Jack the Ripper-The Secret Police Files

[Sam Flynn]

Good to see you around Gareth,

Hope all is well with you chap.

Not so bad, Monty, me old mucker - hope you're good as well. Sorry I missed the gig in Nov, BTW. See you at the next one

[John G]

No, it does not. It points to anybody who for any reason would have been read up on the human frame. The victorian society was one of much curiosity, and there were boks aplenty dealing with anatomical issues, many of them containing illustrations where layers could be lifted, showing the situation of the organs. Equally, there were anatomical museums with waxworks showing the human anatomy. There were lots and lots of opportunities to inform yourself about the human framework. The working class were eager visitors of the anatomical museums. Regardless of how strongly you disagree, this is the plain truth.

To add, I don´t think we can judge Lechmere´s viability by Galloways views only. To begin with, Galloway retracted the surgeon stuff, and as you may be aware, Thomas Bond stated that the killer had no anatomical insights at all. How that "rules out" Lechmere, I fail to see. It´s sheer nonsense to claim so.

Looking at diagrams and waxworks doesn't amount to knowledge of applying surgical techniques. I would, however, agree that the medical testimonies cannot be entirely relied upon. In fact, I seem to remember making the same argument some time ago, when a certain poster was relying on the medical testimonies to argue that both JtR and the Torso perpetrator (s) had exceptional knife skills.

[John G]

Trying to untangle the "one sweep of the knife" business, which seems hard enough. I have now read the Lancet article of the 29:th, only to find it references the inquest. But it seems the papers to a large degree abstained from quoting Phillips - both the Daily Telegraph and the Times state something like Phillips saying "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."
So the part where the "one sweep of the knife" appears is left out. And it remains that it is said that the Lancet quoted from the written report in this instance. It may well be, however that they quoted from Phillips´ own verbal reading out of his report.

Thanks for this, Fisherman. It therefore appears that the evidence is inconclusive as to whether Dr Phillips made the "one sweep of the knife" comment or not. However, if he did, I would argue that his conclusions are undermined, because what is suggested would be a virtually impossible task.

[Monty]

Not so bad, Monty, me old mucker - hope you're good as well. Sorry I missed the gig in Nov, BTW. See you at the next one

Glad to see you're good.

Sure. You missed an excellent event chap.

Monty
😉

[Fisherman]

Thanks for this, Fisherman. It therefore appears that the evidence is inconclusive as to whether Dr Phillips made the "one sweep of the knife" comment or not. However, if he did, I would argue that his conclusions are undermined, because what is suggested would be a virtually impossible task.

... which explains perfectly why Phillips was so impressed. And it´s not impossible, it´s hard.
As for "inconclusive", most of what is said and done in this case measures up to that mark. The better guess is that it was what he said. Thinking it was not involves accepting that the Lancet journalist fiddled with the text, and that is never as good an option as the opposite.

[Fisherman]

John G: Looking at diagrams and waxworks doesn't amount to knowledge of applying surgical techniques.

Nor did Galloway say that this was so. It was never about techniques in the first place, it was about cutting skills, by the way.

I would, however, agree that the medical testimonies cannot be entirely relied upon.

Wow. I mean: Wow. Making headway at last!

In fact, I seem to remember making the same argument some time ago, when a certain poster was relying on the medical testimonies to argue that both JtR and the Torso perpetrator (s) had exceptional knife skills.

You mean me? Sorry, but it was not me arguing that, it was the medicos. Like Phillips, who noticed that the killer did what you call "virtually impossible", and Galloway, who argued that the killer was MORE skilled with the knife than a surgeon. So they did the work for me, I just reiterated it.

[John G]

John G: Looking at diagrams and waxworks doesn't amount to knowledge of applying surgical techniques.

Nor did Galloway say that this was so. It was never about techniques in the first place, it was about cutting skills, by the way.

I would, however, agree that the medical testimonies cannot be entirely relied upon.

Wow. I mean: Wow. Making headway at last!

In fact, I seem to remember making the same argument some time ago, when a certain poster was relying on the medical testimonies to argue that both JtR and the Torso perpetrator (s) had exceptional knife skills.

You mean me? Sorry, but it was not me arguing that, it was the medicos. Like Phillips, who noticed that the killer did what you call "virtually impossible", and Galloway, who argued that the killer was MORE skilled with the knife than a surgeon. So they did the work for me, I just reiterated it.

This is what Phillip Harrison had to say about Chapman's evisceration:

"To remove the appendages, the uterus, the fallopian tubes and ovaries in one frenzied attack and one slice of the blade would be almost impossible. It is a very difficult and quite skilled undertaking to remove these organs carefully even by today's methods especially as the comment is that they were cleanly cut and the cut missed the rectum." (Marriott, 2013)

Of course, as you now concede, we do not even know that Dr Phillips made the statement; it's only what he was presumably reported as saying in The Lancet.

As for Dr Galloway, I would suggest he was attempting to dig himself out of a very big hole, after initially implying that the perpetrator was a medical professional. And, as Dr Biggs pointed out, in respect of the Rainham Torso:

"Generalisations cannot be used to comment on specific cases, and I find their assumption that a surgeon or anatomist could not have done such a good job because they are not cutting as regular as a hunter or butcher quite bizarre." (Marriott, 2013)

[John G]

... which explains perfectly why Phillips was so impressed. And it´s not impossible, it´s hard.
As for "inconclusive", most of what is said and done in this case measures up to that mark. The better guess is that it was what he said. Thinking it was not involves accepting that the Lancet journalist fiddled with the text, and that is never as good an option as the opposite.

And if Dr Phillips did say it, I would argue that his credibility is brought into question (which was possibly Dr Bond's assessment as well, as he arrived at some very different conclusion concerning the skill demonstrated by Chapman's eviscerator.

[Fisherman]

John G: This is what Phillip Harrison had to say about Chapman's evisceration:

"To remove the appendages, the uterus, the fallopian tubes and ovaries in one frenzied attack and one slice of the blade would be almost impossible. It is a very difficult and quite skilled undertaking to remove these organs carefully even by today's methods especially as the comment is that they were cleanly cut and the cut missed the rectum." (Marriott, 2013)

But Harrison did not see the result, did he? He speaks of the "uterus, the fallopian tubes and ovaries" and says nothing about half a bladder, for example. So he seems to be speaking of a surgically motivated operation, whereas the Chapman cut was something quite different.
Phillips said that one cut took the organs out (no matter whether he used the word "sweep" or not, this was what happened), and he was duly impressed by the knifework. We can make up stories today about near impossibilities, but we do not know the course of the knife that was used other than to some extent. Maybe it´s time for you to realize that if it WAS a hard thing to do, then that in itself can be why Phillips opined that a medical man would have been at work.

Of course, as you now concede, we do not even know that Dr Phillips made the statement; it's only what he was presumably reported as saying in The Lancet.

Not really, no - it was what he presumably had written in his report and read out aloud at the inquest. And he was not "presumably reported" as having said it - he was reported as having said it. You can skip the "presumably" and read the Lancet. It helps.
I cannot conclusively prove what was said. I can only conclude that the reasonable wording was the quoted one, since it tallied with the cutting work. That´s what I "concede", John. Nothing else.

As for Dr Galloway, I would suggest he was attempting to dig himself out of a very big hole, after initially implying that the perpetrator was a medical professional.

Suggest away. It is quite clear that it was the cutting work that impressed him, and not how the cutter lived up to the demands of careful surgery. To make my case, that is all that matters.

And, as Dr Biggs pointed out, in respect of the Rainham Torso:

"Generalisations cannot be used to comment on specific cases, and I find their assumption that a surgeon or anatomist could not have done such a good job because they are not cutting as regular as a hunter or butcher quite bizarre." (Marriott, 2013)

Isn´t it interesting that a doctor who has supplied nothing but generalized views should warn against generalisations, John? This time over, he is correct, though - if a butcher could hone his skills to perfection, then so could a surgeon.

But what does it matter? We know that what was done to the Rainham victim was not something a surgeon did in his everyday work. We have no indications of anything at all that could have been done by a surgeon only. All we have is a thoroughly impressed Galloway, who VERY clearly stated that it was the cutting per se that impressed him.
Once again, that is what it takes to make my point and case: The Rainham victim was cut in a very skilled manner, just as there was cutting work on Chapman that looked extremely skilled to another doctor (Phillips).
That ties the two cases together - we have two cases where medicos were extremely impressed with the cutting work.

You know what, John? That is a point vofavour of a shared identity. And that´s BEFORE we allow the abdominal flaps to clinch the matter. Wriggle as yu may, the connection is established as a near certainty.

[Fisherman]

And if Dr Phillips did say it, I would argue that his credibility is brought into question (which was possibly Dr Bond's assessment as well, as he arrived at some very different conclusion concerning the skill demonstrated by Chapman's eviscerator.

Then Brown is brought into question too, for having the audacity to call the Eddowes kidney cutting skilled. The idiot!

De facto you have not a scintilla of evidence to call either man into question. The only one rightfully called into question is yourself, for making the suggestion.

[Elamarna]

Something which has always given me cause for concern with the opinions of Dr Phillips is his estimation of the time taken to perform the mutilations on Chapman, as given at the inquest:


"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. "

There are several areas of concern here for me:

1. His initial claim that it would take at least 15minutes to perform the mutilations he saw.

This is greatly at odds with the views of almost any other expert who has been consulted, the mutilations in the Eddowes case are far more extensive, yet no one suggested this took 15 minutes.

2. The variation in this first guess and the second figure is extreme. quarter of an hour to nearly an hour.


These issues have always lead me to suspect that Phillips really had little idea at all how long the attack may have taken.

It also seems to possibly demonstrate yet again, that the comments given by medics involved in the case should not be taken automatically at face value.

Overall this appears to back up much of what the other expert Biggs says with regards to the available medical sources.


Steve

[Fisherman]

Something which has always given me cause for concern with the opinions of Dr Phillips is his estimation of the time taken to perform the mutilations on Chapman, as given at the inquest:


"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. "

There are several areas of concern here for me:

1. His initial claim that it would take at least 15minutes to perform the mutilations he saw.

This is greatly at odds with the views of almost any other expert who has been consulted, the mutilations in the Eddowes case are far more extensive, yet no one suggested this took 15 minutes.

2. The variation in this first guess and the second figure is extreme. quarter of an hour to nearly an hour.


These issues have always lead me to suspect that Phillips really had little idea at all how long the attack may have taken.

It also seems to possibly demonstrate yet again, that the comments given by medics involved in the case should not be taken automatically at face value.

Overall this appears to back up much of what the other expert Biggs says with regards to the available medical sources.


Steve
However an iasue here could be that he just could not

These were unique cases. There were no predecessors on record to judge against. In the Kelly case, I don´t think it has been estabished just how long it would have taken to perform those mutilations - it is hard to do.

I believe a surgeon would be inclined to misjudge the time required, since he would have had a hard task to free himself from the professional thinking that governed his work.

Phillips will have realized as the case moved along that the killer they were looking for was a quicker cutter than most people believed. In a sense, that only adds to what I am saying - he was a very prolific cutter, accomplishing a lot more in a lot shorter time than what ordinary people would be able to do.

[Elamarna]

These were unique cases. There were no predecessors on record to judge against. In the Kelly case, I don´t think it has been estabished just how long it would have taken to perform those mutilations - it is hard to do.

I believe a surgeon would be inclined to misjudge the time required, since he would have had a hard task to free himself from the professional thinking that governed his work.

Hi Fish, agree with you, and have made the very points you bring up before.

Kelly no way of knowing of course.

Phillips will have realized as the case moved along that the killer they were looking for was a quicker cutter than most people believed. In a sense, that only adds to what I am saying - he was a very prolific cutter, accomplishing a lot more in a lot shorter time than what ordinary people would be able to do.

I will disagree here to minor degree, he cut faster than normal TRAINED persons did.


Steve

[Fisherman]

I will disagree here to minor degree, he cut faster than normal TRAINED persons did.

Steve

That would be the primary inference, yes.

[John G]

Then Brown is brought into question too, for having the audacity to call the Eddowes kidney cutting skilled. The idiot!

De facto you have not a scintilla of evidence to call either man into question. The only one rightfully called into question is yourself, for making the suggestion.

Now, now let's not get personal, or I might have to question why you have attacked the integrity of Lechmere-as others have done-who may well be an innocent man, and that my dear Fish is far more serious.

As regards Eddowes, Dr Sequeira didn't share Dr Brown's opinion as to the skill of the perpetrator: "He was not possessed of any great anatomical skill." Presumably, therefore, you are brought into question if you challenge his opinion. As you are if you have wrongfully accused an innocent man of being a serial killer.

But, of course, Dr Brown may have been correct. After all, he seemed to think that Eddowes murderer was a medical student, which obviously puts Lechmere in the clear.