Arbitrary Selective Rejection and Acceptence of Coincidences

[Ausgirl]

the real question should be why would that be if it was only 1 killer?

Because every circumstance was not precisely the same? There's a ton of potential affective variables:

-- Severity of psychosis (if psychotic)
-- Risk/perceived time available
-- Level of excitation/adrenaline
-- Level of intoxication (if any)

Whether the man had any anatomical knowledge at all, human or otherwise, rudimentary or expert --- he wasn't after demonstrating his skills at dissection. He was after a release of rage/whatever fuelled his compulsion and very likely not in a very rational state of mind at all, once he had his hands on a victim.

Perhaps the two Victims in which he exhibits more deftness were just killed on nights Jack was a bit more lucid/in control of himself than he was on other nights.

Just to add -- I can think of several killers, off the top of my head, whose killing behaviour varies a great deal more widely from victim to victim than JtR's does. Different fantasies in the build-up, different weapons at hand, different victims eliciting different responses.. on and on, go the reasons why.

[Jeff Leahy]

There is no mention, absolutely zero, of the word you have been highlighting and trying to push on people - 'surgical skill'.

Show Dr. Philips using those words.
Show Dr. Brown using those words.
Show ANY coroner of your choice using the words.

Dr. Brown's testimony certainly doesn't contain it and neither does the coroners. http://www.casebook.org/witnesses/fr...don-brown.html

Where are you getting this 'surgical skill' from? Is it possible you are getting it from the article you linked? That it isn't actually covered in the contemporary medical reports?

Obviously anyone with Medicine 101 would have covered that there are plenty of professions in medicine that don't require the use of 'surgical skill'. For example, the very pathologists would be doing anatomical pathology, not surgical pathology for the removal of body parts. That's a medical person. Hence why these contemporary experts are capturing more professions with this skill by not using such a limiting factor.

What you are conflating here is the claim that JtR required 'medical knowledge/skill' with 'being a surgeon'.

ITs simply irrelevant.

Jack either required surgical skill…. Surgeon Professional…Gull etc

or he did NOT…Medical knowledge of some kind…Student or Butcher Type

or he needed None of the above

How simple do you need that to be???

Its lose its vague but its what we have… Its only 'Myth' twisters that have an interest of some sort to try and make that mean anything other than what that says?

There was only ONE man on the lose in Whitecahpel.. THe multi-theorists are only one step away from madness themselves

Dont join them 'that way lies the dark side of ripperology'

Yours Jeff

[Michael W Richards]

Time
Lighting
The killers mental state at the time
Distractions, like sounds that someone or something mght be close
Alcohol consumption

Those factors might make an act appear less than skillfully executed, maybe, but then Phillips stated what he perceived was that the killer was more skilled than the wounds themselves suggest, that some acts were as follows..., " My own impression is that that anatomical knowledge was only less displayed or indicated in consequence of haste. The person evidently was hindered from making a more complete dissection in consequence of the haste."

This was also the closest to dawn of any of the murders, there was some light. I think what you suggest as factors for consideration were considered by Phillips, and his findings still detected some knowledge. This is also the only murder that spawned investigations into possible medically trained suspects.

Your argument GUT attempts to explain why the five murders do not appear equally executed, my response is that the reason may be as simple as different knife wielders, not one man impeded by any possible factor under the sun, or one man with fluctuating knowledge or knife skills.

When you have that opinion from the physician who saw and examined more Canonical victims than any other person, fluctuating skill, its worth taking note.

[Jeff Leahy]

Ive been here quite a while and have the utmost respect for Sam, although its documented that we do disagree on things from time to time.

I think its obvious even to a casual observer that there is no continuity with respect to the skill and knowledge displayed by whomever killed the Canonical Group. There are circumstances that suggest that whoever killed the first 4 women would have had restrictions on the available time with the deceased, which needs to be factored into this equation. Also the available light, the state of sobriety and the degree of calm the killers had at that time, some of which we cannot know.

If you examine the evidence on a case-by-case basis however, there are some clear indications of where skill and knowledge was within the grasp of the killer. There is also evidence that the investigation into certain deaths took a decidedly professional path...investigators were actively seeking out disgruntled or unbalance medical students, surgeons and medical instructors or teachers.

These evidentiary factors allow us to reasonably assume that in the case of Mary Ann Nichols and Annie Chapman, the killer or killers possessed such skill and knowledge. That is all.

There is no such consensus with any other pair, trio or quartet within the Canonical Group, and as stated, and there is no continued display of such attributes after Annie Chapmans murder.

The most obvious preliminary conclusion one might legitimately make is that the 2 murders that are similar were committed by a person, the other 3, by other people of varying levels of skill and knowledge. Kates abdomen cut is proof in and of itself that her killer didn't possess any surgical skill, but it seems he knew where a kidney might be. Liz Strides cut could have been made by literally anyone with a knife and the desire to inflict a wound, and Mary Kelly was simply disassembled, not dissected.

Odd that for all these years the exact opposite position has been the case...because people have been calling these five murders "a group by one individual" for so long they have forgotten that not a single shred of evidence connects any one victim to another.......with one exception....the skill and knowledge displayed in both the C1 and C2 consecutive murders.

Cheers

Yeah Right????

Ok Jack didn't kill them all,, Jack only killed one or two..etc etc

Utter rubbish

I will be giving a lecture on the Hammersmith Nude Murders on the 7rth March, discussing the variations on these murders, which are far more evident than the JtR murders and all are welcome.

Serial killers are not machines you have to get inside what makes them work not how they kill.

Yours Jeff

[GUT]

It was actually the coroner Wynne Baxter at the Chapman Inquest who described the cuts and actions as being skillful: " The body has not been dissected, but the injuries have been made by some one who had considerable anatomical skill and knowledge. There are no meaningless cuts. It was done by one who knew where to find what he wanted, what difficulties he would have to contend against, and how he should use his knife, so as to abstract the organ without injury to it. No unskilled person could have known where to find it, or have recognised it when it was found."

Dr Phillips thought he saw anatomical knowledge, "Was there any anatomical knowledge displayed? - I think there was. There were indications of it. My own impression is that that anatomical knowledge was only less displayed or indicated in consequence of haste. The person evidently was hindered from making a more complete dissection in consequence of the haste"...., and regarding the extractions he responded, "Are those portions such as would require anatomical knowledge to extract? - I think the mode in which they were extracted did show some anatomical knowledge".

There has never been any question that there are differing levels of competence displayed within the Canonical Group, the real question should be why would that be if it was only 1 killer?

Cheers

Time
Lighting
The killers mental state at the time
Distractions, like sounds that someone or something mght be close
Alcohol consumption

[Michael W Richards]

There is no mention, absolutely zero, of the word you have been highlighting and trying to push on people - 'surgical skill'.

Show Dr. Philips using those words.
Show Dr. Brown using those words.
Show ANY coroner of your choice using the words.

Dr. Brown's testimony certainly doesn't contain it and neither does the coroners. http://www.casebook.org/witnesses/fr...don-brown.html

Where are you getting this 'surgical skill' from? Is it possible you are getting it from the article you linked? That it isn't actually covered in the contemporary medical reports?

Obviously anyone with Medicine 101 would have covered that there are plenty of professions in medicine that don't require the use of 'surgical skill'. For example, the very pathologists would be doing anatomical pathology, not surgical pathology for the removal of body parts. That's a medical person. Hence why these contemporary experts are capturing more professions with this skill by not using such a limiting factor.

What you are conflating here is the claim that JtR required 'medical knowledge/skill' with 'being a surgeon'.

It was actually the coroner Wynne Baxter at the Chapman Inquest who described the cuts and actions as being skillful: " The body has not been dissected, but the injuries have been made by some one who had considerable anatomical skill and knowledge. There are no meaningless cuts. It was done by one who knew where to find what he wanted, what difficulties he would have to contend against, and how he should use his knife, so as to abstract the organ without injury to it. No unskilled person could have known where to find it, or have recognised it when it was found."

Dr Phillips thought he saw anatomical knowledge, "Was there any anatomical knowledge displayed? - I think there was. There were indications of it. My own impression is that that anatomical knowledge was only less displayed or indicated in consequence of haste. The person evidently was hindered from making a more complete dissection in consequence of the haste"...., and regarding the extractions he responded, "Are those portions such as would require anatomical knowledge to extract? - I think the mode in which they were extracted did show some anatomical knowledge".

There has never been any question that there are differing levels of competence displayed within the Canonical Group, the real question should be why would that be if it was only 1 killer?

Cheers

[Batman]

It was Baxter, who described the Mitre Square murderer as UNSKILLED imitator. Brown responded to the coroner's REPEAT questions as to whether the murder had SURGICAL skill with the reply that he had anatomical knowledge, enabling him to identify and remove the kidney. He did not at any time volunteer information on this subject.

There is no mention, absolutely zero, of the word you have been highlighting and trying to push on people - 'surgical skill'.

Show Dr. Philips using those words.
Show Dr. Brown using those words.
Show ANY coroner of your choice using the words.

Dr. Brown's testimony certainly doesn't contain it and neither does the coroners. http://www.casebook.org/witnesses/fr...don-brown.html

Where are you getting this 'surgical skill' from? Is it possible you are getting it from the article you linked? That it isn't actually covered in the contemporary medical reports?

Obviously anyone with Medicine 101 would have covered that there are plenty of professions in medicine that don't require the use of 'surgical skill'. For example, the very pathologists would be doing anatomical pathology, not surgical pathology for the removal of body parts. That's a medical person. Hence why these contemporary experts are capturing more professions with this skill by not using such a limiting factor.

What you are conflating here is the claim that JtR required 'medical knowledge/skill' with 'being a surgeon'.

[Michael W Richards]

Ive been here quite a while and have the utmost respect for Sam, although its documented that we do disagree on things from time to time.

I think its obvious even to a casual observer that there is no continuity with respect to the skill and knowledge displayed by whomever killed the Canonical Group. There are circumstances that suggest that whoever killed the first 4 women would have had restrictions on the available time with the deceased, which needs to be factored into this equation. Also the available light, the state of sobriety and the degree of calm the killers had at that time, some of which we cannot know.

If you examine the evidence on a case-by-case basis however, there are some clear indications of where skill and knowledge was within the grasp of the killer. There is also evidence that the investigation into certain deaths took a decidedly professional path...investigators were actively seeking out disgruntled or unbalance medical students, surgeons and medical instructors or teachers.

These evidentiary factors allow us to reasonably assume that in the case of Mary Ann Nichols and Annie Chapman, the killer or killers possessed such skill and knowledge. That is all.

There is no such consensus with any other pair, trio or quartet within the Canonical Group, and as stated, and there is no continued display of such attributes after Annie Chapmans murder.

The most obvious preliminary conclusion one might legitimately make is that the 2 murders that are similar were committed by a person, the other 3, by other people of varying levels of skill and knowledge. Kates abdomen cut is proof in and of itself that her killer didn't possess any surgical skill, but it seems he knew where a kidney might be. Liz Strides cut could have been made by literally anyone with a knife and the desire to inflict a wound, and Mary Kelly was simply disassembled, not dissected.

Odd that for all these years the exact opposite position has been the case...because people have been calling these five murders "a group by one individual" for so long they have forgotten that not a single shred of evidence connects any one victim to another.......with one exception....the skill and knowledge displayed in both the C1 and C2 consecutive murders.

Cheers

[Jeff Leahy]

Jeff, saying JtR had 'surgical skill' is the red herring here and the false dychotomy of either random or medical skills. Medical knowledge doesn't necessarily translate to surgical skill does it?

It doesn't exclude it either. Its a type of medical knowledge. There are many types of medical skills that are not surgical skills and even some biology experiments require the same 'medical' skills and we are not surgeons.

We are taking medical skill beyond anatomical knowledge. Ways of removing them is a skill. A methodology.

You are conflating Dr. Brown saying a butcher MIGHT have this medical knowledge with this being Dr. Browns preferred position. It simply is not and never was.

As already cited above he has stated it is not just someone who has experience butchering but also 'medical student'. You can't dismiss this and just say butcher because that is the 'might/maybe/per-chance' option. It's the lesser of the three options.

1. Medical knowledge alone.
2. Medical knowledge plus butcher.
3. Butcher.

You are trying to appeal to Sam to say that Sam has proved Dr. Brown when saying 'medical knowledge' actually only meant 'anatomical knowledge at best'. We know this is wrong as Dr. Brown held the opinion that a medical student was JtR!

Finally the biggest problem we have with the so called butcher hypothesis is that any butcher should therefore be able to simulate this with a pile of pigs insides on a table just like in Nick Warren's example. Its amazing how quickly so many of the medical knowledge deniars are at suggesting a "simulation" is extremely difficult and then say any old butcher could have done it! The whole point of the butcher hypothesis is that it is supposed to be JtR's 'simulation' before he does it to human being! To add even more compounding facts to obliterate the butcher hypothesis is that Dr. Brown said in the "habit of cutting up animals" too and we know in modern day pathology that means animal torture in their youth, not butcher!

Medical knowledge denial comes apart this easily let alone being any sort of slam dunk.

BTW - I will address your A-Z statement later which I read but you do realize your own citation here has the authors make clear that they themselves are not medical experts and even cite Nick Warren who I have mentioned throughout these threads there and then as an expert. I haven't read Paul Begg's position outside of his books and the reference you gave me for non-medical facts was Sam's not Begg's own. I have would to read that for myself.

Sam Flynn studies all the relevant sources and draws is conclusion that the killer required no surgical skill based on what they say and also Browns detailed notes and drawings.

Whether a Student doctor is better to be "Someone in the habit of cutting up animals' than a butcher is a muted point.

Frankly I'd simply say Hows good the Student of Goods the Butcher? But both would have experience cutting up animals.

Its impossible to tell which was best at it, because we'd be generalising, and your heading into the world of detailed semantics..

It was Baxter, who described the Mitre Square murderer as UNSKILLED imitator. Brown responded to the coroner's REPEAT questions as to whether the murder had SURGICAL skill with the reply that he had anatomical knowledge, enabling him to identify and remove the kidney. He did not at any time volunteer information on this subject.

Another words Brown did not think the killer had 'surgical' skill. But Anotomical Skill and Bond later said 'No skill'

Anotomical skill could be had by a medical student, but it could also be had by someone who cut up pigs and cows in a butchers or abattoire.. Its that simple

Indeed we know Jack used a strong sharp knife about seven inches in length and this might be the weapon of choice of a butcher, NOT a scalpel which would be the instrument used by a medical student, so betting between the two I'd go for someone in a butchers back yard with good knife technique…. Perhaps one owned by someone like Isac Abrahams just off Algate High Street? Nr Butchers Row... A member of the Kalish community who owned several shops in the area.

And of course your other problem is nearly every JtR suspect ever put forward may have had some medical knowledge (Felcher). If you check out Simms account of the Polish Jew suspect you'll note he said he worked in a Hospital in Poland, although I should add that know records confirming that have ever been discovered. But frankly I'm not sure who you hope to eliminate with your current train of thought or if your trying to bring back Stephen Knight?

Yours Jeff

[Errata]

Well, let me ask this.

Let's say someone takes a hard rubber ball and ties is to the bottom of a 2x3 foot cardboard box. Piece of strings have been sort of laced over the ball, securing it to the bottom where the strings are tied off. Like strapping down a piece of luggage on top of a car.

Now let's say they tie stuff on top of that ball. A bundle of aquarium tubing, a stuffed animal, a water balloon, etc. all tied to each other, all tied to the box.

Do you think you could cut the strings and pull the ball out in under 20 minutes? Could you do it in the dark? Would you need to see the strings or know where they were on the ball to get it out of the box?

[Batman]

Jeff, saying JtR had 'surgical skill' is the red herring here and the false dychotomy of either random or medical skills. Medical knowledge doesn't necessarily translate to surgical skill does it?

It doesn't exclude it either. Its a type of medical knowledge. There are many types of medical skills that are not surgical skills and even some biology experiments require the same 'medical' skills and we are not surgeons.

We are taking medical skill beyond anatomical knowledge. Ways of removing them is a skill. A methodology.

You are conflating Dr. Brown saying a butcher MIGHT have this medical knowledge with this being Dr. Browns preferred position. It simply is not and never was.

As already cited above he has stated it is not just someone who has experience butchering but also 'medical student'. You can't dismiss this and just say butcher because that is the 'might/maybe/per-chance' option. It's the lesser of the three options.

1. Medical knowledge alone.
2. Medical knowledge plus butcher.
3. Butcher.

You are trying to appeal to Sam to say that Sam has proved Dr. Brown when saying 'medical knowledge' actually only meant 'anatomical knowledge at best'. We know this is wrong as Dr. Brown held the opinion that a medical student was JtR!

Finally the biggest problem we have with the so called butcher hypothesis is that any butcher should therefore be able to simulate this with a pile of pigs insides on a table just like in Nick Warren's example. Its amazing how quickly so many of the medical knowledge deniars are at suggesting a "simulation" is extremely difficult and then say any old butcher could have done it! The whole point of the butcher hypothesis is that it is supposed to be JtR's 'simulation' before he does it to human being! To add even more compounding facts to obliterate the butcher hypothesis is that Dr. Brown said in the "habit of cutting up animals" too and we know in modern day pathology that means animal torture in their youth, not butcher!

Medical knowledge denial comes apart this easily let alone being any sort of slam dunk.

BTW - I will address your A-Z statement later which I read but you do realize your own citation here has the authors make clear that they themselves are not medical experts and even cite Nick Warren who I have mentioned throughout these threads there and then as an expert. I haven't read Paul Begg's position outside of his books and the reference you gave me for non-medical facts was Sam's not Begg's own. I have would to read that for myself.

[Jeff Leahy]

Dr. Brown says a 'Great Deal of Medical Knowledge' not just 'requiring anatomical knowledge'. Why do you continue to propose this myth?

Dr. Brown says “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."

Jeff, is knowledge of where organs are and the way to remove them medical skill or not?

Its 'anatomical knowledge' Not 'surgical knowledge'

And Gareths dissertation is clear on that. As is the re-construction in 'Definitive Story' readily available on amazon.

Dr. Brown says "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.” - Dr. Brown

MIGHT. Not Will. Not Can't. It's a maybe. i.e - not impossible.

There are random multations, nobody is denying that, but Dr. Brown's position on the Kidney removal is not all smash and grab and not all accidental.

Your inclusing of Sam Flynn's other paragraph with the 'perhaps' in it as an accident proposal isn't Dr. Brown's position.

BTW - saying oh this just supports the Royal Conspiracy isn't an argument against the murderer having medical knowledge. Nor are appeals to Hollywood portraying some serial killers as Doctors the reason for 'modern' medical skill interpretations. Its the opposite way around. It was the medical skill attributed to JtR that spawned all that, not the other way around.

Dr Brown is clear, a 'butcher' could have performed the mutilations.

Someone cutting open a pig or cow would be familiar with the positions of the organs.

If you care to read page 72 of the A to Z it covers the subject in detail siting two modern doctors of differing opinion Egan and Warren.

I've followed Sam Flynns postings on Casebook and JtRforums for years and he is a ripperologist to be greatly respected, and he clearly answers your questions in his dissertation.

Yours Jeff

[Batman]

The definitive Story reconstructs what Philips says Suggesting surgical knowledge, What Brown says 'requiring anatomical knowledge' and what Bond says 'requiring no knowledge.

Dr. Brown says a 'Great Deal of Medical Knowledge' not just 'requiring anatomical knowledge'. Why do you continue to propose this myth?

Dr. Brown says “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."

Jeff, is knowledge of where organs are and the way to remove them medical skill or not?

Dr. Brown says "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.” - Dr. Brown

MIGHT. Not Will. Not Can't. It's a maybe. i.e - not impossible.

There are random multations, nobody is denying that, but Dr. Brown's position on the Kidney removal is not all smash and grab and not all accidental.

Your inclusing of Sam Flynn's other paragraph with the 'perhaps' in it as an accident proposal isn't Dr. Brown's position.

BTW - saying oh this just supports the Royal Conspiracy isn't an argument against the murderer having medical knowledge. Nor are appeals to Hollywood portraying some serial killers as Doctors the reason for 'modern' medical skill interpretations. Its the opposite way around. It was the medical skill attributed to JtR that spawned all that, not the other way around.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Jeff,

I am afraid that you have been misled by key points in the dissertation that are demonstrably wrong.

Without going into too much detail let us look at this key passage to the entire hypothesis that has been set out in this article by Sam Flynn that you used as a basis for your production. The hypothesis is that Dr. Frederick Gorden Brown tells us through his notes that the murderer of Eddowes had no medical skill.

The key passage that is wrong says...

The Evisceration

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.

This is simply not true. Take yourself to http://www.casebook.org/witnesses/fr...don-brown.html and listen to Dr. Brown himself.

“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.” - Dr. Brown

So the article is wrong to say Dr. Brown “only ever refers to anatomical knowledge”. This is the key point made in the entire article.

Dr. Brown is clearly saying the person had a great deal of medical knowledge but that someone in the habit of cutting up animals MIGHT be able to do it also. Not that they would be able to, but might.


So Jeff can we agree on this point first or not? That the article is misleading to say Dr. Brown only ever refers to anatomical knowledge?

If there is any doubt that Dr. Brown thought the murderer had medical skill then we need look no further than Dr. Brown's statement in 1905 found in The Life and Memoirs of John Churton Collins (1912):

Yesterday, Wednesday, April [1905], I went round all the scenes and sites of the Whitechapel Murders (the nine, as well as where the trunk was found) with Conan Doyle, Laurie, Ingleby Oddie, & Dr Crosse of Norwich. Dr Gordon Browne was our escort and two detectives also escorted us. In addition to these sites we visited Petticoat Lane, the Jews' fowl-slaughtering houses, a Dosshouse, and the like places. Dr Gordon Browne, who was concerned in all of them, seeing most of the corpses ust after they were murdered, conducting postmortems, etc., told me these particulars : . . He was inclined to think that he (the murderer) was or had been a medical student, as he undoubtedly had a knowledge of human anatomy, but that he was also a butcher, as the mutilations slashing the nose, etc., were butchers' cuts.

I will get to the butcher inference in a moment, but the point is this. Dr. Brown's views as City Police pathologist is the same as Dr. Philips as Met Police pathologist.

It is Dr. Bond vs both of these men, not Dr. Bond + Dr. Brown vs Dr. Philips.

Dr. Bond categorically denied there was even anatomical knowledge let alone medical skill.

The second way you have been misled is by the title of the article which is repeated throughout the dissertation. You even used it as a header in your posts.

By Accident or Design?

Anyone remotely interested in the pathology reports would see this for what it is. A false dychotomy. Nobody including Dr. Brown or Dr. Philips has offered one or the other option. Only Dr. Bond allows for accident. The fact is that Dr. Brown and Dr. Philips have reported that it is by BOTH accident AND design. Parts are like a butcher (random slash and grab) and others are not (show anatomical knowledge, medical skill). Nobody to my knowledge has said it all shows medical skill... but there are those who say its all just random, chance, accident etc.

Now aside the these key points the article is MOSTLY about the random mutilations which even Dr. Brown and Dr. Philips and myself would agree with, except for Sam Flynn's interpretation of the uterius and kindey removals and some other points.

So the article was a Slam dunk for the non-medical movement? I think not. Dr. Brown comes off supporting Dr. Philips NOT Dr. Bond.

That's entirely the opposite of your conclusion Jeff.

No it isn't.

I suggest you go back and read what Sam Flynn says. Its also the line of thought followed in 'the Definitive Story'

Garath clearly addresses the points you raise as follows:

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.

Despite popular opinion to the contrary, the nephrectomy performed on the left kidney appears to have been pretty crude. There was a tongue-like flap cut into the abdominal aorta (which runs down past the renal arteries), stabs to the liver (part of which lies above the left kidney) and the spleen (directly above the left kidney). Whilst it is true that the kidney is “covered by a membrane”, it is possible that the kidney was a little more exposed, as Dr Brown indicates that the “membrane” (specifically, the peritoneum) may already have been partly cut, perhaps in the process of laying open the abdomen and removing the intestines. Brown’s notes clearly indicate that there were random jabs and stabs into the viscera and vasculature surrounding the region from which the kidney was removed.

The definitive Story reconstructs what Philips says Suggesting surgical knowledge, What Brown says 'requiring anatomical knowledge' and what Bond says 'requiring no knowledge.

Its the only documentary that deals with these serious issues, and highlights what the original sources actually said. What it doesn't do is drag in a performing 'Monkey' to disseminate further myths on an unsuspecting public already convinced the murders were commit by William Gull.

Frankly anyone with basically the knowledge of a 'Butcher' could undertake these mutilations. Thats what Brown clearly says, i have no idea what he believed medical students might be capable of but would remind you that the Definitive Story even takes out a little time to point out that the police at one time did consider 'Mad medical students' so its covered.

Once the documentary deals with Brown it goes on to tackle the problem of the Goulston Street graffiti and even takes time to consider why Inspector Abberline forwarded Chapman..but I digress

Gareth is well aware of the issue you raise and his disitation clearly takes them into account. I believe Paul Begg from time to time still posts on casebook so if you really think he's miss-understood the issue regarding Dr Browns testimony perhaps you'd like to PM him and suggest he re-prints the A to Z?

Yours Jeff

[Batman]

Hello Jeff,

I am afraid that you have been misled by key points in the dissertation that are demonstrably wrong.

Without going into too much detail let us look at this key passage to the entire hypothesis that has been set out in this article by Sam Flynn that you used as a basis for your production. The hypothesis is that Dr. Frederick Gorden Brown tells us through his notes that the murderer of Eddowes had no medical skill.

The key passage that is wrong says...

The Evisceration

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.

This is simply not true. Take yourself to http://www.casebook.org/witnesses/fr...don-brown.html and listen to Dr. Brown himself.

“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.” - Dr. Brown

So the article is wrong to say Dr. Brown “only ever refers to anatomical knowledge”. This is the key point made in the entire article.

Dr. Brown is clearly saying the person had a great deal of medical knowledge but that someone in the habit of cutting up animals MIGHT be able to do it also. Not that they would be able to, but might.


So Jeff can we agree on this point first or not? That the article is misleading to say Dr. Brown only ever refers to anatomical knowledge?

If there is any doubt that Dr. Brown thought the murderer had medical skill then we need look no further than Dr. Brown's statement in 1905 found in The Life and Memoirs of John Churton Collins (1912):

Yesterday, Wednesday, April [1905], I went round all the scenes and sites of the Whitechapel Murders (the nine, as well as where the trunk was found) with Conan Doyle, Laurie, Ingleby Oddie, & Dr Crosse of Norwich. Dr Gordon Browne was our escort and two detectives also escorted us. In addition to these sites we visited Petticoat Lane, the Jews' fowl-slaughtering houses, a Dosshouse, and the like places. Dr Gordon Browne, who was concerned in all of them, seeing most of the corpses ust after they were murdered, conducting postmortems, etc., told me these particulars : . . He was inclined to think that he (the murderer) was or had been a medical student, as he undoubtedly had a knowledge of human anatomy, but that he was also a butcher, as the mutilations slashing the nose, etc., were butchers' cuts.

I will get to the butcher inference in a moment, but the point is this. Dr. Brown's views as City Police pathologist is the same as Dr. Philips as Met Police pathologist.

It is Dr. Bond vs both of these men, not Dr. Bond + Dr. Brown vs Dr. Philips.

Dr. Bond categorically denied there was even anatomical knowledge let alone medical skill.

The second way you have been misled is by the title of the article which is repeated throughout the dissertation. You even used it as a header in your posts.

By Accident or Design?

Anyone remotely interested in the pathology reports would see this for what it is. A false dychotomy. Nobody including Dr. Brown or Dr. Philips has offered one or the other option. Only Dr. Bond allows for accident. The fact is that Dr. Brown and Dr. Philips have reported that it is by BOTH accident AND design. Parts are like a butcher (random slash and grab) and others are not (show anatomical knowledge, medical skill). Nobody to my knowledge has said it all shows medical skill... but there are those who say its all just random, chance, accident etc.

Now aside the these key points the article is MOSTLY about the random mutilations which even Dr. Brown and Dr. Philips and myself would agree with, except for Sam Flynn's interpretation of the uterius and kindey removals and some other points.

So the article was a Slam dunk for the non-medical movement? I think not. Dr. Brown comes off supporting Dr. Philips NOT Dr. Bond.

That's entirely the opposite of your conclusion Jeff.