The Jack the Ripper Mystery is Finally Solved — Scientifically

[Lewis C]

Hi Lewis,

My premise is just an opinion based on considerations which are for me ongoing. As I mentioned, I am not entirely convinced that JtR is not a composite term being applied to the crimes of more than one person. It would be fair to comment that most posters would accept that the mutilations visited upon Chapman and Eddowes indicate that the same murderer was involved. However, this is from the Echo Oct 1, 1888:

THE OPINION OF THE DOCTORS.
Although there appears to be very little doubt that both this crime and the murder of the unfortunate in Berner-street about the same time is the work of the miscreant who perpetrated the previous tragedies, the doctors are of opinion that the murder in Mitre-court is a "brutal imitation" of the Hanbury-street murder. At the post-mortem examination, there were- it is stated- indications of an attempt having been made to remove the organ alluded to, but nothing was missing from the body. It is also asserted that there are indications discovered that mutilation was evidently meant in the case of the Berner-street victim.

Then there is the comment by Wynne Baxter in his summation of the Stride Inquest and referring to her injury:

There had been no skilful mutilation as in the cases of Nichols and Chapman, and no unskilful injuries as in the case in Mitre-square - possibly the work of an imitator;

I asked my daughter, an experienced theatre nurse, to look at the autopsies of Chapman and Eddowes and she asked if there was any theory that these murders were by different people. In her opinion the Chapman injuries were what would be made by a butcher and the Eddowes injuries by someone experienced in the dissection of human females. My hesitancy about her opinion is that the mobilisation of Chapman's intestines is traditionally considered a medical procedure. I am in the process of re-examining Prosector's comments in this regard.

To come back to your question. My understanding is that Oswald Puckeridge was a pharmacological chemist. I have Chapman (Klosowski) as a person of interest, but I would consider someone like Thompson as worthy of consideration for the Eddowes and Kelly murders.

We don't know, and probably never will, how many killers were involved in the Whitechapel murders, nor how many would fall within the appellation of Jack the Ripper. My current opinion is that there were at least four, but that is JMO. YMMV.

Cheers, George

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

[Lewis C]

I was talking about the Medical Procedure /Technique used to remove Mary Kellys heart ,and why thompson was abetter than bury becasue of it . You can feel free to discuss motive about any of the murders if you like . Im just giving you the facts as per Dr Bonds post mortem report .

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 .

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.

[Patrick Differ]

I understand the point being made, that the police surgeons would have been reluctant to identify JtR as a doctor, one of their own kind. However, they were experienced professionals and the idea that they deliberately deceived the police by steering them towards people like butcher/slaughterers is surely extremely unlikely. They would look like complete fools if JtR had subsequently been caught in the act and proved to be a doctor!

Parts of the m.o. like knowing exactly what you are doing, calmly and methodically laying the victim down, slitting the throat from behind, turning the head to allow the blood to flow without getting any on his person, as he would have done hundreds or thousands of times, would have been almost routine to a butcher/slaughterer, but totally new to a doctor. Whereas a rapid "slash and grab" would be par for the course for the former, but entirely novel to the doctor. I understand how the police surgeons would genuinely believe that someone like a butcher/slaughterer or a very experienced hunter might have been the guilty party. 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- i agree with your assessment here. There would be little motive for these Doctors to not agree that a medical person could be responsible for these murders. In fact they were very technical in their post mortem.

Was the method of murder related to a job skill? It appears so. The victims were stnned, bled out, and gutted. To me that says either butcher or hunter. However Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes illustrate repeatability. More in sync with a Butcher or Slaughterer.

I think that more than the gutting, the stunning, laying the victim down, and cutting of the throat to bleed out might speak more to an actual job skill. One again that was repeated.

One last point I come back to without reconciliation is the fact that Detective Robert Sagar, who trained to be a Doctor before switching professions, followed and believed the murderer was an insane man working on butchers row but living with his brother, and eventually put in an asylum " by friends".

Again the Butcher is put forward. Was that Jacob Levy?

From a circumstantial evidence perspective it might be the man Sagar was following. First of all Levy lived at 36 Middlesex Street on London side yet all murders except Eddowes were in Metro. He was a legacy butcher who was convicted of theft, served prison and asylum from 1886 to 1887. The killer apparently disappeared after killing Eddowes. Levy fits that potentially since he lived only 4 blocks East of Eddowes and also had ties to Goulston Street with both family and the man who sent him to prison, Hyman Sampson.

Sagars comment that the man they followed from Butchers Row to his brothers house and who fits the admission to an asylum by friends is also Jacob Levy.

Levys wife referred to the family Butchers legacy business at 36 Middlesex as "HER" business. And lamented that Jacob, a once shrewd businessman, could no longer run a business and continued stealing. However he was no longer an actual threat. This timeframe was 1889 and the beginning of 1890 before he was admitted to Stone Asylum.

On Jacob Levys admission to Stone it says by " Friends". But the friend was his brother in law and older Sister Elizabeths husband Isaac Barnett. They lived in the same block at #87 Middlesex.

What happened to Jacobs wife and 5 children in 1890? Their business failed and they moved in with Elizabeth and Isaac.

Does this closely fit Sagars commentary? I believ it does.

A convicted lunatic butcher likely suffering neurosyphilis and exposure to a Victorian Asylum for 11 months ? A man who fell in complete disgrace in a community he grew up in. Blaming prostitutes for his fall. Blaming everyone but himself. And when his mother dies in May 1888 from a year long illness does he blame himself. Does he use his skill as a butcher and shrewdness as a businessman to lure his victims. Were they a means to an end? Did Jacob Levy set out to prove he was still " The Master Butcher"?

The pieces for Levy are all there but to date impossible to prove. If he were not Sagars man then there was a second lunatic just like Levy being followed. Levy was born and raised in Whitechapel and Butchers Row would have been like another home.

[rjpalmer]

the idea that they deliberately deceived the police by steering them towards people like butcher/slaughterers is surely extremely unlikely

No one suggested that they "deliberately deceived the police." That's overly simplistic.

What I suggested is that they were distancing their own community and their own profession from a horrific association.

I just wonder if that was more convenient than rational.

But I don't see it as "deception"---more of a psychological blind spot. As fate would have it, the other Victorian London serial killer of downtrodden women WAS a fully qualified medical man trained in the UK and in the colonies. Dr. Thomas Neil Cream.

So, maybe their denials were foolish...after a fashion.

[Doctored Whatsit]

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.

I understand the point being made, that the police surgeons would have been reluctant to identify JtR as a doctor, one of their own kind. However, they were experienced professionals and the idea that they deliberately deceived the police by steering them towards people like butcher/slaughterers is surely extremely unlikely. They would look like complete fools if JtR had subsequently been caught in the act and proved to be a doctor!

Parts of the m.o. like knowing exactly what you are doing, calmly and methodically laying the victim down, slitting the throat from behind, turning the head to allow the blood to flow without getting any on his person, as he would have done hundreds or thousands of times, would have been almost routine to a butcher/slaughterer, but totally new to a doctor. Whereas a rapid "slash and grab" would be par for the course for the former, but entirely novel to the doctor. I understand how the police surgeons would genuinely believe that someone like a butcher/slaughterer or a very experienced hunter might have been the guilty party. 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.

[John Wheat]

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.

Chapman is a crap suspect. It's highly unlikely a serial killer could go from doing what Jack did to poisoning.

[John Wheat]

I have never before observed someone claiming that an autopsy report is just an opinion. If this is the standard to be established we are all wasting our time.

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This part of Phillips testimony interests me:


Coroner - Was there any anatomical knowledge displayed?

Dr. Phillips - 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.

Here Phillips is saying that he believes that the killer had anatomical knowledge but…he suggests that haste might have reduced the appearance of anatomical knowledge. Rather than assuming that haste caused this, isn’t it at least possible that it might resulted from the killers lower level of anatomical knowledge?

[rjpalmer]

"Dr Brown believed that the killer possessed such knowledge, he never once stated that the killer possessed any surgical skill.”

I don't understand this line of argument. Why would Brown comment on the murderer's "surgical skill," when kidneys weren't operated on in 1888? Abdominal surgery was almost completely unknown in the 1880s, and the first kidney transplant wouldn't happen until the 1950s, so referring to 'surgical skill' would be largely an anachronism, wouldn't it?

The question would be whether the murder or murderers demonstrated knowledge of post-mortem procedures or the sort of dissections done by medical students. 'Surgery' is wide-of-the-mark.

[GBinOz]

A dissertation on Casebook by Sam Flynn (originally appeared in Ripperologist issue #73

Sam (Gareth) will correct me if I’m misremembering but I seem to recall that he had a medical background?

https://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rip-accident-or-design.html

From his concluding paragraph:

“A close examination of the evidence, preserved for posterity by Dr Frederick Gordon Brown, leads inexorably to the conclusion that the amateur killer of Catherine Eddowes employed methods that were crude in the extreme. There is little or no evidence the killer possessed anything more than a broad knowledge of where the organs were located, and although Dr Brown believed that the killer possessed such knowledge, he never once stated that the killer possessed any surgical skill.”

Hi Herlock,

Thank for that link. I did view this dissertation long ago and I am glad that you posted the link to enable a review.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

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.

Hi Mike,

Agreed. Klosowski had extensive medical experience and this is why he is one of my persons of interest. But I wouldn't place him ahead of someone like Thompson, nor behind. But there is also Mr Unknown, an obscure medical student not unlike Klosowski and Thompson.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Same with me Mike. How many thousands of people have studied this case over the years. How many people with medical knowledge (including doctors, surgeons etc) and yet still we have no consensus. If it was in any way proven I just can’t see how this hasn’t been stated and stated forcefully.

[Mike J. G.]

"So, with the exception of Dr. Thomas Bond, all the doctors who had examined the victims’ bodies were of the opinion that a basic grasp of anatomy was demonstrated by the killer, although their opinions differed as to how in depth his anatomical knowledge was."

Yet we're being told that, in actual fact, MJK displayed evidence of a procedure that only a skilled medical man could have performed.

Make it make sense, lads.

[Herlock Sholmes]

A dissertation on Casebook by Sam Flynn (originally appeared in Ripperologist issue #73

Sam (Gareth) will correct me if I’m misremembering but I seem to recall that he had a medical background?

https://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rip-accident-or-design.html

From his concluding paragraph:

“A close examination of the evidence, preserved for posterity by Dr Frederick Gordon Brown, leads inexorably to the conclusion that the amateur killer of Catherine Eddowes employed methods that were crude in the extreme. There is little or no evidence the killer possessed anything more than a broad knowledge of where the organs were located, and although Dr Brown believed that the killer possessed such knowledge, he never once stated that the killer possessed any surgical skill.”

[Mike J. G.]

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.

That could be so, but now we're speculating again on what we think these medical men were up to when giving their opinions. They might have wanted to distance themselves from the killer, then again, they might have not been arsed one way or another. We don't know, honestly.

As for the opinions on medical skill, I fail to see how it's been proven sufficiently that any was shown.

"Dr Sequira, the first medical man to examine her body in Mitre Square, expressed the opinion that the murderer possessed no great anatomical skill."

"Dr Frederick Gordon Brown, the City of London Police Surgeon, stated that the person who inflicted the wounds on Catherine Eddowes would have required a good deal of knowledge as to the position of the organs in the abdominal cavity and the way of removing them.

He also believed that her murderer would have required a “great deal of knowledge” as to the position of her left kidney in order to have removed it. But such knowledge, he stated, could have been possessed by someone accustomed to cutting up animals."

"The final medical man to express an opinion on the question of anatomical knowledge at Catherine Eddowes inquest was Dr William Sedgwick Saunders, who had assisted at her post-mortem. He was adamant that the wounds showed no sign of having been inflicted by a person with great anatomical skill.

The main dissenting voice on the issue of the murderer possessing any anatomical or surgical knowledge was that of Dr. Thomas Bond, the Police Surgeon for the Metropolitan Police’s A Division, who, in aftermath of Mary Kelly’s death, prepared a report on all the murders.

According to Bond, the mutilations were inflicted “…by a person who had no scientific nor anatomical knowledge… [not even] the technical knowledge of a butcher or horse slaughterer or any person accustomed to cut up dead animals.”

So, with the exception of Dr. Thomas Bond, all the doctors who had examined the victims’ bodies were of the opinion that a basic grasp of anatomy was demonstrated by the killer, although their opinions differed as to how in depth his anatomical knowledge was."