Arbitrary Selective Rejection and Acceptence of Coincidences

[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]

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?

[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]

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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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 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

[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?

[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

[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

[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.

[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