Who saw Jack ?

[Jeff Leahy]

Now here's a first on casebook. I agree with you entirely.

will you be at conference CD? I should happily buy you a pint.

Pirate

[c.d.]

I guess its a question of view point. I'm just going by Jonathon's interview with Tim Riordan http://www.casebook.org/podcast/listen.html?id=70

Pirate

Hi Pirate,

I think it is more a question of context. When the doctors who performed the autopsies were being asked at the inquest if what they had seen indicated that the killer had medical knowledge, I don't think the implication was could the killer be an herbalist. I think it is pretty clear that they were being asked could the killer be an actual doctor or someone who had picked up a good degree of medical training or knowledge somewhere.

c.d.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Pirate,

The point being though that Tumblety had no right to call himself a doctor either in terms of licensing or education.

c.d.

I guess its a question of view point. I'm just going by Jonathon's interview with Tim Riordan http://www.casebook.org/podcast/listen.html?id=70

Pirate

Hi Shelley,

Tumblety was not a doctor and held no medical degree of any kind.

c.d.

So that's why he was reffered to as 'Quack Doctor'....He probably knew a few bits and bobs, it's just that it may have been the letter that stated a likely suspect ' An American Doctor ' so that's where it comes from that's stuck in my mind of being a Doctor. I suppose in the time of 1888 he wasn't classed a qualified Doctor in the systems terms, such as Dr Brown or Dr Bagster Philips etc. Herbal medicine probably didn't come into that band...It still has trouble even today i think, but perhaps a bit more accepted than 1888.

[c.d.]

Hi Pirate,

The point being though that Tumblety had no right to call himself a doctor either in terms of licensing or education.

c.d.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Shelley,

Tumblety was not a doctor and held no medical degree of any kind.

c.d.

Well a practitioner of herbal medicine. Some people swear by it today.

cheers CD

Pirate

[c.d.]

Hi Shelley,

Tumblety was not a doctor and held no medical degree of any kind.

c.d.

[Ben]

Hi M&P,

The dates of the murders seem to indicate towards that being the case, as the likeliest explanation being is that Jack worked weekly.

Costermongers and dock labourers also worked weekly, so I wouldn't take the dates of the murders as an indication that the killer had any more money than the average doss house-dwelling Joe. We don't known that he had any intention to store the organs for prolonged periods of time. As for the jacket, no, I'd say the garment in question was the opposite of expensive and stylish and was undoubtedly a contributory factor in Lawende's perception of him as "rather rough and shabby".

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Not to disengage from your current conversation, but going back to the 'sailor vs. gentile' look of the Ripper, and assuming the man Lawende saw was Jack, would something like this be what he was wearing? Obviously not the exact design, as I doubt Victorians in Whitechapel were trendy and modern, but the colour et cetera. I think the 'sailor-like' appearance was mostly down to the reddish neckerchief, but would a jacket like Lawende's man be an expensive/'stylish' thing to have back in those days? I think I recall him still being rather shabby, but it'd be interesting to find out if perhaps Jack did have a bit of money, maybe enough to afford his own room where he could've stored his organs and implements in privacy. The dates of the murders seem to indicate towards that being the case, as the likeliest explanation being is that Jack worked weekly.

[Ben]

Oh, so why do some believe that Roslyn ' O ' Donston was the ripper when he had medical knowledge as a Doctor and been in the army, and that of Tumbelty An American Doctor if all as you say, about Doctor's reports involvement in the Whitechapel Murders is an absolute account of ' Not Having Medical Knowledge ' then, How do you account for that?

I don't believe the Stephenson and Tumblety theories are preferred primarily on the basis of "medical knowledge".

Not to mention my distinct recollection of a Doctor's report stating that a membrane covering the womb is often overlooked, so changed his mind about the killer not having any medical knowledge & that Doctor was the only one to have previously said ' Having no medical knowledge ' and the only one.

I'm afraid you've distinctly recollected wrong. No doctor changed his mind, and the one who mentioned the detail of the membrane covering the kidney (not the womb) was in the minority of medical opinion when it came to the degree of medical knowledge believed to be possessed by the killer.

Hi Shelley,

No, no doctor changed his mind.

Dr. Brown believed that Eddowes' killer may have been accustomed to cutting up animals (thus a butcher or slaughterer), but three other doctors who viewed the corpse - Saunders, Sequeira, and Phillips - didn't believe that the murderer even posessed that degree of anatomical knowledge.

Oh, so why do some believe that Roslyn ' O ' Donston was the ripper when he had medical knowledge as a Doctor and been in the army, and that of Tumbelty An American Doctor if all as you say, about Doctor's reports involvement in the Whitechapel Murders is an absolute account of ' Not Having Medical Knowledge ' then, How do you account for that?
Not to mention my distinct recollection of a Doctor's report stating that a membrane covering the womb is often overlooked, so changed his mind about the killer not having any medical knowledge & that Doctor was the only one to have previously said ' Having no medical knowledge ' and the only one.
I think we have to disagree.

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi Shelley

As Ben says, this has been looked at for a long time and most expert opinion is agreed that Jack required no medical knowledge to carry out his acts. They were simply acts of ferocious butchery.

As to your witness if you refer to Anderson's witness, it almost certainly wasn't Lawende..

Which probably means it was Schwartz.

However as out-side chances you have Levy, pipeman and Hutchinson.

Pirate

[Ben]

Hi Shelley,

No, no doctor changed his mind.

Dr. Brown believed that Eddowes' killer may have been accustomed to cutting up animals (thus a butcher or slaughterer), but three other doctors who viewed the corpse - Saunders, Sequeira, and Phillips - didn't believe that the murderer even posessed that degree of anatomical knowledge.

Ben,
This has not been my understanding from reports actually seen. I understood that it was the same doctor that changed his mind saying that the killer had no medical knowledge to that of he did possess some medical knowledge, because of a membrane which covered the organ.

[Ben]

Hi Shelley,

The actual preponderance of medical evidence pointed away from a medically-skilled ripper, and only one doctor specifically implicated someone from the medical profession (the same one who controversially ruled out Eddowes as a ripper victim). The others suggested either someone accustomed to cutting up animals or, even more frequently, someone with no skill whatsoever beyond that which they perfected "on the job" of cutting up prostitutes. In other words, the preponderance of evidence is very compatible indeed with someone shabbily-dressed or with a sailor-like appearance.

It was Lawende who gave the latter description, which was clearly taken seriously by police, certainly more so than some of the "well-dressed" alleged sightings.

Incidentally, I'm not at all sure that "most genteel men were not stopped by police". In fact, during the early stages of the Whitechapel murders (and certainly in the wake of coroner Baxter's dodgy conclusions being made public), the police would have been interested in genteel folk.

Best regards,
Ben