The Jack the Ripper Mystery is Finally Solved — Scientifically

[Herlock Sholmes]

So would you like to discuss a possible motive for Thompson then ? seeing how you dont want to discuss 'means anymore ,ill be happy to oblige.

Yes you did address ''The Means'' but when did it become time to move to motive and or opportunity when i was stilll unfinished answering reply posts ? . But as you wish, ill discuss what ever suits you where Thompson v Bury are concerned as suspects .

As far as the prostitute that Thompson had the ‘relationship’ with, he never expressed anything but fondness for her. He therefore had no motive to kill.

Im not just talking about you Fishy but on the subject of Thompson everyone would be better off reading Walsh’s excellent and completely unbiased biography of Thompson rather than just the writings of a man who is trying to create a case around him. You would then see a fuller more rounded picture of the type of person that Thompson was. No one could recognise anything remotely like a killer.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Of course i can Herlock ,its obvious , why else would he describe the way in which Mary Kellys heart was removed in such a way that was certainly a new Medical Technique at that time , as has been pointed out . How could he mean ''That Technique'' to someone who has ''No Medical Knowledge'' while claiming everything that the killer had done was all mutilations . It doesnt make sense.

Imo its the ''Mutilation'' of kellys body he was talking about with that perticular quote of his ,not her organ/s removal , especially her Heart.

Who says that Brown recognised a ‘new technique?’ He certainly never mentions any alleged technique in his statement. Brown is being asked if the killer possessed any medical/anatomical knowledge because that information might have proven important to the police. It would be strange to say the least Fishy if you are claiming that Brown told everyone ‘no’ but he was only talking about the mutilations. So they could have ended up having a situation where this conversation was had:

Police - We have a suspect Dr. Brown.

Brown - really? Does he have medical knowledge.

Police - No, why.

Brown - Because the killer had medical knowledge.

Police - But you said that he didn’t have medical knowledge?

Brown - Ah, but I was only talking about the mutilations and not the organ removal!

Imagine the police’s reaction if that had been the case Fishy?


It reminds me of that film scene involving Inspector Clouseau where he asks the hotel manager “does your dog bite?” To which he replies “no.” Then Clouseau gets bitten by the dog and says “I thought you said your dog doesn’t bite,” to which the hotel manager calmly replies “that is not my dog.”

[FISHY1118]

But it’s not possible that Bond would have been saying that “he had no medical skill as evidenced by the mutilations but he might have had medical skill for the organ removal.” Surely that can’t be what you imply from what Bond wrote Fishy? Clearly when talking about medical skill he had to have been talking about everything that the killer had done; including the organ removal. It can’t have been otherwise.

Of course i can Herlock ,its obvious , why else would he describe the way in which Mary Kellys heart was removed in such a way that was certainly a new Medical Technique at that time , as has been pointed out . How could he mean ''That Technique'' to someone who has ''No Medical Knowledge'' while claiming everything that the killer had done was all mutilations . It doesnt make sense.

Imo its the ''Mutilation'' of kellys body he was talking about with that perticular quote of his ,not her organ/s removal , especially her Heart.

[John Wheat]

Agreed. My comment was based on the fact that they also specified that the killer had anatomical not medical knowledge, and that someone with knife skills, used to cutting up animals etc would have that knowledge, expertise and experience. Putting it all together, that is why I wrote earlier that they were steering the police towards butcher/slaughterers.

Considering a number of serial killers tend to start with killing animals. I think Jack may have done this. He might have started with the mutilation of animals too. Coupled with for the majority of suspects we don't have a detailed work history. Literally any suspect could have been used to cutting up animals. So the anatomical knowledge becomes largely a moot point. Basically if the Ripper had anatomical knowledge and I'm not saying he did it doesn't really help with identifying who the Ripper was in my opinion.

[John Wheat]

Hi John,

We may be talking at cross purposes here. I am saying that the autopsy report cannot be considered an opinion. It is a scientific statement of fact. The only latitude for consensus or otherwise arises in subsequent speculation as to the degree of knowledge and skill of the perpetrator.

Cheers, George

Okay. I think we are talking at Cross purposes.

[FISHY1118]

You mentioned means, motive, and opportunity with regard to Bury vs. Thompson, and I addressed one of the 3 things that you mentioned, motive. After that, you talked about the medical technique.

So would you like to discuss a possible motive for Thompson then ? seeing how you dont want to discuss 'means anymore ,ill be happy to oblige.

Yes you did address ''The Means'' but when did it become time to move to motive and or opportunity when i was stilll unfinished answering reply posts ? . But as you wish, ill discuss what ever suits you where Thompson v Bury are concerned as suspects .

[FISHY1118]

I find it odd that there's no consensus on this, then, tbh. If only a medically trained professional could have done that procedure on Kelly, then surely Chapman is the best suspect we have bar none, yet that's never remotely been the case for some odd reason.

By consensus you mean anyone else other than George ,Myself and Dr Bond ? How many would you like ? For those who are willing to understand the medical technique Bond refers to and describes in his report ... yes there should be more . That doesnt means its not a fact .

[FISHY1118]

I would just remind everyone of RJ's comment, with which I fully concur, that the medical profession would have been very keen to disavow any connection of their profession with these horrendous murders. This should be kept in mind when looking at the opinions (rather than the facts of the autopsy) of the likes of Bond.

A fair point George .

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi Doc,

That description could also be applied to a Liston Amputation knife.

Cheers, George

Agreed. My comment was based on the fact that they also specified that the killer had anatomical not medical knowledge, and that someone with knife skills, used to cutting up animals etc would have that knowledge, expertise and experience. Putting it all together, that is why I wrote earlier that they were steering the police towards butcher/slaughterers.

[GBinOz]

Phillips and Brown considered the killer used a knife, very sharp, 6 -8 inches long and pointed, and I think they had a slaughterer's sticking knife in mind.

Hi Doc,

That description could also be applied to a Liston Amputation knife.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

It seems that your daughter has the opposite view from the doctors of the time. She thinks Eddowes' murder showed more skill than Chapman's murder. The doctors of the time thought that Chapman's murder showed more skill.

Hi Lewis,

There is modern opinion that agrees with my daughter. Prosector and the experts in Trevor's video were addressing the skill level in the Eddowes murder.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

You are twisting things to suit. There was never a common consensus on wether the Ripper had anatomical skill or not and you know it.

Hi John,

We may be talking at cross purposes here. I am saying that the autopsy report cannot be considered an opinion. It is a scientific statement of fact. The only latitude for consensus or otherwise arises in subsequent speculation as to the degree of knowledge and skill of the perpetrator.

Cheers, George

[Patrick Differ]

Hi George,

So I think you're saying that Kelly's murderer must have had surgical knowledge, but that Kelly might not have been killed by the same man that killed others thought to have been killed by the Ripper, so you're claiming surgical knowledge only for Kelly's murderer, and maybe Eddowes', not necessarily for the killer of the other victims.

It seems that your daughter has the opposite view from the doctors of the time. She thinks Eddowes' murder showed more skill than Chapman's murder. The doctors of the time thought that Chapman's murder showed more skill.

Here's a source for Puckridge having surgical training: https://www.casebook.org/ripper_medi...orley/152.html

My 2 cents - I think there were 6 murders. It seems unlikely Tabrum wasnt a victim as she is probed in the same areas as the mutilation. Perhaps the killer used that information but would have gained virtually nothing had he not done it himself.

I have found no credible evidence of anyone but trained surgeons doing organ extractions in 1888. Virtually all post mortem. I would think that the technical descriptions of the organ removals of Chapman and Eddowes would be per post mortem and hard to dispute.

These Doctors did not categorically state that a Surgeon conducted these murders. Obviously it would be an insane Surgeon. In 1888 the only other organ removal of any kind was animal organs. It was also well established by Trade.

I guess the big question is could anyone familiar with a knife be able to carry out these murders? In the time alloted? In silence and then disappear?

Has anyone looked at a violent psychotic episodes lasting 10 minutes with a description? If one exists? Could be revealing.

[Lewis C]

Allo, Fishy,

So it's proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the heart was undoubtedly removed in this fashion, and it's proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Thompson (not being physically fit and healthy aside) knew how to perform this procedure?

I'm just perplexed that if we know both of these things as facts, why Thompson isn't put onto a grander stage by all and sundry in the Ripper community.

If, as I'm presuming, none of it is without its uncertainty, then we're back to square one. "Square one" being us not having a clue one way or another who could have done the murder and mutilation, effectively not ruling anyone out who was physically able and could conceivably be in the area.

If it's a solid fact that the killer of MJK had to have been medically trained, then Thompson doesn't come close to Chapman, IMO, who was in the area, physically able, and a murderer of women.

Cheers

Hi Mike,

Yes, if we were sure, or even if there were a strong preponderance of evidence, that the Ripper had to have surgical knowledge, one would think that locating men with surgical training who lived in the London area and were in their 20s or 30s at the time would be a very active area in Ripper research. We're talking about Thompson now in part because he's famous. Is there really any more reason to think that Thompson might be the Ripper than to think that some other London area surgeon in his 20s or 30s at the time was the Ripper? I don't see his poetry as being a reason to suspect him.

I agree that George Chapman is a considerably stronger suspect than Thompson.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Lets be also clear where Dr Bonds is concerned, at no point did he ever say the ''Internal Organs'' that were removed from of Mary Kelly abdoman showed no medical skill or knowledge . The ''quote'' being used by some to describe Bond saying the ''killer had no such skill'' is used by Dr Bond with the specific use of the words ''The Mutilations'' Not the internal organs .

But it’s not possible that Bond would have been saying that “he had no medical skill as evidenced by the mutilations but he might have had medical skill for the organ removal.” Surely that can’t be what you imply from what Bond wrote Fishy? Clearly when talking about medical skill he had to have been talking about everything that the killer had done; including the organ removal. It can’t have been otherwise.