam's version of Dr. Brown's position.

Yes , but I've spent time with Gareth listening to his arguments, particularly at the Wolverhampton conference. He'd make mince meat of both of us because he knows this specific subject inside out. Hence why I favour him.

I would agree having understood what Dr. Brown means when he says great deal of medical knowledge and we don't conflate this as being the same as a butcher as per your interpretation. As a biologist I side with the surgeon's interpretation of Dr. Brown. As a producer you side with Sam Flynn's interpretation of Dr. Brown.

No . I side with the fact that Dr Browm clearly states no expertise is required.

You will not find me indulging in ideas of Jack the butcher or that butchers really have any human anatomical knowledge from any ungulate.

Thats because you have 'arbituary selective' reasons? but will NOT face them…is that not true?

Dr Brown says ,,,NO EXPERTISE, something you refuse to address

In end all you got is the old 'random/coincidence/no correlation' card to play. Nick says its easy to demonstrate this on pig guts. The non-medical believers instantly play it out like they would have to do this on a human being or make it difficult beyond their possible means... even though the whole of idea of Jack the Butcher is that it was an easy way to simulate cutting up a human.

No expertise was required. Answer the Question.

Anyhow I digress. The argument for accidental kidney removal out of a fatty membrane as demonstrated by the 3D model on the prior page and the bodies levels of complexity show that a fluke grab and cutting the right parts for ways of removal without medical knowledge not just happened with the kidney, but with a womb a few times, a heart from below the rib-cage severed at the top. That's the smash and grab proposal.

Yes. But it required …NO EXPERTISE

Medical knowledge as per Dr. Brown's suggestion doesn't mean we are dealing with Dr.JtR. It just means someone who shadowed human anatomy location and removal is applying knowledge here. The Philip Sugden view as per Nick Warren in the acclaimed "The Complete History of Jack the Ripper". Even the very authors you bring up hail this book, sir. That is what you're up against when saying no medical knowledge.

I have no reason to argue NO medical knowledge….because we are discussing Anotomical knowledge as Sam Flynn points out…

The issue is did Dr Brown believe the killer required ' Expertise' and its that you have failed to address…

Clearly he did NOT….and that accords to what Bond says does it not?

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

The only way such knowledge could be acquired is by someone reading about kidney removal in a medical text book or seeing it done first hand or being told about its quite simple really.

I don't Know? does that require EXPERTISE?

Yours Jef

[Batman]

I don't Know? does that require EXPERTISE?

Yours Jef

You have been restating this word expertise and the phrase no expertise.

Nowhere at the Eddowes inquest does Dr.Brown use those words.

http://www.casebook.org/witnesses/frederick-gordon-brown.html

You have derived it from one line - [Coroner] Would such a knowledge be likely to be possessed by some one accustomed to cutting up animals? - Yes.

Yet the limiting factor in you thinking this is a butcher is nothing other than yourself Jeff.

Vets cut up animals. I have said that several times to you, but you ignored that. You even pretended I haven't been addressing your point. Vivisections were happening galore at the end of the 19th century. Yeah, that's right, medical students and scientists working on rabbits, monkeys, cows, horses, virtually any living thing that wasn't human or made more money being in a zoo. We were using guinea pigs/calorimeter and respiratators. Measured blood. Cut them up. Same with horses and blood pressure. We sent electricity through animals. Cut them up. Stuck bits under a microscope. Kelly wrote Frakenstein etc. Sheep didn't fair any better either. This was going on aplenty compared to today.

What you have to prove is that only a butcher cuts up animals and not medical experts too, or biologists or any life scientist for that matter. Which you can't do because the coroner didn't say butcher and there is no mention of it there either at the coroners inquest.

So sorry Jeff, if you want to imply he meant only a butcher ('no experitize', your invented phrase never used in the inquest) you will have to demonstrate that is so and explain to us how vivisections where not done with expert skill.

The problem is that you have selected a modern non-medical commentator for a contemporary medical commentary. Its as good as selecting a modern non-scientist for a contemporary scientist commentary. Nick Warren is the modern medical commentator with the contemporary medical commentary. Hence why Fido, Begg and Skinner use him in the A-Z as their source for medical knowledge and why Sugden used him in his book.

[Batman]

Another thing is that Dr. Bond is going on about how he looked over the medical reports and drew the conclusion of no anatomical knowledge, scientific knowledge, not even that of a butcher. "In my opinion he does not even possess the technical knowledge of a butcher or horse slaughterer or any person accustomed to cut up dead animals."

Yet how did he derive this conclusion? He is examing the pathology reports of Philips and Brown and the coroners who don't reach that conclusion in any of their reports at all.

Dr.Philips understood this. Which is why he left a snub in the history books for us to follow...

I [Dr. Philips] "...ignored all evidence not coming under my observation."

i.e - Dr. Bond is making up evidence from things that never came under his observation.

Here are the words of a man who did see things under his observation 4 times...

Obviously the work was that of an expert - or 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." - Dr. Philips

[Batman]

Oh yeah and humans are animals. We are mammals. Dr. Brown would have known this. Dr. Brown would also have 'cut up animals'. So when someone asks him or me or anyone else in science if medical skill can be obtained by cutting up animals, the answer is obviously YEP and we don't mean butcher.