The Jack the Ripper Mystery is Finally Solved — Scientifically

[GBinOz]

My issue with Thompson is, as far as being even remotely close to what we could consider as being Ripper-like, he wasn't close at all. He wrote poetry and may have dated a prostitute.

If, though, it's a genuine fact that MJK's heart was proven to have been removed in a certain manner, and Thompson can be shown, provably, that he had the knowledge to perform that procedure, that's a different story... But I suspect that's not the case.

Hi Mike,

Thompson stated that he was rescued by a prostitute who nurtured him through his bad times, but left when he achieved a measure of poetic notoriety on the basis that she would hold him back. He stated that he searched for her after her departure but it was never clear as to his motive - was he trying to re-establish the former relationship or was he seeking revenge for a perceived abandonment?

The standard procedure at the time for access to the heart was via the rib cage using a rib spreader. Virchow taught an alternative method whereby the heart could be accessed via the abdominal cavity. Thompson was a pupil of Virchow. If the purpose was a slash and grab this would involve cutting out the heart together with its fibrous sheath known as the pericardium. But this is not what happened. According to the autopsy notes, the heart was surgically removed from the pericardium, leaving the latter in place. If you consider that you probably have a similar knowledge of the structure of the heart and its sheath to that of the likes of Bury, do you think you could have achieved this task?

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Then why did Dr. Bond, standing there with Kelly’s body in front of him, say “I tell you what chaps, I’m really impressed by the skill that this killer exhibited in removing the heart.”

But he didn’t did he? He actually said:

“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.”


Can anyone tell us why we should completely dismiss what Bond said?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I guess the bold section is where we differ , i cant do speculation and the possibility that Bury might have somehow acquired such knowledge . I can only go by what is known as opposed to what is not where any suspects are concerned ,and what is currenty known about both in the area of medical procedure removal of Mary Kellys heart, i tend to favour Thompson a better suspect than Bury .

Everyone speculates Fishy. It’s unavoidable. What you are, in effect, saying is that we should eliminate anything that’s possible if we can’t prove it definitively. In this case we are talking about a contended issue; one that isn’t a certainty. But there are things that we know for certain though. We know that we have no evidence of Thompson being violent but we do have evidence of Bury being violent. We don’t have evidence of Thompson killing anyone but we know that Bury did. We have no evidence of Thompson ever performing acts of mutilation but we know that Bury did. Surely these are more pertinent facts than the uncertainty of the killers level of knowledge/skill.

[GBinOz]

Then why did Dr. Bond, standing there with Kelly’s body in front of him, say “I tell you what chaps, I’m really impressed by the skill that this killer exhibited in removing the heart.”

But he didn’t did he? He actually said:

“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.”


Can anyone tell us why we should completely dismiss what Bond said?

Hi Herlock,

Read a little of Bond's history, and Prosector's comments on him. Compare his opinion to that of Phillips and Brown.

Cheers, George

[Doctored Whatsit]

Then why did Dr. Bond, standing there with Kelly’s body in front of him, say “I tell you what chaps, I’m really impressed by the skill that this killer exhibited in removing the heart.”

But he didn’t did he? He actually said:

“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.”


Can anyone tell us why we should completely dismiss what Bond said?

Absolutely Herlock, if someone is going to claim that Bond stated that JtR employed an up to date medical procedure in removing the heart, then that person should quote all of what Bond said, and not just the convenient bit, and his conclusion was clear - no evidence of any anatomical knowledge, not even that of a butcher/slaughterer.

[FISHY1118]

Then why did Dr. Bond, standing there with Kelly’s body in front of him, say “I tell you what chaps, I’m really impressed by the skill that this killer exhibited in removing the heart.”

But he didn’t did he? He actually said:

“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.”


Can anyone tell us why we should completely dismiss what Bond said?

To be fair it wasnt Dr Bonds job to ''Marvel'' the way in which Kellys heart was removed, it was his job to give an opinion as to how it was removed . Just as it was that he gave his opinion as to the Mutilations , the first was a description of a known medical technique of the removal of the heart, the other his clear observation of kelly senseless mutilations that which any mad man could have done .

Whos to say the killer didnt remove kellys organs first in a way that was precise , carefully and with medical accuracy ? then only after did he, in a frenzy befitting his M.O set about slaughtering her for his own benifit afterwards ,he had plenty of time remember .

[GBinOz]

Everyone speculates Fishy. It’s unavoidable. What you are, in effect, saying is that we should eliminate anything that’s possible if we can’t prove it definitively. In this case we are talking about a contended issue; one that isn’t a certainty. But there are things that we know for certain though. We know that we have no evidence of Thompson being violent but we do have evidence of Bury being violent. We don’t have evidence of Thompson killing anyone but we know that Bury did. We have no evidence of Thompson ever performing acts of mutilation but we know that Bury did. Surely these are more pertinent facts than the uncertainty of the killers level of knowledge/skill.

I don't think so. What evidence is there that Druitt was violent or killed anyone? Or Hutchinson? Or Barnett? If violence is the only factor then Deeming outranks Bury. But none of these favourites could have effected an abdominal hysterectomy that left the bladder undamaged or have surgically removed the heart from the pericardium. Fact vs speculation.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

Read a little of Bond's history, and Prosector's comments on him. Compare his opinion to that of Phillips and Brown.

Cheers, George

Hello George,

I’m not suggesting that the killer had no knowledge or skill at all but the level of knowledge and skill has always been a matter for debate which leads me to question why there is no absolutely consensus on this matter? Wouldn’t the natural conclusion be that there is no great level of certainty on this particular subject?

(On another topic George, who do you favour for the Ashes? - I know who you want to win of course)

[FISHY1118]

Everyone speculates Fishy. It’s unavoidable. What you are, in effect, saying is that we should eliminate anything that’s possible if we can’t prove it definitively. In this case we are talking about a contended issue; one that isn’t a certainty. But there are things that we know for certain though. We know that we have no evidence of Thompson being violent but we do have evidence of Bury being violent. We don’t have evidence of Thompson killing anyone but we know that Bury did. We have no evidence of Thompson ever performing acts of mutilation but we know that Bury did. Surely these are more pertinent facts than the uncertainty of the killers level of knowledge/skill.

All im saying herlock that in ths case we should deal in what we know as you yourself are saying with this post , you mention pros and cons for both bury and thompson , i would have thought the one that sticks out more than any is burys lack of any evidence that he could performed that heart removal procedure on kelly .

Going by your logic we should then delete them both as suspects ?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don't think so. What evidence is there that Druitt was violent or killed anyone? Or Hutchinson? Or Barnett? If violence is the only factor then Deeming outranks Bury. But none of these favourites could have effected an abdominal hysterectomy that left the bladder undamaged or have surgically removed the heart from the pericardium. Fact vs speculation.

Absolutely none George. But if we found out tomorrow that Druitt had been sacked from the Blackheath School because he’d attacked one of the female staff with a knife wouldn’t you think that would be a point in his favour as a suspect.

On your second point George you appear to be saying that killer must have been someone of the level of skill of a doctor/surgeon. This isn’t a consensus opinion as I mentioned in my previous post. If those with serious medical knowledge can’t agree isn’t that a pointer toward doubt.

Does your average butcher or slaughter man require years of training to cut out an organ? It’s a physical act requiring some knowledge and knife skill certainly but faced with a destroyed corpse why would you need surgical skill to cut out a heart?

[GBinOz]

Absolutely Herlock, if someone is going to claim that Bond stated that JtR employed an up to date medical procedure in removing the heart, then that person should quote all of what Bond said, and not just the convenient bit, and his conclusion was clear - no evidence of any anatomical knowledge, not even that of a butcher/slaughterer.

Hi Doc,

Bond stated in the autopsy report that the pericardium was open from below and the heart was absent. Accessing the heart from the abdominal cavity was leading edge at the time, and the surgical removal of the heart from its enclosing sheath does not meet the description of a slash and grab. I would suggest that Bond's knowledge of the latest medical procedures was not up to standard. If you do some research into Bond, including Prosector's remarks on the subject, you may deduce that Bond was far from being in the same league as Phillips and Brown.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

All im saying herlock that in ths case we should deal in what we know as you yourself are saying with this post , you mention pros and cons for both bury and thompson , i would have thought the one that sticks out more than any is burys lack of any evidence that he could performed that heart removal procedure on kelly .

Going by your logic we should then delete them both as suspects ?

No, what I’m saying is that (and I apologise to all of I sound disrespectful to Mary Kelly, I don’t mean to) the killer was basically chopping out a piece of meat. He wasn’t performing a transplant.

[FISHY1118]

No, what I’m saying is that (and I apologise to all of I sound disrespectful to Mary Kelly, I don’t mean to) the killer was basically chopping out a piece of meat. He wasn’t performing a transplant.

In regards to the mutilations i would agree with you, that is fairly obvious. As to internal organs and the way in which the heart was removed, that would be another matter entirely .

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi Doc,

Bond stated in the autopsy report that the pericardium was open from below and the heart was absent. Accessing the heart from the abdominal cavity was leading edge at the time, and the surgical removal of the heart from its enclosing sheath does not meet the description of a slash and grab. I would suggest that Bond's knowledge of the latest medical procedures was not up to standard. If you do some research into Bond, including Prosector's remarks on the subject, you may deduce that Bond was far from being in the same league as Phillips and Brown.

Cheers, George

I fully understand your point that Bond was not as reliable as Brown and Phillips and have no problem whatsoever with that. I don't regard him as being totally useless however! He was there, he saw the evidence, and believed that there was no sign of any anatomical knowledge whatsoever. He saw the neatness or sloppiness of what was done, and reached his conclusion. If the job had been done neatly and professionally, he could not have reached that decision, surely?

[GBinOz]

Absolutely none George. But if we found out tomorrow that Druitt had been sacked from the Blackheath School because he’d attacked one of the female staff with a knife wouldn’t you think that would be a point in his favour as a suspect.

On your second point George you appear to be saying that killer must have been someone of the level of skill of a doctor/surgeon. This isn’t a consensus opinion as I mentioned in my previous post. If those with serious medical knowledge can’t agree isn’t that a pointer toward doubt.

Does your average butcher or slaughter man require years of training to cut out an organ? It’s a physical act requiring some knowledge and knife skill certainly but faced with a destroyed corpse why would you need surgical skill to cut out a heart?

Hi Herlock,

Are you expecting such a report on Druitt? Such a report can not be hypothesised to support a speculation.

I look to Prosector's opinion that the average doctor had very limited experience in dissection - the minimum required to attain a qualification. I concur with his opinion that the skill level indicated extensive experience in the dissection room without the necessity of subsequent qualification as a doctor/surgeon. Regardless of consensus opinion, the fact is that Eddowes uterus was removed without damage to the bladder and Kelly's heart was removed from its enclosing sheath. Could you do that? I couldn't even contemplate attempting the task. Yet you suggest that Bury made his incision on Eddowes and carefully skirted around the navel on the right hand side, and then, in the dark kneeling beside the body, extracted the uterus with even nicking the bladder. This could not be achieved at the re-enactment at the time, and is not always achievable in a modern theatre.

"Why would you need surgical skill to cut out a heart?" Tricky question, because that is not what the autopsy described. A butcher, or indeed even Bury could cut out a heart in a slash and grab. But the heart was not cut out. The heart proper was surgically removed from below (the abdominal cavity) from its enclosing sheath (the pericardium). You would probably have a similar knowledge of the heart's structure as Bury - could you do this procedure. I know I couldn't.

Your average butcher or slaughter man trains to cut out organs. The injuries on Chapman reflect this type of training. But with the uterus in Eddowes and the heart in Kelly we are looking at surgical extraction rather than just cutting out organs.

Cheers, George