Double throat cuts

[Wickerman]

Didn't Bond say he produced his report in conjunction with Phillips?

The press reported that yes, the article suggested Phillips agreed with most of Bond's conclusions. We still have no opinion from Phillips himself beyond an occasional claim by a reporter to be offering one.

My position basically is that each doctor had his own definition of 'skill'.

[Joshua Rogan]

I do not remember reading any opinion by Phillips on the level of skill displayed at Millers court. Can you point one out?

Didn't Bond say he produced his report in conjunction with Phillips?

[Wickerman]

And by not giving an opinion he presumably didn't feel the need to contradict Dr Bond!

Ah, so Phillips didn't give an opinion then?
Sorry, I thought you said he did.

It appears Phillips was consistent in his dealings with the press - no comment!

The only legitimate opinion we receive from Phillips is his inquest testimony. He described the room & the body after he entered on that Friday afternoon.
After a cursory (preliminary?) examination he determined she had died from a cut to the throat. That is all we know from Phillips's own mouth, isn't it?

[Sam Flynn]

Both you, I and everyone else, are in that same boat. Even worse in fact, because we do not even have access to the autopsy notes on those murders.

So, in truth, how can we second guess the opinions of those doctors?

I'm not second-guessing anything. I'm going by the surviving testimony of, among others, Drs Llewellyn, Bagster Phillips, Brown and - yes - Bond. And, by testmony, I mean that I'm taking into account such autopsy notes as survive, and also what was recorded at the inquests in official and press sources.

Read objectively, it is beyond question that the killer's mutilations and eviscerations were crude and inconsistent, and that very little skill - and certainly not any significant skill - was in evidence in any one of the "C4" murders.

[John G]

I do not remember reading any opinion by Phillips on the level of skill displayed at Millers court. Can you point one out?

And by not giving an opinion he presumably didn't feel the need to contradict Dr Bond!

[Wickerman]

Despite what (some of) the doctors may have said, I struggle to see evidence of any particular skill; on the contrary, the Ripper seems to have made a god-awful mess of Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly, in differing degrees. Of the "C4" (canonical evisceration victims), I suppose the best case that could be made for some amount of "skill" is the single (albeit extremely ragged) incision he made in Eddowes' abdomen. In terms of how the mutilations and/or eviscerations were executed, there is very little consistency throughout the series, which strongly suggests that whoever did it was not possessed of anything like technique. I would expect a significantly skilled person to have shown significantly more consistency.

Gareth.

Do you recall Bond pointing out that he had only seen the notes to the previous murders?
Notes being the autopsy reports.
He was admitting to being somewhat inhibited by not being present at those autopsies.

Both you, I and everyone else, are in that same boat. Even worse in fact, because we do not even have access to the autopsy notes on those murders.

So, in truth, how can we second guess the opinions of those doctors?

[Sam Flynn]

In respect of the other C5 victims who were eviscerated, a significant amount of skill was apparent

Despite what (some of) the doctors may have said, I struggle to see evidence of any particular skill; on the contrary, the Ripper seems to have made a god-awful mess of Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly, in differing degrees. Of the "C4" (canonical evisceration victims), I suppose the best case that could be made for some amount of "skill" is the single (albeit extremely ragged) incision he made in Eddowes' abdomen. In terms of how the mutilations and/or eviscerations were executed, there is very little consistency throughout the series, which strongly suggests that whoever did it was not possessed of anything like technique. I would expect a significantly skilled person to have shown significantly more consistency.

[Wickerman]

I think Dr Bond's overall conclusions were distorted by the fact that he believed Kelly to be a JtR victim but hadn't had the opportunity to view any of the other victims, i.e. on that basis he assumed that the same lack of skill would be apparent with the other victims. This was clearly an error.

Thus, Dr Phillips, for example, did carry out the post mortem on Chapman and Dr Bond was, in respect of this victim, reliant on his [Dr Phillips'] notes. As Dr Phillips concluded that the perpetrator had demonstrated a significant level of skill Dr Bond was really in no position to contradict him.

Finally, I would point out that, in respect of Kelly, Dr Phillips did not contradict Dr Bond, i.e. by suggesting that Kelly's perpetrator had demonstrated skill.

I do not remember reading any opinion by Phillips on the level of skill displayed at Millers court. Can you point one out?

[John G]

Certainly, but other doctors who saw previous victims said they observed a degree of skill.

It's a subjective opinion.

I think Dr Bond's overall conclusions were distorted by the fact that he believed Kelly to be a JtR victim but hadn't had the opportunity to view any of the other victims, i.e. on that basis he assumed that the same lack of skill would be apparent with the other victims. This was clearly an error.

Thus, Dr Phillips, for example, did carry out the post mortem on Chapman and Dr Bond was, in respect of this victim, reliant on his [Dr Phillips'] notes. As Dr Phillips concluded that the perpetrator had demonstrated a significant level of skill Dr Bond was really in no position to contradict him.

Finally, I would point out that, in respect of Kelly, Dr Phillips did not contradict Dr Bond, i.e. by suggesting that Kelly's perpetrator had demonstrated skill.

[Wickerman]

We have Dr Bond's opinion concerning JtR's skill level,....

Certainly, but other doctors who saw previous victims said they observed a degree of skill.

It's a subjective opinion.

[John G]

To be honest, there is no comment as to the presence or lack of skill, specifically with the removal of Kelly's organs.
Is the random removal of lumps of flesh a reasonable indication of skill?
There's no neat way to carve up someone face either.

Not to be facetious but, how would we expect a skillful person to remove lumps of flesh, in squares, strips?
Battlefield surgeons were not always neat, but they were skilled.

I would also offer that just because the killer was inside, out of public eyes, there was no surety that he would be left alone, anyone could come to the door, or window for that matter, any other client, friend, neighbor.

And, finally, given the seemingly unfinished state of the mutilations, how sure can we be that he wasn't disturbed at Millers Court.
The condition of the body almost looks like he just stopped, and left the scene in the middle of carving her up.
If that is the case then we cannot be sure what his final intentions were.

We have Dr Bond's opinion concerning JtR's skill level,l, which could only be substantively based on his assessment of the Kelly murder as this was the only C5 post mortem that he attended(compare and contrast his assessment of the Whitehall Torso where he did discern a significant level of skill). Moreover, in respect of Kelly, no other medical professional contradicted him.

Finally, there isn't a shred of evidence that the killer was disturbed: this is an opinion wholly based upon unfounded speculation.

[Wickerman]

To be honest, there is no comment as to the presence or lack of skill, specifically with the removal of Kelly's organs.
Is the random removal of lumps of flesh a reasonable indication of skill?
There's no neat way to carve up someone face either.

Not to be facetious but, how would we expect a skillful person to remove lumps of flesh, in squares, strips?
Battlefield surgeons were not always neat, but they were skilled.

I would also offer that just because the killer was inside, out of public eyes, there was no surety that he would be left alone, anyone could come to the door, or window for that matter, any other client, friend, neighbor.

And, finally, given the seemingly unfinished state of the mutilations, how sure can we be that he wasn't disturbed at Millers Court.
The condition of the body almost looks like he just stopped, and left the scene in the middle of carving her up.
If that is the case then we cannot be sure what his final intentions were.

[John G]

As usual, Harry I agree with you. I don't see how Kelly is an outlier other than being killed indoors.

c.d.

There are two main factors as I see it: objective and skill. In respect of the other C5 victims who were eviscerated, a significant amount of skill was apparent, whereas in respect of Kelly the perpetrator demonstrated no skill whatsoever, despite the fact that he was under nothing like the same level of time pressures. Moreover, the motive appeared to be the total destruction of the body, rather than the skilful removal of body organs.

That said, I still think on balance of probability that Kelly was a JtR victim, but that's simply down to temporal and geographical factors.

In summary, if Kelly was a JtR victim I think he must have been either heavily intoxicated, suffering from a mental breakdown, or driven by a personal motive.

[c.d.]

As usual, Harry I agree with you. I don't see how Kelly is an outlier other than being killed indoors.

c.d.

[Harry D]

Overall, I still think that Kelly probably was a JtR victim, but she was certainly something of an outlier.

Was MJK a prostitute? Yes. Was she killed in Whitechapel? Yes. Was her throat cut? Yes. Was she mutilated and had her organs removed? Yes. Of course, she was more extensively butchered than the other victims but then she was the only one killed indoors. You might as well say Stride was the outlier, as she only had her throat cut and there was no evidence she was soliciting.