Can Mary-Jane Kelly ever be found?!

[Natalie Severn]

Will return to this tomorrow.Have not long been back from Wales and the drive took hours due to road works and what they described as an "incident"----took six and a half hours anyway so I "m ready to crash out.
Norma.

[Ben]

Paul Begg ,in the statement I gave ,demonstrates the opposite understanding to yours when considering the views of the doctors that saw the victims.

It's not a case of "understanding", Norma. It's a case of what's factually true, and what's factually false, and the notion that "most" doctors detected medical skill falls unquestionably into the latter catergory.

The reason The Ripper only "partially "severed that artery was because he was interrupted by a horse shying away from him in Dutfields Yard.

So that would mean the knife slipped just as the horse shied? Errrrmmm...!

[Natalie Severn]

Well you can plump for what you like ,Ben,but you would be deceiving yourself big time. Paul Begg ,in the statement I gave ,demonstrates the opposite understanding to yours when considering the views of the doctors that saw the victims.
The reason The Ripper only "partially "severed that artery was because he was interrupted by a horse shying away from him in Dutfields Yard.You dont argue with a horse.Its bigger than you.

[Ben]

Sorry Gareth and Mike. One more...

Hi Nats,

Well those are Paul Begg"s own words and they seem pretty straightforward to me viz that Dr Bond"s view was NOT shared by most of the doctors who had viewed the victims

He was no more or less at variance with the others than any other doctor, with the exception of Phillips, who really did advance a minority (i.e. consisting of him alone) view.

In Elizabeth Stride"s case Dr Phillips thought he recognised a knowledge about blood spurt and the theory of strangulation and subdue in the context of the carotid artery.Also in the sure use of the knife

Yes, and that's knowledge than can be acquired from killing people. If he knew about the carotid artery, why did he "partially sever" it? Dr. Brown thought the kidney extraction evinced skill, but three other doctors viewed the body and disagreed. I'm with the majority opinion. In Chapman's case the womb wasn't damaged. In Eddowes' case, it was. Either we invest inordinate significance in the hints "here and there" that the killer may have had knowledge, or we heed the far more plentiful hints (in my view and that of the majority of doctors) that he had little to no knowledge. I'd plump for that latter, but your mileage may vary.

All the best,
Ben

You see Sam...you do think she met her killer after she had been asleep....

Or is this another of your "shell" games?

Cheers G.

[Sam Flynn]

Geez Sam, I dont know....she'd be what, ...146 years old now?

I have this theory that she was a Galapagos tortoise, Mike, and that the Ripper sneaked into her shell whilst she was asleep.

I think there's still a faint possibility that the true Mary Jane Kelly will one day be found.

Geez Sam, I dont know....she'd be what, ...146 years old now?

She might not even remember being murdered at that age.

All the best my friend.

[Sam Flynn]

I think there's still a faint possibility that the true Mary Jane Kelly will one day be found.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Ben,
Well those are Paul Begg"s own words and they seem pretty straightforward to me viz that Dr Bond"s view was NOT shared by most of the doctors who had viewed the victims.


I have to say here that it puzzles me that people would seem to expect to see a neatly "operated on " corpse in order to believe the Ripper may have possessed surgical skill or anatomical knowledge---as one might expect to find in a hospital mortuary for example.Personally,I wouldnt expect that at all whether the murders were comitted by the most senior surgeon in the country---a Dr Gull for example or a student doctor.The Ripper was either deranged , acting out his fantasies in a risky situation in darkness or looking over his shoulder in case a policeman suddenly walked into his murder zone.Who could perform "consistently" in such dire circumstances?The answer I believe is no one,neither surgeon or layman, because the odds are so against a neatly and methodically executed series of murders in such circumstances.So what we have is a series of brutal murders performed in the open air, on women who were clad in heavy garments some in stays,the murders mostly executed in a back entry in a heck of a hurry.Is it really any wonder that Annie Chapman"s murder was different fro Catherine Eddowes?Wouldnt it be truly astonishing if somehow the series all exhibited exactly the same injuries?All you could expect from any such murderer is some evidence, HERE AND THERE----not consistently-----hinting at him knowing what he was about.
In Elizabeth Stride"s case Dr Phillips thought he recognised a knowledge about blood spurt and the theory of strangulation and subdue in the context of the carotid artery.Also in the sure use of the knife.
In Catherine Eddowes case, Dr Brown believed that only someone knowledgable about certain membranes that cover the kidney could have removed it in such a swift way-especially in the brief time allocated in MItre Square.
In Annie Chapman"s case there was again evidence of the removal of a desired organ,the womb,swiftly without butchery.Ok the bladder was damaged------maybe the murderer wasnt INTERESTED in the bladder----whereas the womb meant something to him.So no, you do not have consistency,neatness etc but you have "hints" of training/expertise/experience-whatever, that a trained man of medicine,viewing the corpses "in the flesh"would note.

Cheers
Norma

[Ben]

They were all at "variance", but more doctors agreed with Bond's general premise than disgreed. If you want a true minority view, look no further than Phillips at Hanbury Street. More doctors believed that the mutilations evinced little or no skill, and if Begg's arguing that this was minority view (which I don't really think he is), then he's wrong.

Again, I'm interested in primary sources and contemporary evidence. Modern opinons do not ennervate or invalidate primary sources and contemporary evidence....even if they're quoted in capital letters.

[Natalie Severn]

from Paul Begg,Jack the Ripper,The Definitive History.

from Dr Bond"s report extract given on page 245:

Dr Bond on the Ripper:

[of the "quiet,inoffensive ,neatly and respectably dressed,middle aged man" Dr Bond sees as "Jack the Ripper", Dr Bond writes on November 10th 1888, "He is probably living among respectable persons who have some knowledge of his character and habits .....etc etc ."

Paul Begg,writes:

Bond"s report is highly speculative,his deductions befitting Sherlock Holmes,and his view that the murderer exhibited NO ANATOMICAL KNOWLEDGE OR SURGICAL SKILL OR EVEN BASIC DISSECTING KNOWLEDGE OF EVEN A SLAUGHTERER OR BUTCHER WAS AT VARIANCE WITH THE OPINION OF MOST OTHER DOCTORS WHO HAD VIEWED VICTIMS OF JACK THE RIPPER.

ALL ON PAGE 245 of Begg"s book.
Norma

[Ben]

The "irreputable fact" is that Dr Bond had not viewed "in the flesh "four of these the Ripper"s five "canonical" victims

Doesn't matter, Norma.

Does not matter.

He was professionally qualified to opine as to whether or not the contents of another doctor's report tallied well with the conclusions that other doctor arrived at from it. If they didn't mesh up, it was his professional duty to say so. Unless Phillips carelessly or deliberately omitted details from his report, the salient details were all there for any qualified doctor to draw assessments from. Bond could have said "Hang on, there's nothing remotely indicative of skill in this crude butchery. Clearly Phillips didn't tell me everything", but he knew better from experience that a colleague as experienced as Phillips would have passed on everything.

I can cite a number of other quotes from various writers to support my statement that the majority of MAJOR writers on the Ripper accept that the doctors were mostly in agreement that the Ripper had anatomical and medical skill.

Who cares?

If they're saying that about the doctors (which I doubt), they're factually in error. Simple as that. I've been concentrating on the actual evidence and primary sources from the time of the murders, not the opinions of secondary modern sources however "MAJOR" they may be considered, and if any one of the latter is suggesting that the doctors were "mostly in agreement" that the killer had "medical skill", they are wrong.

Best wishes,
Ben

[Natalie Severn]

No I'm not, Norma. I'm stating irrefutable facts.

How does Bond's profile impact upon his ability to perform an autopsy? Answer - not at all. And even if I was "out of step with all the current major (etc etc)...writers" (which I dispute) how would that impact on the irrefutable facts I outlined above? Answer - again, not at all.

Ben

The "irreputable fact" Ben, is that Dr Bond came in at the 11th hour as did Robert Anderson.Four of the Rippers victims were already dead and buried.
The "irreputable fact" is that Dr Bond had not viewed "in the flesh "four of these the Ripper"s five "canonical" victims.He had viewed only the most butchered corpse of all- that of Mary Kelly--a site few could stomach without being traumatised.
It was on the sight of this horrific "butchery"of Mary Kelly that he based his assessment of the Ripper "medical knowledge".
Anyway,why not take up Paul Begg on this-----I have given you the page and book title it comes from and when I get back I can cite a number of other quotes from various writers to support my statement that the majority of MAJOR writers on the Ripper accept that the doctors were mostly in agreement that the Ripper had anatomical and medical skill.Why not discuss it with Paul Begg who often writes on the other site?
Best
Norma

[Natalie Severn]

Michael,
Some really first rate thoughts and a credible tying together of the various threads of circumstantial evidence and more recently recovered clues-e g the Mitre Square Post office robbery of same night/weekend[?] as Mitre square murder--was it just co-incidence or could it be the reason for the visit of all these dignitaries,including the Royal Ulster Constabulary to Millers Court a month later? etc.
The holding together of these various factors while looking at the case from different perspectives -just to see whether any of them coalesce and begin to build a realistic picture!
Cheers

Norma

[Ben]

You are seriously out of step here Ben,with the consensus of most of the doctors who had "viewed " victims of Jack the Ripper-as was Dr Bond

No I'm not, Norma. I'm stating irrefutable facts.

How does Bond's profile impact upon his ability to perform an autopsy? Answer - not at all. And even if I was "out of step with all the current major (etc etc)...writers" (which I dispute) how would that impact on the irrefutable facts I outlined above? Answer - again, not at all.

Ben