The Jack the Ripper Mystery is Finally Solved — Scientifically

[GBinOz]

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.

[GBinOz]

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?

Hi Doc,

The fact that Bond was there and saw the evidence is not disputable. He reported that the heart had been extracted from below from the pericardium. That is not in dispute. What is in dispute is his opinion that there was no medical or anatomical knowledge evident. In other words, the perpetrator could not have been a member of his profession. Perish the very suggestion!

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

From JtRForums:

https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/7/4/30

From the conclusion paragraph of the two authors of the paper:


”Jack’s ability to rapidly locate and remove specific organs from several of his victims, in conditions of haste and very poor light, led to theories that he must have been surgically trained. However, re-examination of a mortuary sketch of one of his victims has revealed key aspects of the incisional technique used that are highly inconsistent with professional surgical training. Related discrepancies are also apparent in the language used within the only letter from Jack considered probably authentic.
Furthermore, the throat-cutting technique used to kill his victims, combined with Jack’s undoubted propensity for anatomical dissection with a knife, were highly consistent with the skillset of slaughterers of the times. And indeed, a very large number of small-scale slaughterhouses existed within the districts in which the murders occurred. The harsh socioeconomic conditions of the times may have influenced how the animals and their body parts were treated, as well as the subsequent behaviour of the murderer. We will never know for certain, but it is highly likely that Jack the Ripper honed the physical skills, and the psychological and behavioural attributes employed on his victims to such devastating effect, during his employment as a slaughterhouse worker.“


I only post this as another example of the divergence of opinion on this subject.

[Mike J. G.]

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

Allo, GB.

I don't think I'd be able to achieve that, no, but that's not any indication of anyone else's ability, to be fair.

I don't personally think I'd be able to do what Gein did, either. Gein wasn't even a slaughter-man, though. He'd seen his parents slaughter animals as a youth.

[Mike J. G.]

1 YESSSS

2. YESSSS .

3 . So am I.

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.

[GBinOz]

I would like to briefly revisit this article from the Echo of 1 Oct:

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.

Is the boldened reference to a preliminary post mortem? How can this report be accurate when the official post mortem recorded that organs were missing? I anticipate that I will stir a hornet's nest by suggesting that if this is a report on some sort of preliminary post mortem where the organs were present, but the actual post mortem reported that the organs were missing...... perhaps Trevor is correct??

It needs to be added that the absence of Kelly's heart from its pericardium would not have been noticed until her autopsy.

[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."

[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.]

"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]

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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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?

[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.