Arbitrary Selective Rejection and Acceptence of Coincidences

[Jeff Leahy]

Something that always seems to be forgotten about is the fact that our killer knew how to kill quickly and efficiently. would the average man know how to do this?

No I don't think he would.

But I think someone can learn and that there is evidence of this if you consider earlier attacks..

Anni Millwood randomly stabbed wiyth a clasp knife.

Emma Smith..blunt object pushed inside her

Matha Tabram - Stabbed repeatedly through her clothing

So thats possibly three failures before he achieved a success?

And Fredrick Brown suggests perhaps a little knowledge of a knife… Cutting ofal might do?

Yours Jeff

[lynn cates]

chalk and cheese

Hello All. Is cheese white and brittle and used to write upon slate? Or is it, perhaps, yellow, soft, a bit chewy and with a delicious flavour? Well, depends whether one is talking about cheese--or chalk.

Bond indeed dismissed talk of skill. Why shouldn't he? He saw "MJK" only. Brown did likewise. He saw Kate only. But between Bagster and Baxter the lot were seen.

Their comments? Polly and Annie--skill. Kate and "MJK."--no.

Make of that what you will.

Cheers.
LC

[pinkmoon]

I have a couple of neighbours I could ask for you?

Seriously you make some very good points and seem largely in accord with Gareth, who is the best expert I've heard talking on such matters, you'd get on like a house on fire (Not certain that is the appropriate expression)

There are of course a number of variable factors at each murder scene. Time, seclusion and light. That may have effected the killer.

Martha = Secluded but dark

Mary = open but dark (Possibly disturbed)

Annie = Secluded but possibly light

Stride = Open but some light

Eddows = Secluded, not much time, dark

Kelly = Plenty of time, fire light, secluded

Mckenzie = Dark, possibly disturbed.

But I think on balance the 'surgical knowledge' question is a bit of a red Herring. Jack clearly new how to use a knife, but didn't require surgical knowledge, given the conditions it doesn't rule out someone with surgical knowledge it simply means almost anyone, accept me I might add, might be capable of such crimes. So it doesn't take us far as an argument when considering suspects.

Many thanks
Yours Jeff

Something that always seems to be forgotten about is the fact that our killer knew how to kill quickly and efficiently. would the average man know how to do this?

[Jeff Leahy]

I think that

. I am 100% confident I could do this. But what am I going to do, ask a neighbor to lie down and let me prove it? .

I have a couple of neighbours I could ask for you?

Seriously you make some very good points and seem largely in accord with Gareth, who is the best expert I've heard talking on such matters, you'd get on like a house on fire (Not certain that is the appropriate expression)

There are of course a number of variable factors at each murder scene. Time, seclusion and light. That may have effected the killer.

Martha = Secluded but dark

Mary = open but dark (Possibly disturbed)

Annie = Secluded but possibly light

Stride = Open but some light

Eddows = Secluded, not much time, dark

Kelly = Plenty of time, fire light, secluded

Mckenzie = Dark, possibly disturbed.

But I think on balance the 'surgical knowledge' question is a bit of a red Herring. Jack clearly new how to use a knife, but didn't require surgical knowledge, given the conditions it doesn't rule out someone with surgical knowledge it simply means almost anyone, accept me I might add, might be capable of such crimes. So it doesn't take us far as an argument when considering suspects.

Many thanks
Yours Jeff

[GUT]

I think that it's possible that you don't understand whats going on here from the perspective of trying to remove these organs. And I think it's important that it be made clear.



This is the only way to access the organs below. Whether a person has experience or not, they HAVE to get under the intestines, so they have to sever the attachments. You don't have to know where they are, what they are called, all you have to do is pull up, and cut where it catches.



Removing the bladder is a sign of lack of experience and knowledge. He took it because he cut it, but he didn't want it. He did it wrong. That he cut cleanly only means he is familiar with knife work. And there is a very easy way for any idiot to locate a cervix and it only makes sense to cut at that point. And you don't even have to know what a cervix is. That means nothing. Remember, we have no idea if he tried to cut higher up. Or if he got the uterus out in one piece. Nobody saw them.



The uterus cannot be removed with one sweep of the knife. A single series of movements maybe, but not one sweep. That is wrong. No matter where you start from, a single sweep of a knife leaves about half of the uterine attachments intact. So I have no idea what he was trying to say, but no movement that matches the phrase "one sweep of the knife" could possibly get it done. Three maybe. On the other hand there is a sort of "filleting" technique that would get the uterus out quickly and in pieces, but all the connections would be severed at the same point.



Again, the peritoneal lining being cut through, theres no way to avoid that. It's a necessary part of the process, and anyone who is taking a kidney out has to do it. He says the kidney was carefully taken out. There's actually no way to know that, and "carefully"is word that can mean a bunch of things. Again, we have no way of knowing if the kidney was removed intact. The only person who knew that was the killer. I'm assuming that when he said "carefully", he means that there was not a ton of damage in the pocket where the kidney lies. And cutting it out obliquely is an easy way to do that. It doesn't require care, it's just a side effect of the technique. And of course the renal artery was cut. It tethers the kidney in. You have to cut it to get it out. Whether you are a surgeon or a creepy kid with a dead raccoon. And most people know the position of the kidney. Especially anyone who had ever gotten into a fight. Or saw a doctor for a kidney infection. Or saw a sheep or cow being butchered. We know generally where they are, but when given access to the inside of the body, they are easy to locate by feel.



I'm not sure how Eddowes plays into this. Her uterus and her kidney were gone. And he accidentally severed both her intestines and her colon, which cannot be categorized as anything other than a mistake.

With Kelly, The guy had plenty of time. And some experience at that point. I am confident he spent a little bit of time stroking each organ, figuring out how it was connected, and cutting it out. It is possible to completely render the human body in 27 minutes. A record that I hope to god has not been challenged since one of Dr. Mengele's assistants established it. That's not what happened. He took his time. With several hours, nobody needs a ton of experience to empty an abdomen.



Even if was nicely color coded for the beginner psychopath, he's doing it at like, one in the morning. He had no light. He is going on shape, feel, and general knowledge. The uterus is easy to find. No problem. Everything else just needs to be moved out of the way. And he doesn't need to know what those things are called. The hard part of removing the uterus is not cutting the colon. Which he did once.

And let's face it, this is a tough thing to demonstrate. I am 100% confident I could do this. But what am I going to do, ask a neighbor to lie down and let me prove it? I can't get a corpse, and I wouldn't do it to a human being if I could. And I know exactly what whole pigs cost. All my neighbors raise pigs. I could buy a better car for that price, unless I'm willing to dig into a diseased pig, which I'm not. The only people who could demonstrate it is possible are surgeons, because they have hospital privileges, they are allowed in morgues, and they are the only ones who can requisition a body for scientific research. And a surgeon cannot demonstrate that a layperson could do it because they are not a layperson.

Thank you Errata for a sensible dissection.

[Jeff Leahy]

I would like to see a citation that Rubelow has sided with the non-medical skill crowd as his writings seem to say otherwise.

Hey I want it on record that I am NOT criticising Don Rumblow and would never dream of doing so..

What Begg . Fido and Rumblow have in common, as far as I can see, is that in a generation that forwarded the royal family, james Maybrick and outsiders coming into Whitchapel. They proposed what is largely accepted today:

That the killer lived in the area and went largely unnoticed operating on foot.

For that, they are the Modern Proponents of the Jack the Ripper murder theories… 'On the Ground'

ANd genius proponents of this field.

Yours Jeff

[Batman]

Jeff, Yes we shall. I have given the document a twice over, first time a scan to see what the major content was about and it's Eddowes it seems with little on Chapman, but I will go through it properly and then give my opinion on if this is a slam dunk for the non-medical skill crowd.

I would like to see a citation that Rubelow has sided with the non-medical skill crowd as his writings seem to say otherwise.

[Errata]

I think that it's possible that you don't understand whats going on here from the perspective of trying to remove these organs. And I think it's important that it be made clear.

Smash and grab this...

Chapman
The abdomen had been entirely laid open: the intestines, severed from their mesenteric attachments, had been lifted out of the body and placed on the shoulder of the corpse;

This is the only way to access the organs below. Whether a person has experience or not, they HAVE to get under the intestines, so they have to sever the attachments. You don't have to know where they are, what they are called, all you have to do is pull up, and cut where it catches.

whilst from the pelvis, the uterus and its appendages with the upper portion of the vagina and the posterior two thirds of the bladder, had been entirely removed. No trace of these parts could be found and the incisions were cleanly cut, avoiding the rectum, and dividing the vagina low enough to avoid injury to the cervix uteri.

Removing the bladder is a sign of lack of experience and knowledge. He took it because he cut it, but he didn't want it. He did it wrong. That he cut cleanly only means he is familiar with knife work. And there is a very easy way for any idiot to locate a cervix and it only makes sense to cut at that point. And you don't even have to know what a cervix is. That means nothing. Remember, we have no idea if he tried to cut higher up. Or if he got the uterus out in one piece. Nobody saw them.

Obviously the work was that of an expert -- of one, at least, who had such knowledge of anatomical or pathological examinations as to be enabled to secure the pelvic organs with one sweep of the knife, which must therefore must have at least 5 or 6 inches in length, probably more. The appearance of the cuts confirmed him in the opinion that the instrument, like the one which divided the neck, had been of a very sharp character. The mode in which the knife had been used seemed to indicate great anatomical knowledge.

The uterus cannot be removed with one sweep of the knife. A single series of movements maybe, but not one sweep. That is wrong. No matter where you start from, a single sweep of a knife leaves about half of the uterine attachments intact. So I have no idea what he was trying to say, but no movement that matches the phrase "one sweep of the knife" could possibly get it done. Three maybe. On the other hand there is a sort of "filleting" technique that would get the uterus out quickly and in pieces, but all the connections would be severed at the same point.

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

Again, the peritoneal lining being cut through, theres no way to avoid that. It's a necessary part of the process, and anyone who is taking a kidney out has to do it. He says the kidney was carefully taken out. There's actually no way to know that, and "carefully"is word that can mean a bunch of things. Again, we have no way of knowing if the kidney was removed intact. The only person who knew that was the killer. I'm assuming that when he said "carefully", he means that there was not a ton of damage in the pocket where the kidney lies. And cutting it out obliquely is an easy way to do that. It doesn't require care, it's just a side effect of the technique. And of course the renal artery was cut. It tethers the kidney in. You have to cut it to get it out. Whether you are a surgeon or a creepy kid with a dead raccoon. And most people know the position of the kidney. Especially anyone who had ever gotten into a fight. Or saw a doctor for a kidney infection. Or saw a sheep or cow being butchered. We know generally where they are, but when given access to the inside of the body, they are easy to locate by feel.

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

I'm not sure how Eddowes plays into this. Her uterus and her kidney were gone. And he accidentally severed both her intestines and her colon, which cannot be categorized as anything other than a mistake.

With Kelly, The guy had plenty of time. And some experience at that point. I am confident he spent a little bit of time stroking each organ, figuring out how it was connected, and cutting it out. It is possible to completely render the human body in 27 minutes. A record that I hope to god has not been challenged since one of Dr. Mengele's assistants established it. That's not what happened. He took his time. With several hours, nobody needs a ton of experience to empty an abdomen.

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

Even if was nicely color coded for the beginner psychopath, he's doing it at like, one in the morning. He had no light. He is going on shape, feel, and general knowledge. The uterus is easy to find. No problem. Everything else just needs to be moved out of the way. And he doesn't need to know what those things are called. The hard part of removing the uterus is not cutting the colon. Which he did once.

And let's face it, this is a tough thing to demonstrate. I am 100% confident I could do this. But what am I going to do, ask a neighbor to lie down and let me prove it? I can't get a corpse, and I wouldn't do it to a human being if I could. And I know exactly what whole pigs cost. All my neighbors raise pigs. I could buy a better car for that price, unless I'm willing to dig into a diseased pig, which I'm not. The only people who could demonstrate it is possible are surgeons, because they have hospital privileges, they are allowed in morgues, and they are the only ones who can requisition a body for scientific research. And a surgeon cannot demonstrate that a layperson could do it because they are not a layperson.

[Jeff Leahy]

And Garath's point that it is actually Dr Fredrick Brown who gives us the most detailed and reliable information and this largely supports Dr Bond?

A to Z Page 73 'The two former gave evidence by the murderer, and stated that they agreed with Dr Brown. Philips did not contradict Coroner Wynne Baxter, who described the Mitre Square murdereras an UNSKILLED imitator.'

Also the A to Z goes on to site James Wittington Egan as a Ripperologist with medical training who supports the idea Jack required no surgical ability

Shall we continue Batman?

Yours Jeff

[Observer]

Where is Philips final autopsy report on MJK?

All is explained here I believe

ECHO 10-11-88

Dr. G.B. Phillips, the divisional surgeon of the H Division, whose reticence is justified by an assurance he gave of secrecy, has copious notes of the result of the post-mortem examination, and with nearly every conclusion at which he has arrived, Dr. Thomas Bond, of Westminster, a well-known expert on crimes of violence, agrees. Dr. Phillips has only vaguely indicated to the local police the result of his investigations, but a report on the question has, it has been asserted, been jointly made by him and Dr. Bond, and submitted to Sir Charles Warren.

Did Philips after witnessing the remains of Mary Kelly come round to Bond's way of thinking? The alternative of course could indicate that Mary Kelly was killed by another hand.

[Batman]

The pressure was on from the media and local panic that a Dr., could be responsible and many medical students where vetted.

Baxter. My bad I meant Bagster Philips not the Coroner.

Anyway I am going to read that article to see how it explains away the critic ripperologist surgeons like Nick Warren have put forward.

Philips explains why there was medical skill. Bond is suggesting there was none but doesn't explain why. What is the critic of Philip's points? None.

Where is Philips final autopsy report on MJK?

Smash and grab can be falsified so why no demonstrations? Models are easy enough to setup and simulate as Warren points out.

[Observer]

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

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

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

Why do you think Bond was of the opinion that no medical skill was exhibited by the perpetrator of the Whitechapel murders? It's ironic that the doctor you champion believed that more than one individual was responsible for the murders. What's your opinion of this fact?

[Observer]

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

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

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

By the way, who do refer to when you use the name Baxter?

[Observer]

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

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

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

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

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

[Jeff Leahy]

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

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

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

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

I trust that clarifies Yours Jeff