Arbitrary Selective Rejection and Acceptence of Coincidences

[Jeff Leahy]

My partner recently had a major operation at Guys hospital. And there is a board there covering the history of Guys.

Apparently Mr Guy who made his money in the South Seaa Buble refused any titles and was even fined for refusing to become Lord Mayor.

He only ever went by the title Mr Guy… And I wonder if that is where the term MISTER comes from? As a MISTER seems to be a senior doctor of some sort

Yours Jeff

[Hunter]

...In the A-Z he is treated as 'Dr' Saunders but in the inquest he is treated as Mr. Saunders. He is the medical officer of health for the City. He did have medical training but why Mr. Saunders and not Dr. Saunders. Probably this was to segregate him from the average practising medical doctor at the time as he had an officer status and was working on anatomical pathology involving more chemistry than medicine. Hence his contribution to the Eddowes case was his examination of the food contents of her stomach which was sent to him.

Surgeons were referred to professionally as "Mr." to delineate them from general practitioners. George Bagster Phillips was referred to as "Mr. Phillips" on occasion...i.e. - the Lancet for example.

3. Dr Brown
From his original notes while working on Eddowes.

I believe the perpetrator of the act must have had considerable knowledge of the positions of the organs in the abdominal cavity and the way of removing them. The parts removed would be of no use for any professional purpose. It required a great deal of medical knowledge to have removed the kidney and to know where it was placed. Such a knowledge might be possessed by some one in the habit of cutting up animals.

The word "medical" was stricken from Mr. Brown's original deposition, indicating that he wasn't willing to go that far. He thought someone with experience in cutting up animals could have performed the extractions, which fall short of actual medical knowledge.

[Jeff Leahy]

I have already covered this above. The statement from the A-Z when referenced to the source documents shows it is Mr. Crawford making this statement to the open court, not directed to the witness. It wasn't a question.

"By Mr. Crawford" not "Mr.Crawford".

You want me to believe that Dr. Brown who held the opinion that JtR was a medical student is reversing his autopsy notes on the medical knowledge of the person who knew "the way to remove" a kidney. That wouldn't be very logically flowing now would it really?

By the way the A-Z authors give fair warning in that passage by telling you that they are not medical experts when they are commenting on medical matters and rightly so. This is because people in the science profession (which is what medical science also is) know that we should be skeptical of scientific claims made by non-scientists because we are already trained to be skeptical of scientific claims made by actual scientists! So we do this thing called corroborative sourcing of the peer-review documents to substantiate claims. Here it is a matter of going beyond the A-Z to the sources themselves.

Again, medical students where being hunted up at the time because of the statements of all the doctors who saw medical knowledge, Phillips & Brown, who are completely different pathologists, one from the Met and the other from city police because of the areas of the different murders.

I'm well aware that Paul Begg qualifies himself on the subject as he does in 'the definitive Story'. What we postulated was a clear change of perception over the course of the developing murders from the killer requiring Expertise (Chapman), to little expert knowledge (Eddows) to the final No expert knowledge required (Kelly). It's never been disputed that opinions differed and developed during the autumn of terror. Or indeed that those differing opinions still exist. Just that its always been openly debated.

However the quote I gave is from Page 456 under the headlong Sauders, Dr William Sedgewick. You tried to make out that he was no more than a chemist when in fact he had trained as an army surgeon.

Evening News " It is a pity that some people have not the courage to say they don't know. You may take it that there is no difference between a male and Female kidney. You may take it that the right kidney of the woman Eddows was perfectly normal in its structure and healthy and by parity of reasoning you would not get much decease in the left. The liver was was healthy and gave no indication that the woman drank. Taking the discovery of half a kidney and supposing it to be human, my opinion is that it was a students antic. Its quite possible to obtain a kidney for this purpose."

Again refernce to Students but no specifics on expertise required. Dr Sedgewick had the knowledge and skill to refute Mr Crawford at the Eddows inquest but he choose not to do so. This was in marked contrast to Dr Philips evidence at the Chapman inquest and he choose not to contradict Baxter at the eddows inquest. and of course the evidence of Dr Brown that someone with 'knowledge to cut up animals' could have removed the kidney (opinion: A butcher fore instance), at the Eddows inquest.

Yours Jeff

[Batman]

Saunders Dr William Sedgewick

Born 1824, at compton Gifford, near Tavistock. MRCS (St Thomas Hospital) 1846: MD Castleton Medical College (USA). In 1849, he joined the Army as assistant-surgeon in the Royal Fusilliers, serving in the West Indies and North America.

"He attended the postmortum at Golden Lane Mortuary and agreed with Dr Sequeira and Dr Gordon Brown that the murder did not possess any anatomical skill, nor, in his opinion, had he any designs on a particular organ. "

Yours Jeff

I have already covered this above. The statement from the A-Z when referenced to the source documents shows it is Mr. Crawford making this statement to the open court, not directed to the witness. It wasn't a question.

"By Mr. Crawford" not "Mr.Crawford".

You want me to believe that Dr. Brown who held the opinion that JtR was a medical student is reversing his autopsy notes on the medical knowledge of the person who knew "the way to remove" a kidney. That wouldn't be very logically flowing now would it really?

By the way the A-Z authors give fair warning in that passage by telling you that they are not medical experts when they are commenting on medical matters and rightly so. This is because people in the science profession (which is what medical science also is) know that we should be skeptical of scientific claims made by non-scientists because we are already trained to be skeptical of scientific claims made by actual scientists! So we do this thing called corroborative sourcing of the peer-review documents to substantiate claims. Here it is a matter of going beyond the A-Z to the sources themselves.

Again, medical students where being hunted up at the time because of the statements of all the doctors who saw medical knowledge, Phillips & Brown, who are completely different pathologists, one from the Met and the other from city police because of the areas of the different murders.

[Jeff Leahy]

T
When it comes to medical opinion, I would side with a surgeon than a historian.

Saunders Dr William Sedgewick

Born 1824, at compton Gifford, near Tavistock. MRCS (St Thomas Hospital) 1846: MD Castleton Medical College (USA). In 1849, he joined the Army as assistant-surgeon in the Royal Fusilliers, serving in the West Indies and North America.

"He attended the postmortum at Golden Lane Mortuary and agreed with Dr Sequeira and Dr Gordon Brown that the murder did not possess any anatomical skill, nor, in his opinion, had he any designs on a particular organ. "

Yours Jeff

[Batman]

Yes but you started by arguing that Medical expert opinion per ce had concluded that Jack required Medical expertise.

The reality is that opinion is divided.

ANd the weight of expert ripperologist opinion actually suggests a single killer who required very little medical knowledge, only that of a butcher or Horse slaughter.

Yours Jeff

The fact you conclude butcher or horse slaughterer is just like saying fishmunger. Its akin to saying, if it contains guts and organs, it doesn't matter their size or position, or correlation to humans, if I can get them out there, then I can do a careful removal of a kidney, heart and womb in a human being.

It's utter nonsense through and through for anyone with the slightest experience in animal biology to accept this.

For a Ripperologist with some knowledge of medical science we get that Jack the Butcher is not Jack the Ripper. Never was. Never will be. The 'butcher' hypothesis is because Mary Nichols was found near a horse slaughterers yard. That's it. Then you had the Leather Apron scare with John Pizer. In 1888 this is how they explained away the mind of the killer. That he was a butcherer gone mad with his knife. In 21st century criminology this is nothing less than a farce. A naive horse and cart era of trying to come to grips with a Lust Killer stalking the streets of Whitechapel.

When it comes to medical opinion, I would side with a surgeon than a historian.

[Batman]

No he is not speaking on behalf of the police, he is cross examining the medical experts. Its a very different thing altogether.

Jeff Mr Crawford does various things at the inquest. He makes open statements to the court. He puts questions to people and he answers questions.

https://www.casebook.org/official_documents/inquests/inquest_eddowes.html

The records make it clear when he is doing each.

1. Directed to a person
[Coroner] When you first saw the body did you hear any footsteps as if anybody were running away? - No. The door of the warehouse to which I went was ajar, because the watchman was working about. It was no unusual thing for the door to be ajar at that hour of the morning.

Here is an example of Crawfords directed to a person, this case John Kelly:

Mr. Crawford: Is it not the fact that the pawning took place on the Friday night? - I do not know. It was either Friday night or Saturday morning. I am all muddled up. (The tickets were produced, and were dated the 28th, Friday.)

2. Not directed to a person but the whole court
By Mr. Crawford: I was continually patrolling my beat from ten o'clock up to half-past one. I noticed nothing unusual up till 1.44, when I saw the body.
By the Coroner: I did not sound an alarm. We do not carry whistles.
By a Juror: My beat is not a double but a single beat. No other policeman comes into Mitre-street.

This is consistant throughout the whole inquest recordings. These are all obviously statement to the court for the record aren't they?

So now let's turn to Dr Sequola and see if Mr.Crawford is cross-examining him (directed) or making an open statement for the court to record.

Dr. G. W. Sequeira, surgeon, of No. 34, Jewry-street, Aldgate, deposed: On the morning of Sept. 30 I was called to Mitre-square, and I arrived at five minutes to two o'clock, being the first medical man on the scene of the murder. I saw the position of the body, and I entirely agree with the evidence of Dr. Gordon Brown in that respect.
By Mr. Crawford: I am well acquainted with the locality and the position of the lamps in the square. Where the murder was committed was probably the darkest part of the square, but there was sufficient light to enable the miscreant to perpetrate the deed. I think that the murderer had no design on any particular organ of the body. He was not possessed of any great anatomical skill.

That a #2.

All you simply have here is the police opinion at the time being made to an open court. They don't have to agree with the doctor or any other witness. Witnesses can contradict each other at an inquest. All you are hearing here is the police position. It wouldn't have mattered if any doctor stood up and said that is wrong. Its the police opinion being recorded not the medical opinion.

So Jeff I think you will find that the Coroner directs a witness to answer a question or else their deposition is finished. To stand up and shout 'that's wrong' could find you in contempt of court.

[Jeff Leahy]

Nick Warren is a Surgeon and a leading ripperologist.
Wittington-Egan dropped out of medicine (and is a member of Society for Psychical Research )
Sam Flynn as far as you have revealed isn't a medical person either.

Again, I put my chips in with the actual Surgeon here.

Yes but you started by arguing that Medical expert opinion per ce had concluded that Jack required Medical expertise.

The reality is that opinion is divided.

ANd the weight of expert ripperologist opinion actually suggests a single killer who required very little medical knowledge, only that of a butcher or Horse slaughter.

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

The A-Z is a reference book that we use to guide us to sources. Unfortunately the A-Z isn't a well referenced book for a reference book. It omits the bibliography and doesn't include footnotes on where they are getting their information from. So for this reason a lot of trust in the A-Z is put into the authors…. Skinner .

I will also use Skinner's Ultimate. Chapter 10.

I still think it strange you think Dr. Brown is on the side of no medical skill/knowledge given Dr. Bond rebukes him on it,

1.Dr. Sequoia
2.Dr. Sedgwick Saunders
3.Dr. Brown
5.Dr. Phillips

I bet neither Sequoia or Saunders say at the inquest that there was no medical skill/knowledge etc. I bet the person who says that is a lawyer called Mr. Crawford..

Yes but Mr Crawford isn't just a member of the public he's a professional lawyer cross examining a Medical Expert on the stand. Both Dr Sequola and Dr Saunders would have been very well aware that they could have disagreed or protested if they felt he was leading a witness.

Knowone did.

1.Dr. Sequoia
Dr. Sequoias was the 1st doctor on the scene. That was his capacity in this case.

By Mr. Crawford: I think that the murderer had no design on any particular organ of the body. He was not possessed of any great anatomical skill.

No objection no attempt to argue.

In the A-Z he is treated as 'Dr' Saunders .

Thats because Saunders was also an experienced surgeon.

It was Mr. Crawford who then went onto say no anatomical knowledge.

Yes, while cross examining a medical expert on the stand.

A to Z page 456.

He attended the postmortum at Golden Lane Mortuary and agreed with Dr Sequeira and Dr Gordon Brown that the murder did not possess any anatomical skill, nor, in his opinion, had he any designs on a particular organ. His stated concurrence with Dr Brown is curious since Brown, though declining to accept the coroners intimation to ascribe 'skill' to the murder, consistently asserted that he thought the murder displayed 'anatomical knowledge' and apparently thought this had been employed to locate the missing kidney"

This is a game change from the earlier inquest to Annis chapman where Dr Philips said: "Obviously the work was that of an expert- of one, at least, who had such knowledge of anatomical or pathological examinations as to be able to secure the pelvic organs with one sweep of the knife."

Another words there is a difference in emphasis from the Chapman inquest to the Eddows inquest and change again of opinion following the murder of MJK and Dr Bonds opinion.

So when the A-Z says ... "the two former gave evidence at the inquest suggesting that they did not think much expertise was evidenced by the murderer." it has to be asked where they are referencing this from?

The answer is from Mr. Crawford, a police lawyer, who is there speaking on behalf of the police.

No he is not speaking on behalf of the police, he is cross examining the medical experts. Its a very different thing altogether.

Clearly there were marked differences in the mutilations inflicted on Annie Chapman and Cathrine Eddows which had been observed in general.

Nichols and Eddows had been torn upwards with a single jagged rip from virgina to Breast bone. Where as the removal of three separate flaps (Later evident at the Kelly murder) indicated a somewhat different modus operandi.

Its also possible Nichols and Eddows where attacked from behind where as Chapman showed signs of strangulation from the front.

SAm Flynn: "In both the Chapman and Kelly murders, where it is surely significant that the killer had more ambient light at his disposal, the killer chose to remove three “panels” of flesh from the abdomen, laying it completely open and thus more amenable to efficient disembowelment. In contrast, the single vertical long cut inflicted on Eddowes meant that Jack had comparatively little room to manoeuvre within her abdominal cavity. Of course, the amount of light may have been a factor, however the confined space might also partly explain why Jack was less successful in removing the uterus from his victim on this occasion than he had been in the case of Annie Chapman’s murder."

What the coroner needed to establish was whether the same man had committed the murder to Cathrine Eddows as Annie Chapman. And clearly there were marked differences.

" Dr Philips did not contradict coroner Wayne Baxter, who described the Mitre Square murder as an unskilled imitator"

Another words by the time of the Eddows inquest there were clear doubts that the killer possessed the 'expertise' suggested at the Chapman inquiry.

Its an argument often used by those who wish to suggest more than man man responsible for the ripper murders. Utter nonsense of course because as we now know Seraial killers can and do vary their MO enormously.

Yours Jeff

[pinkmoon]

I don't Know? does that require EXPERTISE?

Yours Jef

Not an expert maybe someone who had spent time in the company of people who knew about these things

[Batman]

3. Dr Brown

From his original notes while working on Eddowes.

I believe the perpetrator of the act must have had considerable knowledge of the positions of the organs in the abdominal cavity and the way of removing them. The parts removed would be of no use for any professional purpose. It required a great deal of medical knowledge to have removed the kidney and to know where it was placed. Such a knowledge might be possessed by some one in the habit of cutting up animals.

It is from these notes that Mr. S. F. Langham, coroner for the City of London, got the idea of asking Doctor Brown the following questions...

[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.

You will notice that both of these questions flow from the order that Dr. Brown has them in his notes. It is obvious that the Coroner is asking him about this.

I don't see a change in position from his notes to his inquest statements. I believe though that this is what you want me to believe. That there has been a change and he no longer recognizes the good deal of medical knowledge he originally attributed to Eddowes murderer while examining the body.

4. Dr. Phillips

Flat out believed JtR had medical skill.

Warren and Wittington-Egan being in CONFLICT

Nick Warren is a Surgeon and a leading ripperologist.
Wittington-Egan dropped out of medicine (and is a member of Society for Psychical Research )
Sam Flynn as far as you have revealed isn't a medical person either.

Again, I put my chips in with the actual Surgeon here.

[Batman]

I again refer you back to the A to Z Page 73. Where it clearly says: 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.

The A-Z is a reference book that we use to guide us to sources. Unfortunately the A-Z isn't a well referenced book for a reference book. It omits the bibliography and doesn't include footnotes on where they are getting their information from. So for this reason a lot of trust in the A-Z is put into the authors Fido, Begg and Skinner getting it right. For example Philip Sugden's "The Complete History of Jack the Ripper" has a references in the Notes section. So cross-referencing is easy. The A-Z does its job, but its up to the researcher to then go find the sources.

So let's put it to the test. You have a quote from the A-Z. You have the inquest documents available. http://www.casebook.org/official_doc...t_eddowes.html

I will also use Evans & Skinner's Ultimate. Chapter 10.

I still think it strange you think Dr. Brown is on the side of no medical skill/knowledge given Dr. Bond rebukes him on it,

1.Dr. Sequoia
2.Dr. Sedgwick Saunders
3.Dr. Brown
5.Dr. Phillips

I bet neither Sequoia or Saunders say at the inquest that there was no medical skill/knowledge etc. I bet the person who says that is a lawyer called Mr. Crawford.


1.Dr. Sequoia
Dr. Sequoias was the 1st doctor on the scene. That was his capacity in this case.

Dr. G. W. Sequeira, surgeon, of No. 34, Jewry-street, Aldgate, deposed: On the morning of Sept. 30 I was called to Mitre-square, and I arrived at five minutes to two o'clock, being the first medical man on the scene of the murder. He says he heard all of Dr. Brown's statement and agrees with all of it.

Where does he deny anatomical skill? He didn't. It was the city solicitor, who represented the police, Mr. Crawford (who is not a medical person) who said JtR was not possessed of any great anatomical skill, not Dr. Sequoias.

By Mr. Crawford: I am well acquainted with the locality and the position of the lamps in the square. Where the murder was committed was probably the darkest part of the square, but there was sufficient light to enable the miscreant to perpetrate the deed. I think that the murderer had no design on any particular organ of the body. He was not possessed of any great anatomical skill.

Again not from Dr. Sequoias but Mr. Crawford. Dr. Sequoias has said he sides with Dr. Brown.

2. William Sedgwick Saunders

In the A-Z he is treated as 'Dr' Saunders but in the inquest he is treated as Mr. Saunders. He is the medical officer of health for the City. He did have medical training but why Mr. Saunders and not Dr. Saunders. Probably this was to segregate him from the average practising medical doctor at the time as he had an officer status and was working on anatomical pathology involving more chemistry than medicine. Hence his contribution to the Eddowes case was his examination of the food contents of her stomach which was sent to him.

Saunders said: I received the stomach of the deceased from Dr. Gordon Brown, carefully sealed, and I made an analysis of the contents, which had not been interfered with in any way. I looked more particularly for poisons of the narcotic class, but with negative results, there being not the faintest trace of any of those or any other poisons.

Saunders simply tested stomach contents for poison or drugs. That was it. It was Mr. Crawford who then went onto say no anatomical knowledge.

So when the A-Z says ... "the two former gave evidence at the inquest suggesting that they did not think much expertise was evidenced by the murderer." it has to be asked where they are referencing this from?

The answer is from Mr. Crawford, a police lawyer, who is there speaking on behalf of the police.

[Jeff Leahy]

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.

I again refer you back to the A to Z Page 73. Where it clearly says: 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 baxter, 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)

I've highlighted the word Expertise for you. So it should be clear. Drs Sequola and Sedgewick Sauders apparently AGREE with Dr Brown that not much expertise was required. So whether a Medical Student, a Butcher or Candle Stick maker….. Not much expertise was required in Dr Browns opinion

And this is held out by Sam Flynns analysis of what Dr Brown says..

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.

Where have I ever said ONLY Butchers cut up animals? All sorts of people might "such knowledge might repossessed by someone in the habit of cutting up animals" It covers any number of people, but who ever they were

They didn't require any 'expertise' this is contrary to Dr Philips belief who thought the killer of Annie Chapman did.

Actually as I have demonstrated from Sam Flynns article The Ripper required little 'Expertise' the slashes and cuts being largely random.

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..

Then why does the A to Z quote Drs Sequola and Sedgwick Sauders as stating Dr Brown did?

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.

Yes but the A to Z quotes both Warren and Wittington-Egan being in CONFLICT. And Sam Flynn is a highly respected Ripperologist who has given lectures on the subject and conference.

I'm taking the argument as a whole. Its you being Arbitrary Selective in your interpretation.

Jack the Ripper required No expertise what ever his day time job..

Yours Jeff

[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.

[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