Lipski

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Michael,

Where does Dr Phillips say that Chapman's killer was a medical professional? On the other hand Dr Brown seemed to think that Eddowes' killer was probably a medical student.

And Trevor's experts were also impressed by the level of skill demonstrated by Eddowes' perpetrator. Thus, Phillip Harrison, an experienced eviscerator, concluded, "To remove the kidney from its membrane as documented shows a high level of skill and anatomical knowledge." (Marriott, 2013).

You say there was no "superfluous cutting" in respect of Chapman. Really? Phillip Harrison would certainly disagree with that statement: "There would have been no need for the killer to remove the intestines to facilitate the removal of the uterus" (Marriott, 2013.)

I would also point out that Doctors involved in these cases were mainly Victorian GP, and not modern day forensic experts. Therefore, a degree of caution is required when considering their opinions. For instance, Dr Biggs, an expert forensic pathologist, pretty much ridiculed the idea that it was possible to determine the length of blade, or whether the perpetrator was left or right-handed: see Marriott, 2013.

By the way, can you cite a reference where any medical professional at the time stated they believed Chapman and Eddowes may have been killed by different people?

I didn't say Phillips said Annies Killer was a medical professional John, and I really detest when posters inaccurately synopsize what is being said... I said that after Annies murder and based on Phillips statements....some of which I posted,...the authorities chose to look for medically trained suspects in September. They did not continue that pattern after the Double Event, because clearly those kills did not fit that profile. Instead, like so many of our treasured serial killer advocates do, they just assumed that the lesser skilled subsequent kills and mutilations were poorly executed but explainable....like Lizs killer was interrupted, Kates killer was in too dark an environment and was acting too hastily, or Marys killer took a long time taking her apart because he was indoors. They forget, or ignore, that Liz Strides murder shows no evidence at all of being interrupted, that the lack of skill evident on Kate might just be a lack of skills...which contrasts Annies killer,... or that Marys murder while in bed had nothing at all to do with a killer who killed and mutilated middle aged women while they actively solicited outdoors..

Whatever Trevors modern day experts believe they see in notes taken is of interest to them I'm sure, but as I said earlier, Phillips saw 4 Canonicals in the morgue...he inspected the wounds with his eyes and hands, not with his aptitude for interpreting more than century old doctors notes. He didn't see the skills with Liz, and when asked later if he thought Kate should be included in the list that contemporary investigators created for kills they wanted to attribute to a single maniac, he stated he didn't see that Kates wounds were the same as the earlier 2 women he examined.

Its simply the reality that matters to me, fictional ideas about why the subsequent murders didn't look anything like the first 2 are entertaining but hardly convincing.

[Harry D]

Hello Michael,

Doesn't it seem quite remarkable that in the Fall of 1888 two murderers appeared on the streets of Whitechapel both of whom killed prostitutes by cutting their throats except that one of them was quite precise in his cutting while the other was somewhat sloppy?

You either have one killer or killers working together.

But multiple killers with the same MO/sig operating independently in the same square mile in the same timeframe is beyond belief. Also, Michael suggests that Cate's injuries were a deliberate red herring to pin it on the Ripper, which is even more preposterous.

[Michael W Richards]

"Kates killer left a bit of the kidney, a stump of a uterus, a sectioned colon, and knife traces around a navel and some facial features. Annies killer seemed to have targeted what was taken based on the manner in which he approached the cutting, and it was excised cleanly. No superfluous cutting. No tracing around cartilage. No effort wasted disfiguring the face. No mistakes like cutting into a colon and releasing some excrement."

Hello Michael,

Doesn't it seem quite remarkable that in the Fall of 1888 two murderers appeared on the streets of Whitechapel both of whom killed prostitutes by cutting their throats except that one of them was quite precise in his cutting while the other was somewhat sloppy?

c.d.

For one cd, only Polly and Annie were soliciting at the time, ergo, they are the only 2 Canonicals on record who were acting as "prostitutes" at the time of their murders. If you have some information that the same evidence exists for the remaining 3 victims, by all means share it...because there is no such evidence known to anyone.....than perhaps you... at this moment in time. And with a district filled with violent men, and someone already making Torsos before that Fall, it would seem ridiculous to simply assume only one man could have cut women up. Have you seen the number of reports of women having men draw knives on them in 1888, or 1889? Read through the Old Bailey and youll get some information that is far better than assumptions.

[John G]

I would disagree with that John. I think when a cut is made by someone who has training in the manner in which cuts are to be made when performing surgery on human anatomy, not only the cut but also the evidence left by the tool used can be helpful when making a final determination.

Are we talking very sharp longish blade, or a pen knife? Are the incisions and... if present..., are the excisions done confidently or are the cuts ragged? Things like that.

Kates killer left a bit of the kidney, a stump of a uterus, a sectioned colon, and knife traces around a navel and some facial features. Annies killer seemed to have targeted what was taken based on the manner in which he approached the cutting, and it was excised cleanly. No superfluous cutting. No tracing around cartilage. No effort wasted disfiguring the face. No mistakes like cutting into a colon and releasing some excrement.

I am suggesting that the methodology used on Annie should be present in varying degrees in later kills. Some would agree citing the stomach flaps taken from Mary, but that specific action had been in print in large circulation shortly before the act in Room 13 took place, and therefore it cannot be ruled out as having perhaps inspired it.

Hello Michael,

Where does Dr Phillips say that Chapman's killer was a medical professional? On the other hand Dr Brown seemed to think that Eddowes' killer was probably a medical student.

And Trevor's experts were also impressed by the level of skill demonstrated by Eddowes' perpetrator. Thus, Phillip Harrison, an experienced eviscerator, concluded, "To remove the kidney from its membrane as documented shows a high level of skill and anatomical knowledge." (Marriott, 2013).

You say there was no "superfluous cutting" in respect of Chapman. Really? Phillip Harrison would certainly disagree with that statement: "There would have been no need for the killer to remove the intestines to facilitate the removal of the uterus" (Marriott, 2013.)

I would also point out that Doctors involved in these cases were mainly Victorian GP, and not modern day forensic experts. Therefore, a degree of caution is required when considering their opinions. For instance, Dr Biggs, an expert forensic pathologist, pretty much ridiculed the idea that it was possible to determine the length of blade, or whether the perpetrator was left or right-handed: see Marriott, 2013.

By the way, can you cite a reference where any medical professional at the time stated they believed Chapman and Eddowes may have been killed by different people?

[c.d.]

"Kates killer left a bit of the kidney, a stump of a uterus, a sectioned colon, and knife traces around a navel and some facial features. Annies killer seemed to have targeted what was taken based on the manner in which he approached the cutting, and it was excised cleanly. No superfluous cutting. No tracing around cartilage. No effort wasted disfiguring the face. No mistakes like cutting into a colon and releasing some excrement."

Hello Michael,

Doesn't it seem quite remarkable that in the Fall of 1888 two murderers appeared on the streets of Whitechapel both of whom killed prostitutes by cutting their throats except that one of them was quite precise in his cutting while the other was somewhat sloppy?

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Michael, your comparison - like the Ripper's surgery - seems to contain a few errors.
Neither was a model of surgical precision and technique, but Kate's kidney was entirely missing - "carefully taken out and removed" according to Dr Brown.
Kate's killer left a stump of womb, Annie's left a third of the bladder. Both had their colon cut through; Kate twice, seemingly in order to remove it (giving better access to the kidney), Annie once, apparently unintentionally. Kate's navel was partially cut around, Annie's totally cut around (and seemingly taken away by the killer). It's true that Kate's killer didn't cut flaps of her abdominal wall away like Annie's, but then he didn't need to - he was able to remove her intestines in exactly the same way even without doing so. Perhaps he used the time saved there to attack her face for whatever reason.

I disagree with your opinion of Annies cuts, as did Doctor Phillips...."Dr. Phillips: "Very well. I will give you the results of my post-mortem examination. Witness then detailed the terrible wounds which had been inflicted upon the woman, and described the parts of the body which the perpetrator of the murder had carried away with him. He added: I am of opinion that the length of the weapon with which the incisions were inflicted was at least five to six inches in length - probably more - and must have been very sharp. The manner in which they had been done indicated a certain amount of anatomical knowledge.
The Coroner: Can you give any idea how long it would take to perform the incisions found on the body?
Dr. Phillips: I think I can guide you by saying that I myself could not have performed all the injuries I saw on that woman, and effect them, even without a struggle, under a quarter of an hour. If I had done it in a deliberate way, such as would fall to the duties of a surgeon, it would probably have taken me the best part of an hour. The whole inference seems to me that the operation was performed to enable the perpetrator to obtain possession of these parts of the body".

After Annies murder, physicians and medical students were actively sought out by the police. That's the last murder that a skilled-with-knife killer seemed the most probable to the Police. Meaning, there was no return to that train of thought with Kates murder. Meaning...there was no compelling evidence that with Kate a medical grade skill set was used.

There is of course also a very possible symbolic aspect of removing a uterus that is not present with a kidney removal, as is there for a heart.

Kates wounds were not as skilled nor as targeted.

[Joshua Rogan]

Michael, your comparison - like the Ripper's surgery - seems to contain a few errors.
Neither was a model of surgical precision and technique, but Kate's kidney was entirely missing - "carefully taken out and removed" according to Dr Brown.
Kate's killer left a stump of womb, Annie's left a third of the bladder. Both had their colon cut through; Kate twice, seemingly in order to remove it (giving better access to the kidney), Annie once, apparently unintentionally. Kate's navel was partially cut around, Annie's totally cut around (and seemingly taken away by the killer). It's true that Kate's killer didn't cut flaps of her abdominal wall away like Annie's, but then he didn't need to - he was able to remove her intestines in exactly the same way even without doing so. Perhaps he used the time saved there to attack her face for whatever reason.

[Michael W Richards]

The knife skills that he perceived in respect of Chapman related to the removal of the uterus. As regards McKenzie and Stride, no organs were removed and therefore no direct comparison is possible.

I would disagree with that John. I think when a cut is made by someone who has training in the manner in which cuts are to be made when performing surgery on human anatomy, not only the cut but also the evidence left by the tool used can be helpful when making a final determination.

Are we talking very sharp longish blade, or a pen knife? Are the incisions and... if present..., are the excisions done confidently or are the cuts ragged? Things like that.

Kates killer left a bit of the kidney, a stump of a uterus, a sectioned colon, and knife traces around a navel and some facial features. Annies killer seemed to have targeted what was taken based on the manner in which he approached the cutting, and it was excised cleanly. No superfluous cutting. No tracing around cartilage. No effort wasted disfiguring the face. No mistakes like cutting into a colon and releasing some excrement.

I am suggesting that the methodology used on Annie should be present in varying degrees in later kills. Some would agree citing the stomach flaps taken from Mary, but that specific action had been in print in large circulation shortly before the act in Room 13 took place, and therefore it cannot be ruled out as having perhaps inspired it.

[John G]

Which brings up my earlier point about which sources we can trust the most. My point is that Phillips is that source, absent of any public or professional criticisms, he saw 4 Canonicals in death, was consulted on the 5th, and was present for Alices examination.

Phillips did not see the same knife skills with Alice, nor with Liz. Nor...once I can find it....with Kates wounds.

The knife skills that he perceived in respect of Chapman related to the removal of the uterus. As regards McKenzie and Stride, no organs were removed and therefore no direct comparison is possible.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello c.d.,

And, of course, Dr Bond believed that both McKenzie and Stride were victims of JtR.

Which brings up my earlier point about which sources we can trust the most. My point is that Phillips is that source, absent of any public or professional criticisms, he saw 4 Canonicals in death, was consulted on the 5th, and was present for Alices examination.

Phillips did not see the same knife skills with Alice, nor with Liz. Nor...once I can find it....with Kates wounds.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Michael,

Phillips could be correct the problem however is that we do not know the details of how he arrived at his conclusion and just how qualified he was to give an opinion other than being a doctor present at the time. I think it would be a stretch to remove Stride from the Canonicals based primarily on his opinion.

c.d.

My reasons for wanting Stride excluded are based on a number of factors cd, including the physicians opinions. Phillips saw "great dissimilarity" with the wounds inflicted on Stride, and with the absence of any evidence that her murder was intended to have moved on to mutilation, that's, for me, fairly compelling. I believe the only reason most people leave Stride in the mix is because of timing and geography. My position is that there were plenty of men within the East End or reach of it that were capable of murder and cruelty, whomever killed Polly and Annie...and perhaps Kate, was a different animal than those men. So was the Torso maker. Those differences should be present in any kills attributed to him(them), whether or not the specific actions taken match precisely.

[John G]

Hello Michael,

Phillips could be correct the problem however is that we do not know the details of how he arrived at his conclusion and just how qualified he was to give an opinion other than being a doctor present at the time. I think it would be a stretch to remove Stride from the Canonicals based primarily on his opinion.

c.d.

Hello c.d.,

And, of course, Dr Bond believed that both McKenzie and Stride were victims of JtR.

[c.d.]

The opinions of the physicians closest to the actual victims in the flesh are for me more reliable. I believe that First hand observation supersedes abilities to interpret something that someone else experienced and documented.

Phillips saw the most Canonicals. I haven't read anything that discredits his opinions, other than perhaps Bond... in comments on what he saw as the skill exhibited in all 5 Canonicals, so that's why Ive taken the position that we can safely remove Liz Stride from the Canonicals, and start to deal with a Single Ripper Event...perhaps influenced by the earlier event.

Hello Michael,

Phillips could be correct the problem however is that we do not know the details of how he arrived at his conclusion and just how qualified he was to give an opinion other than being a doctor present at the time. I think it would be a stretch to remove Stride from the Canonicals based primarily on his opinion.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

Thanks Michael. I'm a little intrigued because Dr Phillips didn't testify at the Eddowes inquest. Nor was he present at Nichols autopsy-that was carried out by Dr Llewellyn.

As I recall John it was a response to a reporters question, still haven't searched my home pc for the specific source.

The opinions of the physicians closest to the actual victims in the flesh are for me more reliable. I believe that First hand observation supersedes abilities to interpret something that someone else experienced and documented.

Phillips saw the most Canonicals. I haven't read anything that discredits his opinions, other than perhaps Bond... in comments on what he saw as the skill exhibited in all 5 Canonicals, so that's why Ive taken the position that we can safely remove Liz Stride from the Canonicals, and start to deal with a Single Ripper Event...perhaps influenced by the earlier event.

[The Good Michael]

To be fair to the physicians back then they didn't have the experience of serial killers as there is today. So any differences within the series of murders to them, might make them think different killers.

They also perhaps each wanted to be the "expert" on such things, making them look for ways to differ and to cancel out other "experts". There wasn't enough expertise to show any of them to be incorrect.

Mike