The Jack the Ripper Mystery is Finally Solved — Scientifically

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

Realistically, in how many disputes are there absolutely proven facts, agreed to by every expert? We are not talking about anatomical knowledge or knife skills. We are pointing to dissection procedures. The mobilisation of the small intestines was a procedure used in the dissection rooms, as was the deviation of the incision around the navel. Is it your contention that Bury knew these procedures? The surgical removal of the heart proper from the enclosing pericardium was a medical procedure known by few students. Was Bury one of them? No! These were procedures employed by someone very familiar with the dissecting room. If not Thompson, someone like him, but certainly not someone like Bury.

Cheers, George

Hello George,

Dr Bond performed the post mortem:

“In my opinion he does not even possess the technical knowledge of a butcher or horse slaughterer or any person accustomed to cut up dead animals.”

It’s ok using terms like “the mobilisation of the intestines” and “the deviation of the incision around the navel” but Bond doesn’t use these phrases and how can we assume that the killer was thinking in those terms. It’s like the average person making half a dozen chess moves without knowing that he was using the so and so variation of the so and so opening? He just moved the pieces. People on here with the medical knowledge that I don’t possess have also seen no skill in the killers work in Miller’s Court. That the often frail, gentle Thompson hacked Kelly to pieces doesn’t come close to adding up. Thompson was no murderer George. He doesn’t come close to being a murderer as everyone that knew him would have attested. You should read Walsh’s biography of him if you haven’t already.

Bury was a murderer, Thompson wasn’t.
Bury categorically mutilated a woman after killing her, Thompson never did.
Bury had attacked a woman with a knife, we have no evidence of Thompson ever doing so.
Bury was definitely in the area at the time, we can’t definitely place Thompson there.

Bury the ripper is a possibility, Thompson the ripper is a creation.

[GBinOz]

I agree Mike. I suspect that we would be surprised at what knowledge or skill someone can acquire under the right circumstances or even if they set out to acquire it. I don’t have any medical knowledge but I’ve often wondered if luck might also have played some part? What I mean by that is I wonder what the result would have been if the killer had tried doing the same organ removal under the same adverse conditions ten times on different nights. Might it have been the case that say twice or three times the organ was removed intact but on the other seven or eight times it was damaged? After all the killer cut out Eddowes uterus but left a piece.

Hi Herlock,

Theoretical knowledge is one thing. Putting into practice another. I suspect if you were tasked with inflicting the injuries visited upon Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly you might find yourself passed out along side of the body. I know I would be. The killer might have left a piece of the uterus, but he didn't damage the bladder which can not be assured even under the best current medical procedures.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

That the often frail, gentle Thompson hacked Kelly to pieces doesn’t come close to adding up. Thompson was no murderer George. He doesn’t come close to being a murderer as everyone that knew him would have attested. You should read Walsh’s biography of him if you haven’t already.

Thompson was a drug addict. You might care to read his poem "The Nightmare of the Witch Babies" to get an idea of the workings of his mind and his fantasy of the noble knight ridding the world of demon-ridden witches:

http://www.dxsuperpremium.com/2012/05/poem-of-day-nightmare-of-witch-babies.html

[rjpalmer]

Hi, George,

In another thread you posted this:

"There has been much debate as to whether he (Bond) meant that the heart was absent from the body or from the room, but I believe he (Bond) was saying that the heart had been surgically removed from the sheath (the pericardium) in which it had been contained."

If this is just something you personally believe, and there's no actual evidence to confirm that it's true, then I'm not sure why it's being promoted as actual evidence in this thread.

There's no confirmation that the mutilations on Kelly could only have been performed by a trained professional or someone with medical knowledge. It literally has never been proven. If it were proven, we'd be able to discount a lot of suspects, but it hasn't, so we can't.

Am I wrong here?

Hi Mike,

George can speak for himself, of course, but I think you might be confusing two different issues, so George has by no means contradicted himself.

There is no doubt from Bond's report that the heart was missing from Kelly's chest--that it had been removed from its sheath and was absent.

The 'debate' George was referring to is whether the heart was also missing from the room...but that has no bearing on the surgical observations he is making.

As for the heart missing entirely, this is a different issue, but I agree with George. Bond lists the location of organs (under the head, by the feet, etc) but does not tell us where the heart was found, which seems like a very curious omission if it was still in the room. But as I say, this is beside the point he is making.

[Mike J. G.]

As Herlock has already pointed out, Bond, whom is being used here to promote the idea that only a skilled person with medical knowledge could have performed the mutilations on Kelly, evidently didn't agree.

Dr. Thomas Bond:

8. In each case the mutilation was inflicted by a person who had no scientific nor anatomical knowledge. In my opinion he does not even possess the technical knowledge of a butcher or horse slaughterer or any person accustomed to cut up dead animals.


10. The murderer must have been a man of physical strength and of great coolness and daring. There is no evidence that he had an accomplice. He must in my opinion be a man subject to periodical attacks of Homicidal and erotic mania. The character of the mutilations indicate that the man may be in a condition sexually, that may be called satyriasis. It is of course possible that the Homicidal impulse may have developed from a revengeful or brooding condition of the mind, or that Religious Mania may have been the original disease, but I do not think either hypothesis is likely. The murderer in external appearance is quite likely to be a quiet inoffensive looking man probably middleaged and neatly and respectably dressed. I think he must be in the habit of wearing a cloak or overcoat or he could hardly have escaped notice in the streets if the blood on his hands or clothes were visible.

Was Thompson a man of physical strength?

[Mike J. G.]

Hi Mike,

George can speak for himself, of course, but I think you might be confusing two different issues, so George has by no means contradicted himself.

There is no doubt from Bond's report that the heart was missing from Kelly's chest--that it had been removed from its sheath and was absent.

The 'debate' George was referring to is whether the heart was also missing from the room...but that has no bearing on the surgical observations he is making.

As for the heart missing entirely, this is a different issue, but I agree with George. Bond lists the location of organs (under the head, by the feet, etc) but does not tell us where the heart was found, which seems like a very curious omission if it was still in the room. But as I say, this is beside the point he is making.

Fair enough, RJ.

But I'm still at a loss to figure out why it is being promoted here that the killer had to have medical knowledge. Bond certainly didn't think so, yet he's being used here to promote that very idea.

[GBinOz]

There's no confirmation that the mutilations on Kelly could only have been performed by a trained professional or someone with medical knowledge. It literally has never been proven. If it were proven, we'd be able to discount a lot of suspects, but it hasn't, so we can't.

Am I wrong here?

Are you wrong here? With regard to the excision of the heart from the pericardium - YES. With regard to the other mutilations - NO!

[Mike J. G.]

Thompson was a drug addict. You might care to read his poem "The Nightmare of the Witch Babies" to get an idea of the workings of his mind and his fantasy of the noble knight ridding the world of demon-ridden witches:

http://www.dxsuperpremium.com/2012/0...ch-babies.html

If penning edgy poetry while intoxicated was indicative of a murderer then I'm afraid we're all buggered, mate

[Mike J. G.]

Are you wrong here? With regard to the excision of the heart from the pericardium - YES. With regard to the other mutilations - NO!

Dr. Bond wasn't of the opinion that Kelly's murderer had any medical knowledge.

Correct?

[GBinOz]

But I'm still at a loss to figure out why it is being promoted here that the killer had to have medical knowledge. Bond certainly didn't think so, yet he's being used here to promote that very idea.

Phillips and Brown are the ones to be listening to rather than Bond (read up on the latter's history). I refer only to his autopsy report, not his opinion.

[rjpalmer]

Fair enough, RJ.

But I'm still at a loss to figure out why it is being promoted here that the killer had to have medical knowledge. Bond certainly didn't think so, yet he's being used here to promote that very idea.

George will have to defend that position, Mike, as I think it is a valid point.

What I will say is that I've long been under the impression that the medicos were a little too eager to distance their own profession from the murders. Rightly or wrongly, at least some of them were insulted by the suggestion--as if it was a reflection on the medical community as a whole. In some ways, it was understandable because many years earlier the medical community had suffered a black eye during the Burk and Hare scandal.

Meanwhile, most of the medicos were fine with suggesting the killer was a trained butcher with anatomical knowledge, etc.---but a medical man? Heaven forbid!

Such is human nature, I suppose. What is interesting (to me) is that despite Bonds doubts', the police were very much investigating suspects with medical or alleged medical training, including insane medical students, Ostrog, Druitt ('said to be a doctor'), Kozminski (supposedly worked in a hospital in Poland), etc. So perhaps Bonds' opinion wasn't as widely accepted as is sometimes supposed.

Just my two cents.

[GBinOz]

George will have to defend that position, Mike, as I think it is a valid point.

What I will say is that I've long been under the impression that the medicos were a little too eager to distance their own profession from the murders. Rightly or wrongly, at least some of them were insulted by the suggestion--as if it was a reflection on the medical community as a whole. In some ways, it was understandable because many years earlier the medical community had suffered a black eye during the Burk and Hare scandal.

Meanwhile, most of the medicos were fine with suggesting the killer was a trained butcher with anatomical knowledge, etc.---but a medical man? Heaven forbid!

Such is human nature, I suppose. What is interesting (to me) is that despite Bonds doubts', the police were very much investigating suspects with medical or alleged medical training, including insane medical students, Ostrog, Druitt ('said to be a doctor'), Kozminski (supposedly worked in a hospital in Poland), etc. So perhaps Bonds' opinion wasn't as widely accepted as is sometimes supposed.

Just my two cents.

Hi RJ,

I'll contribute another two cents in favour of your opinion, and raise Klosowski as another example.

Cheers, George

[Mike J. G.]

George will have to defend that position, Mike, as I think it is a valid point.

What I will say is that I've long been under the impression that the medicos were a little too eager to distance their own profession from the murders. Rightly or wrongly, at least some of them were insulted by the suggestion--as if it was a reflection on the medical community as a whole. In some ways, it was understandable because many years earlier the medical community had suffered a black eye during the Burk and Hare scandal.

Meanwhile, most of the medicos were fine with suggesting the killer was a trained butcher with anatomical knowledge, etc.---but a medical man? Heaven forbid!

Such is human nature, I suppose. What is interesting (to me) is that despite Bonds doubts', the police were very much investigating suspects with medical or alleged medical training, including insane medical students, Ostrog, Druitt ('said to be a doctor'), Kozminski (supposedly worked in a hospital in Poland), etc. So perhaps Bonds' opinion wasn't as widely accepted as is sometimes supposed.

Just my two cents.

I don't necessarily disagree, RJ. This is why I'm not sure why it's being suggested that the killer had to have medical knowledge, because the jury is honestly out on that. It's not a proven fact, and if it were, we could happily discount a lot of suspects from the list.

As it stands, I'm not sure I'd be confident discounting anyone on the grounds of not having medical knowledge.

[GBinOz]

As it stands, I'm not sure I'd be confident discounting anyone on the grounds of not having medical knowledge.

If you throw in the time factor you will be standing on the doorstep of Trevor's theory.

[Mike J. G.]

Phillips and Brown are the ones to be listening to rather than Bond (read up on the latter's history). I refer only to his autopsy report, not his opinion.

GB, the trouble is that there's no established fact regarding the killer's abilities, medically trained or not. All we have is the musings of the medicos of the day, and our interpretations of those musings.

If it could be categorically proven that MJ's killer had confirmed medical knowledge, then that would undoubtedly be a revelation in the world of the Ripper.