Who was killed by Jack the Ripper?

[Fiver]

The majority of votes, by far, favour including Martha Tabram on the list of Jack the Ripper's victims.

However, there was no evidence of the kind of mutilation (e.g., disembowelment, organ removal, deliberate post-mortem cutting) that characterised the next Ripper murders.

I include Tabram because.
* The majority of wounds were after the fatal wound.
* The amount of damage done to the corpse and the areas targeted.
* Posing of the body, flat on the back with the skirts raised.
* The timing of the murders. All occurred on overcast days with very little moonlight.

[Fiver]

The murder of Tabram appeared to be a wild uncontrolled stabbing frenzy. Two different weapons may have been used, and one of them might have been a dagger or bayonet. She was with soldiers all evening. The murders of the canonical five seem to have been comparatively cold efficient executions by someone who knew exactly what he was doing, as he quickly and silently slit their throats. I am inclined to exclude Tabram, and admit to reservations about Stride (maybe, but not clearly proven), and a bigger reservation with Kelly, as it is difficult to be certain what he was doing. Was it some form of profound vengeance, was he just crazy, or was he making such an appalling mess of her that the body couldn't be positively identified, as some suggest, because it wasn't Kelly? I really cannot decide what the killer was doing.

The C5 murders were much better than Tabram's for quickly killing the victims, which I think was due to evolving technique. The mutilations clearly had a strong emotional component, like Tabram being stabbed a few dozen times.

[Marcel Prost]

I am inclined to exclude Tabram, and admit to reservations about Stride (maybe, but not clearly proven), and a bigger reservation with Kelly, as it is difficult to be certain what he was doing.

Hi Doctored Whatsit,

That was also my reasoning when voting. I can only firmly believe that Nichols, Chapman, and Eddowes were killed by the same man.

Tabram, Stride, and Kelly are different and cannot be attributed to the same murderer with the same degree of certainty.

I may, of course, be completely wrong.

Almost everything about Jack the Ripper is deeply mysterious, but Mary Jane Kelly is truly, as Churchill would say, a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.

[Lewis C]

Hi all,

The majority of votes, by far, favour including Martha Tabram on the list of Jack the Ripper's victims.

However, there was no evidence of the kind of mutilation (e.g., disembowelment, organ removal, deliberate post-mortem cutting) that characterised the next Ripper murders.

The most recent posts in this thread discuss whether or not the Ripper had anatomical or even surgical knowledge.

I don't have a definitive opinion on this issue (even doctors at the time were divided), nor on Tabram's inclusion, but I am left with this question: if the killer had great anatomical knowledge, why did he ‘only’ stab Tabram? Why not put his knife skills to use?

I am not trying to defend any particular theory, just curious about the absence of deeper mutilations on Martha Tabram, if she was indeed the victim of a killer with anatomical knowledge.

Hi Marcel,

It could be that Tabram's killer had anatomical knowledge, but didn't choose to utilize it on that occasion.

[Lewis C]

Hi Doctored Whatsit,

That was also my reasoning when voting. I can only firmly believe that Nichols, Chapman, and Eddowes were killed by the same man.

Tabram, Stride, and Kelly are different and cannot be attributed to the same murderer with the same degree of certainty.

I may, of course, be completely wrong.

Almost everything about Jack the Ripper is deeply mysterious, but Mary Jane Kelly is truly, as Churchill would say, a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.

I can't say that I'm certain about Tabram, Stride, or Kelly, but I voted C6 because I thought that all 3 more likely than not were Ripper murders.

[Marcel Prost]

Hi Marcel,

It could be that Tabram's killer had anatomical knowledge, but didn't choose to utilize it on that occasion.

Hi Lewis C,

Certainly, Tabram's killer could have had anatomical knowledge and not applied it because it could have been his first kill and he had not yet decided on his definitive MO. It is an intriguing possibility.

But when it comes to finding out who killed whom, we always come up against the question of whether or not such anatomical knowledge existed in the first place.

Like the doctors of the time, several members of this forum have definitive opinions in one field or another.

I read the arguments for and against with great interest, but remain undecided.

If we could reach a consensus on the question of anatomical knowledge, we could certainly narrow down the list of suspects.

[GBinOz]

Nope, none of the doctors spoke of any medical skill whatever. They talked about anatomical knowledge and skill, and someone accustomed to cutting up animals was given as an example, and also someone accustomed to removing innards with one sweep of a knife. These are deliberate pointers to butcher/slaughterers and not medically trained people.

Beg to differ Doc, although I do agree that the removing of innards with one sweep of a knife is a pointer to butcher/slaughterers, but that comment was directed towards the Chapman case.

This is from Brown's testimony at the Eddowes inquest:
[Coroner] Would you consider that the person who inflicted the wounds possessed anatomical skill? - He must have had a good deal of knowledge as to the position of the abdominal organs, and the way to remove them.

Knowing where Eddowes organs were located and how to remove them amounts to anatomical knowledge and surgical dissection skills.

Here is Prosector's opinion:

Bond was a curious character. Although he was described as a surgeon he was in fact appointed as Surgeon to the Out Patients Department of the Westminster Hospital which meant that he hardly got to do any operative surgery himself. He committed suicide by jumping out of a window in 1901 ostensibly because he was having trouble sleeping but he was also suffering from a urinary stricture almost certainly the result of gonorrhoea.

Although he was adamant that Jack did not possess surgical skill or anatomical knowledge don't forget that the only victim that he saw was Mary Jane and I don't think anyone could have deduced anything from that killing. She certainly was butchered and very little evidence of skill or otherwise was left although the way he extracted her heart from below through the abdominal cavity did, in my opinion, show some evidence of anatomical expertise. It's not an easy approach to the heart (he couldn't get at it through the chest although he did try because he had no rib retractors).

I have studied all the post mortem reports in detail and those of Phillips and Brown stand out as models of their kind. Detailed, accurate and thoughtful as you'd expect from two experienced police surgeons in one of the most busy crime and accident ridden areas in 19th century Britain. They both though that the Ripper had anatomical knowledge and some degree of surgical skill but that he wasn't a fully fledged doctor. I would entirely agree with that. There is clear evidence that his technique improved from Polly Nichols to Kate Eddowes - he was on a learning curve.

I believe that his motive was to make the killings all have the same 'signature' so that people would connect them, not to carry out perfect surgical operations. There simply wasn't time for that even if he had been the best surgeon in the world.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

The murder of Tabram appeared to be a wild uncontrolled stabbing frenzy. Two different weapons may have been used, and one of them might have been a dagger or bayonet. She was with soldiers all evening. The murders of the canonical five seem to have been comparatively cold efficient executions by someone who knew exactly what he was doing, as he quickly and silently slit their throats. I am inclined to exclude Tabram, and admit to reservations about Stride (maybe, but not clearly proven), and a bigger reservation with Kelly, as it is difficult to be certain what he was doing. Was it some form of profound vengeance, was he just crazy, or was he making such an appalling mess of her that the body couldn't be positively identified, as some suggest, because it wasn't Kelly? I really cannot decide what the killer was doing.

Hi Doc,

Largely agree. I do note that Eddowes and Kelly were the only two victims that had their faces attacked. There is a very good dissertation by Sam Flynn here:

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

Looking at the diagram of the facial injuries in Sam's dissertation we see the eyelids slit and arrow cuts pointing to those slits. The nose is cut off and the mouth has been cut, again with arrow pointer cuts. Is there some symbolism being expressed? You have seen too much, and poked your nose into my business and you're not going to tell anyone? Same with Kelly.

Cheers, George

[Fernglas]

Nope, none of the doctors spoke of any medical skill whatever. They talked about anatomical knowledge and skill, and someone accustomed to cutting up animals was given as an example, and also someone accustomed to removing innards with one sweep of a knife. These are deliberate pointers to butcher/slaughterers and not medically trained people.

Hi!
To a certain extend, that is hairsplitting about how we name the skill and knowledge level set of Jack on this front, because the reports show that he had the necessary knowledge and skills to do a kidney removal (like the doctors of his time would have also done) in the dark, on his knees and under time pressure. He could have simply cut it out, no matter the mess and damage done since murder was his intent, but this did not happen. He took the "long way", going in following the same steps of a "standard" kidney extraction and he was fast. No total amateur would be able to do so, no matter how we call his abilities, be it anatomical, medical, surgical, butcherial.

During the Kelly murder, the killer removed the heart with a pericardium fenestration, which is not the first thought an amateur or even butcher will have, since you can remove the heart "in one go", simply cutting it out with the pericardium still around it.
The Ripper showed considerable anatomical and very neutrally formulated, "knife" skills, strongly hinting towards some medical/surgical knowledge. I do not say he was a full doctor, that is a debatable possibility, but the Ripper was no stranger to a surgical ward or morgue, full stop!
I think a lot of people discussing here totally underestimate his "speedy handiwork" and overestimate the assumptions of old doctors, who not all saw the surgical ward often. It is telling that the old doctors who were doing surgery and autopsy regularly, like Brown and Phillips, theorised that JtR had considerable skills and knowledge.

Anyone who ever held a scalpell to use it in a surgery or autopsy, will tell you today that the Ripper was no dud, esp. under adverse conditions. There is no way he was a complete amateur.

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi!
To a certain extend, that is hairsplitting about how we name the skill and knowledge level set of Jack on this front, because the reports show that he had the necessary knowledge and skills to do a kidney removal (like the doctors of his time would have also done) in the dark, on his knees and under time pressure. He could have simply cut it out, no matter the mess and damage done since murder was his intent, but this did not happen. He took the "long way", going in following the same steps of a "standard" kidney extraction and he was fast. No total amateur would be able to do so, no matter how we call his abilities, be it anatomical, medical, surgical, butcherial.

During the Kelly murder, the killer removed the heart with a pericardium fenestration, which is not the first thought an amateur or even butcher will have, since you can remove the heart "in one go", simply cutting it out with the pericardium still around it.
The Ripper showed considerable anatomical and very neutrally formulated, "knife" skills, strongly hinting towards some medical/surgical knowledge. I do not say he was a full doctor, that is a debatable possibility, but the Ripper was no stranger to a surgical ward or morgue, full stop!
I think a lot of people discussing here totally underestimate his "speedy handiwork" and overestimate the assumptions of old doctors, who not all saw the surgical ward often. It is telling that the old doctors who were doing surgery and autopsy regularly, like Brown and Phillips, theorised that JtR had considerable skills and knowledge.

Anyone who ever held a scalpell to use it in a surgery or autopsy, will tell you today that the Ripper was no dud, esp. under adverse conditions. There is no way he was a complete amateur.

I agree


There's also no way that a professional clinician would admit to the Ripper having possessed any advanced medical and/or surgical knowledge, because it would then shine the light of suspicion onto them and imply that one of their own was the killer.

Plus there's a sense that a bunch of older white male middle-class doctors having a need to protect their reputation and be driven by their inherent egotistical nature.

[Doctored Whatsit]

I agree


There's also no way that a professional clinician would admit to the Ripper having possessed any advanced medical and/or surgical knowledge, because it would then shine the light of suspicion onto them and imply that one of their own was the killer.

Plus there's a sense that a bunch of older white male middle-class doctors having a need to protect their reputation and be driven by their inherent egotistical nature.

I think we all understand this proposal. However, the suggestion that several very experienced police surgeons would deliberately conspire to mislead the police in an atrocious series of murders is stretching belief.

[Fernglas]

I agree


There's also no way that a professional clinician would admit to the Ripper having possessed any advanced medical and/or surgical knowledge, because it would then shine the light of suspicion onto them and imply that one of their own was the killer.

Plus there's a sense that a bunch of older white male middle-class doctors having a need to protect their reputation and be driven by their inherent egotistical nature.

Hi and thanks!

I definitely agree with you too. Even as a non-native English speaker I can recognise that some of the old doctors used certain, how shall I put it, "circumventional" phrasing when it came to their assumptions about the Ripper and his medical/surgical knowledge. I cannot be sure, but very confident, that at least the doctors Baxter, Brown and Phillips thought the Ripper to be one of their own in the widest sense, as in a person with substantial surgery or autopsy experience. e.g. an assistant.

In my opinion the Ripper was either a medical student, who did not became a doctor or ended the studies successfully, but did not work much in this profession. Or he was a member of the surgical team in a ward/hospital or morgue.
Since there is a clearly rising skill level from Nichols to Eddowes, I estimate Jack was not a daily operator, but had regular experience in wahtever form it came. Kelly is an outlier due to the Ripper having had time, but even there advanced knowledge for the time (pericardium fenestration) blinked up.

[FrankO]

But when it comes to finding out who killed whom, we always come up against the question of whether or not such anatomical knowledge existed in the first place.

Hi Marcel,

I look at it from an another angle. As I said in an earlier post, the Ripper risked his very neck staying on the crime scene, mutilating his victims. That's why I always think that, when looking at the murders, the mutilations or lack thereof is more important than the question of how much or little anatomical knowledge or surgical skill the perpetrator had. That's why I'd include Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly as certain Ripper victims and Tabram as a probable one (mainly because of the fact that her skirts were thrown up & that she had a cut to her lower abdomen). In addition, I think that Milwood and Wilson may have been early attacks by him, but am not married to the notion.

All the best,
Frank

[FrankO]

When Kelly fashioned a bespoke key to escape confinement, he went on the run.

During that period he got a job at an undertakers.

He worked with the recently deceased every working day.


Could that be considered an interest in post-mortem?

Hi RD,

If that's really what happened, then yes, that could be considered an interest in post-mortem or have nurtured his interest in it.

Cheers,
Frank

[FrankO]

I can only suggest that Deeming's lack of 'post-mortem interest' might have been due to the fact that they were family members rather than unknown street victims.

Hi George,

As to what you write here, I think that a serial killer with a taste for post-mortem mutilation, which, as I think you know, is a rare breed, would tend to choose victims that he could, in fact, mutilate. I can imagine that an occasional non-mutilated victim will/could be found among this type of serial killer, but an/his entire family and a second wife goes a bit too far for me. In other words, suggesting it might have been due to the fact that his victims were family members, as some do in Klosowski's case, doesn't convince me.

Cheers,
Frank