Jack the Ripper-The Secret Police Files

[Sam Flynn]

Taking away breasts is not eviscerating. Cutting the intercoastals open in the ribs is not eviscerating. Mutilating a face is not eviscerating. Cutting necks is not eviscerating. Stripping the flesh from a thigh is not eviscerating.

All of Kelly's abdominal organs, and most of her thoracic ones, were entirely removed from the corpse. That amounts to a hell of a lot of evisceration, irrespective of whatever else happened. Besides, pound for pound (or kilo for kilo), Kelly's evisceration amounted for a lot more flesh than the rest of her wounds put together.

Taking away the abdominal wall in flaps is not eviscerating

It was a necessary precursor to getting at all the goodies inside, though, wasn't it?

Cutting necks is not eviscerating.

No, but it was a precursor to what followed. Besides, "cutting necks" was hardly unique to Jack the Ripper.

Taking away breasts is not eviscerating. Cutting the intercoastals open in the ribs is not eviscerating.

Both acts could - I emphasise, could - have been done to gain access to the thoracic cavity from without. On the other hand, they could have been done "just for jolly", as Eddowes' facial wounds, the removal of Chapman's navel, and the spurious scoring of Polly Nichols' belly could have been. All very Ripper-like, even if it wasn't the same guy.

Now, on that point, did the Torso Murderer(s) denude or systematically cut the flesh on the thorax, bellies, thighs, or faces of their victims? Did they have their belly-buttons removed, or similar? Thought not. Granted, it's a bit tricky to judge whether their faces were left untouched, but you get the gist.

[John G]

To begin with, I donīt think that is correct.
To carry on, it would not have mattered if it WAS correct.
The similarities are too glaring to be ignored just the same.

Skill:
It was said of Chapman and Eddowes that there was skill involved - the one sweep of the knife thing and the kidney extraction.
That leaves three canonicals.
With Nichols, it seems there was no time to display any skill.
Same for Stride.
Leaves us with Kelly - who, just like Eddowes, had her kidneys extracted from the front. Which supposedly was a sign of knowledge and skill in the Eddowes case.

The torso cases were all cases where the joints were cut open and disarticulated, something that is rare according to Guy Rutty, who has written a book on the subject. Furthermore, we know that Galloway was incredibly impressed by the knifework in the Rainham case, we know that the killer carefully cut the face away from the 1873 victim, eyelashes included (!), so we have once again skill displayed.

That means that both series were series where the cutter was a skilled man, at least when it comes to cutting with a knife. He also seems to have been well versed about the human frame, being able to locate kidneys from the front and having knowledge about how to open up joints and disarticulate neatly and with exact cuts, even with straight angles, cuts that did not damage the underlying cartilage.

So overall, we are dealing with somebody who was masterful at handling the knife, and who knew the human structure. In BOTH series.

But this is just cherry picking the evidence again. Even a comparison of Chapman and Eddowes suggests there was a different level of skill involved, at least based on the contemporary medical testimony. And no skill at all was apparent in the case of Kelly: see the opinion of Dr Bond.

In fact, even Dr Phillips clearly regarded Kelly's injuries to be very different to Chapman's. In respect of Chapman he considered the perpetrator had real skill. However, he described Kelly's injuries as "most wanton". But hey,what does he know? After all, he was only a medical professional who actually viewed the bodies!

[John G]

All of Kelly's abdominal organs, and most of her thoracic ones, were entirely removed from the corpse. That amounts to a hell of a lot of evisceration, irrespective of whatever else happened. Besides, pound for pound (or kilo for kilo), Kelly's evisceration amounted for a lot more flesh than the rest of her wounds put together.It was a necessary precursor to getting at all the goodies inside, though, wasn't it?No, but it was a precursor to what followed. Besides, "cutting necks" was hardly unique to Jack the Ripper.Both acts could - I emphasise, could - have been done to gain access to the thoracic cavity from without. On the other hand, they could have been done "just for jolly", as Eddowes' facial wounds, the removal of Chapman's navel, and the spurious scoring of Polly Nichols' belly could have been. All very Ripper-like, even if it wasn't the same guy.

Now, on that point, did the Torso Murderer(s) denude or systematically cut the flesh on the thorax, bellies, thighs, or faces of their victims? Did they have their belly-buttons removed, or similar? Thought not. Granted, it's a bit tricky to judge whether their faces were left untouched, but you get the gist.

Another excellent post, Gareth, which I completely agree with.

[Fisherman]

Good morning, Gareth!

Iīve had my sleep, and I will try to be less edgy today. Letīs pick your points off, and I will try to show you how I am thinking.

But first, letīs return to the Napper/Ash-Smith business again. I think that what you were looking at was the fact that there were no immediate matters to tell the errands apart, not that there were more similarities as such. And of course that is true - but it owes to a lesser knowledge of details.

Anyhow! Iīll turn to your points now, and I will try to look away from any agatonisms (that we have both supplied) and make some sort of sense of my thoughts to you.

All of Kelly's abdominal organs, and most of her thoracic ones, were entirely removed from the corpse.

As you will know, that is not any news to me. I am perfectly aware of it, and it is a true picture of what happened.

That amounts to a hell of a lot of evisceration, irrespective of whatever else happened.

Yes, it does. But I want you to note that I am not saying that there were no eviscerations - I am saying that I think it is a mistake to reason that the killer did what he did because he felt an urge to eviscerate. All of the things that happened to Kelly were biproducts of an overriding plan on behalf of the killer. Thatīs why we have the complete carnage that we see.
The typical eviscerator is driven by a wish to get at the innards, and the result of that wish is normall manifested in a scene where the abdomen has been opened up and one or more organs taken out. However, there will NOT be thighs denuded to the bone, abdominal flaps taken away, cuts through the intercoastals etcetera. That is atypical in an evisceration case.
The typical eviscerator is often a so called disorganized killer, and that seems not to have been the case here, specifically not if the Ripper and the Torso man were one and the same.

Besides, pound for pound (or kilo for kilo), Kelly's evisceration amounted for a lot more flesh than the rest of her wounds put together.

Yes - and that is exactly what we should expect when we leave the kind of killer we are dealing with alone with a body for a very long time. Every part of the body will be of interest to him and he will go to work on them all, more or less. He is NOT a man who will eviscerate only. That is not his aim.

It was a necessary precursor to getting at all the goodies inside, though, wasn't it?

Taking away the abdominal flaps? No. As I have stated before, Ed GIngrich took out each and every organ from his wifes body, the heart included, via a seven-inch opening in her abdomen. A cut like the one the Ripper supplied would make for a very easy access to all organs, and indeed, in evisceration cases, there is as far as I can find never any remocal of the abdominal flaps included. So itīs an emphatic "no" on that point - the killer took away the abdominal flaps regardless of how he didnīt need to do it. It is - like the eviscerations - another facet of his overall aim, and as such a very revealing one.

No, but it was a precursor to what followed. Besides, "cutting necks" was hardly unique to Jack the Ripper.

Then again, I never denied either of these points. What I said was that neck-cutting is no evisceration. I listed a number of things that are not eviscerations, in order to make the point that the Kelly deed was NOT about eviscerations only. There is a tendency to think it was, and thet the killers primary aim was to eviscerate. I think that is terribly wrong.

Both acts could - I emphasise, could - have been done to gain access to the thoracic cavity from without. On the other hand, they could have been done "just for jolly", as Eddowes' facial wounds, the removal of Chapman's navel, and the spurious scoring of Polly Nichols' belly could have been. All very Ripper-like, even if it wasn't the same guy.

Same answer. The point I tried to make was the one about eviscerations and their meaning to the killer. The added details are of the utmost interest, since they tell us that the genda was a broader one.

Now, on that point, did the Torso Murderer(s) denude or systematically cut the flesh on the thorax, bellies, thighs, or faces of their victims? Did they have their belly-buttons removed, or similar? Thought not. Granted, it's a bit tricky to judge whether their faces were left untouched, but you get the gist.

It is not tricky at all - the 1873 torsoīs face and scalp was cut away from the skullbone by the killer. So the answer is "yes".
However, to expand on what I think, it is my belief that for example the sawed of leg at the hipjoint of the same victim corresponds to the denuded thigh of Mary Kelly. It is the same agenda, carried out with different implements. This is where we may easily have been tricked - the Ripper deeds are for natural reasons cruder and quicker, and the result of them is not as "clean" as the work in the Torso cases, where the killer had space, light, time and better implements on his hands.

[Fisherman]

But this is just cherry picking the evidence again. Even a comparison of Chapman and Eddowes suggests there was a different level of skill involved, at least based on the contemporary medical testimony. And no skill at all was apparent in the case of Kelly: see the opinion of Dr Bond.

In fact, even Dr Phillips clearly regarded Kelly's injuries to be very different to Chapman's. In respect of Chapman he considered the perpetrator had real skill. However, he described Kelly's injuries as "most wanton". But hey,what does he know? After all, he was only a medical professional who actually viewed the bodies!

You have misunderstood the meaning of "wanton". Phillips will have regarded the Chapman deed as most wanton too. He used the word to tell the Kelly deed apart from the Pinchin Street torso, where he thought the dismemberment was done for practical reasons only. He identified one cold, methodical, calculating killer and one who could not restrain himself. And that was wrong, to my mind.

A killer who performs wanton deeds can be very skilled. Imagine a surgeon who goes nuts and wants to see the innards of his fiancee - it would produce a most wanton case with a hell of a lot of skill involved.

You once again speak of cherry-picking without substantiating it. I find it difficult to defend myself against unspecified accusations. And as I normally say, I find it rude and uncivil to produce such things. You need to specify.

[Pierre]

Good morning, Gareth!

Iīve had my sleep, and I will try to be less edgy today. Letīs pick your points off, and I will try to show you how I am thinking.

But first, letīs return to the Napper/Ash-Smith business again. I think that what you were looking at was the fact that there were no immediate matters to tell the errands apart, not that there were more similarities as such. And of course that is true - but it owes to a lesser knowledge of details.

Anyhow! Iīll turn to your points now, and I will try to look away from any agatonisms (that we have both supplied) and make some sort of sense of my thoughts to you.

All of Kelly's abdominal organs, and most of her thoracic ones, were entirely removed from the corpse.

As you will know, that is not any news to me. I am perfectly aware of it, and it is a true picture of what happened.

That amounts to a hell of a lot of evisceration, irrespective of whatever else happened.

Yes, it does. But I want you to note that I am not saying that there were no eviscerations - I am saying that I think it is a mistake to reason that the killer did what he did because he felt an urge to eviscerate. All of the things that happened to Kelly were biproducts of an overriding plan on behalf of the killer. Thatīs why we have the complete carnage that we see.
The typical eviscerator is driven by a wish to get at the innards, and the result of that wish is normall manifested in a scene where the abdomen has been opened up and one or more organs taken out. However, there will NOT be thighs denuded to the bone, abdominal flaps taken away, cuts through the intercoastals etcetera. That is atypical in an evisceration case.
The typical eviscerator is often a so called disorganized killer, and that seems not to have been the case here, specifically not if the Ripper and the Torso man were one and the same.

Besides, pound for pound (or kilo for kilo), Kelly's evisceration amounted for a lot more flesh than the rest of her wounds put together.

Yes - and that is exactly what we should expect when we leave the kind of killer we are dealing with alone with a body for a very long time. Every part of the body will be of interest to him and he will go to work on them all, more or less. He is NOT a man who will eviscerate only. That is not his aim.

It was a necessary precursor to getting at all the goodies inside, though, wasn't it?

Taking away the abdominal flaps? No. As I have stated before, Ed GIngrich took out each and every organ from his wifes body, the heart included, via a seven-inch opening in her abdomen. A cut like the one the Ripper supplied would make for a very easy access to all organs, and indeed, in evisceration cases, there is as far as I can find never any remocal of the abdominal flaps included. So itīs an emphatic "no" on that point - the killer took away the abdominal flaps regardless of how he didnīt need to do it. It is - like the eviscerations - another facet of his overall aim, and as such a very revealing one.

No, but it was a precursor to what followed. Besides, "cutting necks" was hardly unique to Jack the Ripper.

Then again, I never denied either of these points. What I said was that neck-cutting is no evisceration. I listed a number of things that are not eviscerations, in order to make the point that the Kelly deed was NOT about eviscerations only. There is a tendency to think it was, and thet the killers primary aim was to eviscerate. I think that is terribly wrong.

Both acts could - I emphasise, could - have been done to gain access to the thoracic cavity from without. On the other hand, they could have been done "just for jolly", as Eddowes' facial wounds, the removal of Chapman's navel, and the spurious scoring of Polly Nichols' belly could have been. All very Ripper-like, even if it wasn't the same guy.

Same answer. The point I tried to make was the one about eviscerations and their meaning to the killer. The added details are of the utmost interest, since they tell us that the genda was a broader one.

Now, on that point, did the Torso Murderer(s) denude or systematically cut the flesh on the thorax, bellies, thighs, or faces of their victims? Did they have their belly-buttons removed, or similar? Thought not. Granted, it's a bit tricky to judge whether their faces were left untouched, but you get the gist.

It is not tricky at all - the 1873 torsoīs face and scalp was cut away from the skullbone by the killer. So the answer is "yes".
However, to expand on what I think, it is my belief that for example the sawed of leg at the hipjoint of the same victim corresponds to the denuded thigh of Mary Kelly. It is the same agenda, carried out with different implements. This is where we may easily have been tricked - the Ripper deeds are for natural reasons cruder and quicker, and the result of them is not as "clean" as the work in the Torso cases, where the killer had space, light, time and better implements on his hands.

Hi Fisherman,

I have been wondering what your ideas about cutting are connected to theoretically.

You have been claiming that Lechmereīs mother was domineering. You have also been claiming that Jack the Ripper AND the dismemberment cases were carefully performed, that the murder had a specific interest in cutting - and perhaps dismembering - his victims. You have also been talking about the "mask" cut from a body.

You have also been trying to convince people here that Lechmere was a "psychopath".

I think that your theory is a Norman Bates type of theory. A Psycho (Hitchcocks movie) theory, where the psychopathic Lechmere is trying to recreate his domineering mother.

Is that what you are trying to do, Fisherman?

Regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

I will make an exception to the rule of not answering Pierre, since he asks questions that will need answers soner or later. Plus he has misunderstood or misinterpreted my take on things, and I do not wish that to become the norm.

You have been claiming that Lechmereīs mother was domineering.

No. I have been claiming that there are signs that are compatible with such an interpretation. Whether she was domineeering or not is something there is not enough information to decide.

You have also been claiming that Jack the Ripper AND the dismemberment cases were carefully performed, that the murder had a specific interest in cutting - and perhaps dismembering - his victims. You have also been talking about the "mask" cut from a body.

I donīt think I have said that the combined killer had a specific interest in cutting. What I have said is that there is evidence pointing to how both series involve elements of large skills with the knife. One such example is the so called mask, that would have taken some skill to cut off - although I think the mask was somewhat secondary when it comes to the interests of the killer. Not unimportant but of a slightly secondary interest anyway.

You have also been trying to convince people here that Lechmere was a "psychopath".

Not really, no. I have been saying that if Lechmere was the killer, then he will in all likelihood have been a psychopath. The Ripperīs deeds are deeds of a man who will almost certainly have had psychopathic tendencies, and by reasoning, Lechmere will have been a psychopath if he was the killer. You need to get the levels right and accept that I am not presenting these things as facts. His mother seems to have been a force to reckon with and it is not unsound to reason that she may have been a domineering person, the killer was in all probability a psychopath, and therefore, if Lechmere is the killer, then he would have been that psychopath. Levels, Pierre.

I think that your theory is a Norman Bates type of theory. A Psycho (Hitchcocks movie) theory, where the psychopathic Lechmere is trying to recreate his domineering mother.

Is that what you are trying to do, Fisherman?

No, nothing even remotely like it. My ideas have nothing at all to do with his mother, she may or may not have been an influence in the development of his pathology, I just donīt know.
I know, however, that a domineering mother and an absent father figure are very common details in the lives of many serialists, and I therefore point out that Lechmere seems to fit that particular bill very well.
However, Bates tended to a dead mother and Maria Louisa was very much alive.
No Pierre, my thinking is not something that needs to be hung up on any Hollywood production. It is not something that is veiled in thought-up anagrams or corny interpretations of stage plays, nor is it something that was fuelled by gothich horror stories.

I am going by the registered facts only, and I am recognizing how a fantasy may have grown within him and manifested itself in the murder series. Very many of the elements involved are testimony to a link to the fantasy I am speaking of.


Thank you for providing the opportunity to clear away many misconceptions.

[Pierre]

I will make an exception to the rule of not answering Pierre, since he asks questions that will need answers soner or later. Plus he has misunderstood or misinterpreted my take on things, and I do not wish that to become the norm.

You have been claiming that Lechmereīs mother was domineering.

No. I have been claiming that there are signs that are compatible with such an interpretation. Whether she was domineeering or not is something there is not enough information to decide.

You have also been claiming that Jack the Ripper AND the dismemberment cases were carefully performed, that the murder had a specific interest in cutting - and perhaps dismembering - his victims. You have also been talking about the "mask" cut from a body.

I donīt think I have said that the combined killer had a specific interest in cutting. What I have said is that there is evidence pointing to how both series involve elements of large skills with the knife. One such example is the so called mask, that would have taken some skill to cut off - although I think the mask was somewhat secondary when it comes to the interests of the killer. Not unimportant but of a slightly secondary interest anyway.

You have also been trying to convince people here that Lechmere was a "psychopath".

Not really, no. I have been saying that if Lechmere was the killer, then he will in all likelihood have been a psychopath. The Ripperīs deeds are deeds of a man who will almost certainly have had psychopathic tendencies, and by reasoning, Lechmere will have been a psychopath if he was the killer. You need to get the levels right and accept that I am not presenting these things as facts. His mother seems to have been a force to reckon with and it is not unsound to reason that she may have been a domineering person, the killer was in all probability a psychopath, and therefore, if Lechmere is the killer, then he would have been that psychopath. Levels, Pierre.

I think that your theory is a Norman Bates type of theory. A Psycho (Hitchcocks movie) theory, where the psychopathic Lechmere is trying to recreate his domineering mother.

Is that what you are trying to do, Fisherman?

No, nothing even remotely like it. My ideas have nothing at all to do with his mother, she may or may not have been an influence in the development of his pathology, I just donīt know.
I know, however, that a domineering mother and an absent father figure are very common details in the lives of many serialists, and I therefore point out that Lechmere seems to fit that particular bill very well.
However, Bates tended to a dead mother and Maria Louisa was very much alive.
No Pierre, my thinking is not something that needs to be hung up on any Hollywood production. It is not something that is veiled in thought-up anagrams or corny interpretations of stage plays, nor is it something that was fuelled by gothich horror stories.

I am going by the registered facts only, and I am recognizing how a fantasy may have grown within him and manifested itself in the murder series. Very many of the elements involved are testimony to a link to the fantasy I am speaking of.


Thank you for providing the opportunity to clear away many misconceptions.

Hi Fisherman,

It is a good clear answer and I think it makes your position rather clear. I will not start to collect quotations from this forum showing the opposite, since from now on I think it is clear that your position today is that

1. You do not know if Lechmeres mother was domineering.
2. You have no evidence for Lechmere being a psychopath.

Something interesting you also say is:

3. Both the Whitechapel murders and the dismemberment cases involve
elements of large skills with the knife

Since you know a lot more than me about the techniques of cutting/sawing in the two cases, perhaps I might ask you a couple of questions about this?

Do you think it is a necessary condition for a "suspect" to have "large skills with the knife", or would almost anyone be able to do the cutting / sawing in the two cases?

Could someone have been able to do it in the type A cases (Jack the Ripper cases) but not in the type B cases (dismemberment cases)?

Best wishes, Pierre

[John G]

John G: Before I answer in more detail show me specifically, in the Torso medical reports, where the word "eviscerated" is used.

Jacksons uterus was cut out and packed together with placenta and cord inside the two abdominal flaps.
Jacksons abdomen was cut open from ribs to pubes.
The killer therefore took out her uterus from the opening in her abdomen.
If you think that such a thing amounts to something else than evisceration, you need to explain how that works.

It is not a very clever approach to say that the word evisceration is not present, when we know that an evisceration has taken place, is it, John?

Show me where it says the abdominal wall was cut away and removed in pieces: http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=3607 In fact, show me that where this is stated in relation to any of the C5 victims.

The Echo, Sept 19, 1888:
"Dr. Phillips - The abdominal wall had been removed in three portions, two taken from the anterior part, and the other from another part of the body. There was a greater portion of the body removed from the right side than the left. On placing these three flaps of skin together, it was evident that a portion was wanting."

People, Sept 23, 1888:
Dr. Phillips (continuing) in the course of his evidence, some of which was unfit for publication, said: The abdominal wall had been removed in three portions, two taken from the anterior part. There was a greater portion of skin removed on the right side than on the left. On adjusting these three flaps of skin it was evident that a portion surrounding and constituting the navel was wanting.

Flaps is not a medical term, therefore it's usage is ambiguous: much like the term "panes" that you used earlier, which actually refers to windows!

Phillips used the term flaps as you can see, so I am happy with it. If you could provide a better and more correct medical term for pieces of abdominal wall flesh with subcutaneous tissue attaching to them, then do so.

You do not know that any of the Torso victims were prostitutes, except Liz Jackson. Even if they were, if they weren't soliciting at the time they were killed how did the perpetrator know that they were prostitutes?

Are you having comprehension problems, John? Have I not told you that I am not saying that these women were killed while prostituting themselves? Have I not told you that what I am saying is that as far as we know, ALL the named victims of the torso killer and the Ripper had a history of prostitution? Have I not told you that this is nevertheless of immense interest, no matter if the were actively prostituting themselves when killed?

Now, letīs have your detailed answers to my questions, please!

Fisherman,

But you're over complicating things. I mean, have you ever heard of the expression, you can't see the woods for the trees?

Okay, so in both the Jackson and Chapman cases the perpetrators made "X" number of cuts and then proceeded to remove the skin and subcutaneous tissue in sections, chunks, lumps, panes (although I'm still unsure why you think that description is appropriate), pieces or whatever other relevant descriptive word you care to use.

But so what? I'm not sure how else you think a perpetrator is likely to go about accessing the abdominopelvic cavity in order to access the body's main organs.

Unless of course you're talking about a surgical procedure, undertaken by a surgeon, using surgical equipment, operating in ideal conditions, and applying surgical techniques.

And some of the horizontal cuts inflicted on Jackson, were clearly intended to divide the body up into sections for easier disposal.

Put simply, both perpetrators simply operated in an expeditious fashion. Once again my question is: so what?

Of course, once again you ignore the many differences: Jackson's remains contained a placenta, suggesting she may have been the victim of an illegal abortion, although I accept this isn't the only explanation; Jackson's killer took steps to prevent the victory from being identified; Jackson was killed elsewhere, and the remains dumped; Chapman's uterus was removed by the killer from the crime scene, presumably as a trophy, Jackson's wasn't; the Thames connection in Jackson's case, relevant to the Torso crimes, but not the C5...

And why do you keep going on about the prostitution connection? This was the late nineteenth century: many poor women of the period were casual prostitutes, it wasn't that uncommon. Are you blissfully unaware of this fact? And where's the evidence that any of the Torso victims, apart from Jackson, had been prostitutes? Where's the evidence that all of the C5 victims were soliciting when they were murdered?

Frankly, applying your approach you could probably find connections between every murder in history!

[John G]

You have misunderstood the meaning of "wanton". Phillips will have regarded the Chapman deed as most wanton too. He used the word to tell the Kelly deed apart from the Pinchin Street torso, where he thought the dismemberment was done for practical reasons only. He identified one cold, methodical, calculating killer and one who could not restrain himself. And that was wrong, to my mind.

A killer who performs wanton deeds can be very skilled. Imagine a surgeon who goes nuts and wants to see the innards of his fiancee - it would produce a most wanton case with a hell of a lot of skill involved.

You once again speak of cherry-picking without substantiating it. I find it difficult to defend myself against unspecified accusations. And as I normally say, I find it rude and uncivil to produce such things. You need to specify.

Are you seriously suggesting that Dr Phillips thought that Kelly's murderer was skilled? And he didn't say wanton, he said "most wanton". And this was most definitely a term that he didn't use in Chapman's case. Are you seriously suggesting that Dr saw any similarities whatsoever between Kelly's murder and Chapman's? Mind you, it's interesting to see how you now disagree with Dr Phillips, whereas before you were strongly defending him! Still, what does he know? After all, he's only a medical professional who actually viewed the bodies.

[Fisherman]

Pierre: Hi Fisherman,

It is a good clear answer and I think it makes your position rather clear. I will not start to collect quotations from this forum showing the opposite, since from now on I think it is clear that your position today is that

1. You do not know if Lechmeres mother was domineering.
2. You have no evidence for Lechmere being a psychopath.

I think you are doing everybody a disservice here, by leaving out my beliefs. Without them, the full picture goes lost.

There is not enough in it to prove that Lechmereīs mother was domineering, but the fact that she changed jobs frequently, married three times (with two of the marriages being bigamies), brought up two children on her own and took in one of Charlesī daughters to live with her tells a story of woman of stature and strenght.

There is a lot of evidence pointing to the Ripper being a psychopath, and there is a lot of evidence pointing to Lechmere being the killer of Nichols, wherefore it is reasonable to assume that the carman was a psychopath.

As you point out - or rather as I had to point out to you - these are not proven points, but points with a number of things to back them up.

Just as I cannot prove that Maria Louisa was domineering and that Charles was a psychopath, you cannot prove they were not. In that respect, it is kind of useless and childish to start a yes! no! circus. All we can do is to look at the facts, and try to make sense of them. You are very welcome to provide evidence telling us that Maria Louisa was not domineering and that Charles had no psychopathic tendencies, if you have such evidence.

That is the full picture.

Something interesting you also say is:

3. Both the Whitechapel murders and the dismemberment cases involve
elements of large skills with the knife

There is certainly material to bolster that take, more so in the torso case than in the Ripper case. I do believe, though, that the conditions involved is the reason for that. The torso killer had better space, better light, more time and could choose between implements. The Ripper had a few minutes only at times, no light to speak of, had to work on his knees or crouching and had only a knife to work with.

Since you know a lot more than me about the techniques of cutting/sawing in the two cases, perhaps I might ask you a couple of questions about this?

I have no idea to which degree we differ on that score, Pierre.

Do you think it is a necessary condition for a "suspect" to have "large skills with the knife", or would almost anyone be able to do the cutting / sawing in the two cases?

That is a complex question. Some of the dismemberment work needed insights of exactly where to cut. Once you had that insight, you could perform the cuts.
For example, there are descriptions of how the torso killer cut open the joints of the limbs in some cases, cutting so precisely as not to damage the underlying cartilage. That takes a good deal of knowledge to do, but per se, the cutting as such is not hard to perform manually. If I showed you how to do it, you could probably get it done too. However, what tells a really skilled cutter apart from the aspiring ones is the speed of the work. Itīs much the same as comparing a really skilled drawing artist from a decent one - the more skilled one will be able to draw long, sweeping lines, getting them exactly right, whereas the less skilled one will hesitate, and the lines will veer off and be blurred and the result will not be the same.
The torso killer was an unhesitating cutter - itīs manifested in Galloways description of his work, where "perfectly straight cuts" were reported, for example - and that only happens when there is no hesitation at all. "All cuts were clean, with no signs of jadedness" Trow quotes the doctor, and that is more of the same - he cuts with great confidence, he does not halt the blade and he does not veer off or make a mess of things. It is all done with "one sweep of the knife", which brings us to Phillips take on the removal of Chapmans reproductive parts. This time it is the Ripper who cuts cleanly and unhesitatingly. So this is where I am coming from when I speak of a skilled knife work. Better than a surgeon, as Galloway put it.
And this, to my mind, neither you nor I could have done.

Could someone have been able to do it in the type A cases (Jack the Ripper cases) but not in the type B cases (dismemberment cases)?

I think my answers above covers this question too. The Ripper deeds are cruder - but that owes to the circumstances. Very little is said about the quality of the cuts and how clean and bold they were in the Ripper cases - the uterus removal from Chapman is the obvious exception to that rule. What we are told is that the killers knife was very sharp, and to me, that implies some pretty clean cutting on the Ripper victims too.

[Fisherman]

John G: Are you seriously suggesting that Dr Phillips thought that Kelly's murderer was skilled?

On the contrary, no. The one medico I think would have deemed the deed skilled would have been Brown, who thought kidney extraction from the front was a sign of skill and knowledge. Phillips may or may not have pondered some of the work as reasonably skilled, but he never worded such a thing.

And he didn't say wanton, he said "most wanton".

Yes, and he would have thought ALL of the Ripper deeds "most wanton".

And this was most definitely a term that he didn't use in Chapman's case.

And how does that prove that he didnīt think the Chapman murder most wanton?

Are you seriously suggesting that Dr saw any similarities whatsoever between Kelly's murder and Chapman's?

Dr who? I see many similarities myself. Two cut throats. Two sets of notches to the vertebrae in the neck. Eviscerations. The abdominal walls taken away from both victims in large flaps. Cuts from ribs to pubes. The women lying on their backs, legs pulled up, etcetera, etcetera.

The two murders have VERY much in common, and they would certainly have looked like most wanton murders to any medico. The whole Ripper concept looks like a most wanton matter, John, havenīt you noticed?

Mind you, it's interesting to see how you now disagree with Dr Phillips, whereas before you were strongly defending him!

So I am supposed to agree with nothing or everything? How interesting! As for me, I think that Phillips was an extremely competent medico, who was very clear in his reporting of the cases. However, he lived in 1888, when dismemberment cases were regarded as practicalities, as a rule. They had no insight about how the dismemberment itself may be part of a paraphilia. So I find it hard to criticize Phillips for something he could not read up on.

Still, what does he know? After all, he's only a medical professional who actually viewed the bodies.

Yes, and arguably the best suited man to do so in the whole case. So he needs no feigned indignation and crocodile tears from you - he has my respect throughout.
Maybe you want to discuss his TOD for Chapman alongside this discussion? I seem to remember that you are less full of admiration for the good doctor in that case. Whereas I think he was on the money from beginning to end.

[John G]

John G: Are you seriously suggesting that Dr Phillips thought that Kelly's murderer was skilled?

On the contrary, no. The one medico I think would have deemed the deed skilled would have been Brown, who thought kidney extraction from the front was a sign of skill and knowledge. Phillips may or may not have pondered some of the work as reasonably skilled, but he never worded such a thing.

And he didn't say wanton, he said "most wanton".

Yes, and he would have thought ALL of the Ripper deeds "most wanton".

And this was most definitely a term that he didn't use in Chapman's case.

And how does that prove that he didnīt think the Chapman murder most wanton?

Are you seriously suggesting that Dr saw any similarities whatsoever between Kelly's murder and Chapman's?

Dr who? I see many similarities myself. Two cut throats. Two sets of notches to the vertebrae in the neck. Eviscerations. The abdominal walls taken away from both victims in large flaps. Cuts from ribs to pubes. The women lying on their backs, legs pulled up, etcetera, etcetera.

The two murders have VERY much in common, and they would certainly have looked like most wanton murders to any medico. The whole Ripper concept looks like a most wanton matter, John, havenīt you noticed?

Mind you, it's interesting to see how you now disagree with Dr Phillips, whereas before you were strongly defending him!

So I am supposed to agree with nothing or everything? How interesting! As for me, I think that Phillips was an extremely competent medico, who was very clear in his reporting of the cases. However, he lived in 1888, when dismemberment cases were regarded as practicalities, as a rule. They had no insight about how the dismemberment itself may be part of a paraphilia. So I find it hard to criticize Phillips for something he could not read up on.

Still, what does he know? After all, he's only a medical professional who actually viewed the bodies.

Yes, and arguably the best suited man to do so in the whole case. So he needs no feigned indignation and crocodile tears from you - he has my respect throughout.
Maybe you want to discuss his TOD for Chapman alongside this discussion? I seem to remember that you are less full of admiration for the good doctor in that case. Whereas I think he was on the money from beginning to end.

Dr Bond considered that Kelly's murderer possessed no skill whatsoever, and not a single doctor offered a contrary opinion. And now presumably you're a clairvoyant, as you obviously know everything Dr Phillips was thinking! The fact is, that in respect of Chapman he did not use term "wanton", let alone "most wanton". And by the way, he used that phrase in relation to the mutilations, not the murder generally. And, in the case of Chapman, the mutilations could not sensibly be regarded as wanton, if they were carried out with skill, with the specific purpose of securing the uterus. And by the way, how do you know what Dr Brown would have said about Kelly's mutilations? Clairvoyance again?

"The abdominal walls taken away from both victims in large flaps". All this suggests is that the perpetrators made a number of cuts, skilled or unskilled, and then started to remove the skin and subcutaneous tissue in lumps, flaps, pieces or whatever other descriptor you with to use. And once again I stress the point that "flaps" is not a medical term, and therefore it's usage in these cases is ambiguous. Anyway, as I indicated before, how else do you think the perpetrators were going to access to abdominal organs? Via a small circular incision in exactly the right location, I suppose!

By the way, Phillip Harrison, an experienced eviscerater, said this: "It is more difficult to remove organs when the opening can't be stretched. Surgeons use a retractor to make the opening as big as possible. Surgeons need as much room as possible but would work internally in what would seem to the layperson as an impossibly small opening." (Marriott, 2013).

It s interesting that you now champion Dr Brown, who incidentally thought Eddowes killer was a medical student, which rules out Lechmere! And how do you know that he was correct, whereas Dr Sequiera, who took a somewhat alternative view, was wrong? That's cherry picking the evidence again.

Dr Phillips, an "extremely competent medico?" So competent that he failed to notice the startlingly similarities that you have identified between Kelly's and Chapman's eviscerations!

But let's not be too harsh on him. After all, he was only a medical professional who actually viewed the bodies, whereas you're someone with no medical or forensic experience whatsoever, relying on a number of incomplete- or in some cases none existent-medical reports!

[Fisherman]

Dr Bond considered that Kelly's murderer possessed no skill whatsoever, and not a single doctor offered a contrary opinion. And now presumably you're a clairvoyant, as you obviously know everything Dr Phillips was thinking! The fact is, that in respect of Chapman he did not use term "wanton", let alone "most wanton". And by the way, he used that phrase in relation to the mutilations, not the murder generally. And, in the case of Chapman, the mutilations could not sensibly be regarded as wanton, if they were carried out with skill, with the specific purpose of securing the uterus.

"The abdominal walls taken away from both victims in large flaps". All this suggests is that the perpetrators made a number of cuts, skilled or unskilled, and then started to remove the skin and subcutaneous tissue in lumps, flaps, pieces or whatever other descriptor you with to use. And once again I stress the point that "flaps" is not a medical term, and therefore it's usage in these cases is ambiguous. Anyway, as I indicated before, how else do you think the perpetrators were going to access to abdominal organs? Via a small circular incision in exactly the right location, I suppose!

It s interesting that you now champion Dr Brown, who incidentally thought Eddowes killer was a medical student, which rules out Lechmere! And how do you know that he was correct, whereas Dr Sequiera, who took a somewhat alternative view, was wrong? That's cherry picking the evidence again.

Dr Phillips, an "extremely competent medico?" So competent that he failed to notice the startlingly similarities that you have identified between Kelly's and Chapman's eviscerations!

But let's not be too harsh on him. After all, he was only a medical professional who actually viewed the bodies, whereas you're someone with no medical or forensic experience whatsoever, relying on a number of incomplete- or in some cases none existent-medical reports!

Upset, are we? People disagreeing - ouch! You are making rather the fool of yourself, John - and you seem to like it!

Not a single doctor saw skill in the Kelly murder? And yet you KNOW that she had her kidneys taken out from the front - which Brown considered skilful.

Explain to me why it was skilled in the Eddowes case and not in the Kelly case, or accept that you are plain silly, John. I have brought this up before, and you have failed miserably to either understand it or answer it. The exact same operation cannot be skilled on one victim only if two suffered it.

Thatīs that point wasted for you. Letīs move on, shall we?

A "most wanton" murder is a murder that seems steered by a sexuality that the killer could not control. That is the hallmark of all the ripper murders, or so people like to think. Kelly was cut up, as was the other victims, save Stride, for what appeared to be a sexually grounded wish to eviscerate the victims. The word wanton figures once in the investigation, but that does effectively NOT mean that only the Kelly killing was of a seemingly wanton character.

Two points destroyed. Letīs have a look at the third.

The Chapman killing could not be regarded as wanton if the sole aim was to get at the uterus.

If the wish for the uterus was a wanton wish, then what happens? Answer: What happens is that your third point goes for a looong vacation.

The flaps: "...how else do you think the perpetrators were going to access to abdominal organs? Via a small circular incision in exactly the right location, I suppose!"

How do you suppose that a medically and surgically untrained killer like Ed Gingrich was able to take out ALL of his wifes organs via a seven inch cut the her stomach, John? How do you suppose that eviscerators normally get at the organs? By cutting an opening in the abdomen or by taking away the abdominal wall in flaps? Read up. Find out. Correct yourself. As it is, you are proudly flaunting ignorance.

Four points demolished. Nice.

You claim that I favour Dr Brown over Sequeira, thus as you so charmingly put it, I am cherry-picking. Well, there a cherry you can shove up your behind, since I am not favouring any of them. I am not saying that Brown is m ore correct, I am saying that he DID suggest that it was a sign of skill to remove the kidney from the front, and I cannot conclude that he was wrong. Going with Sequeira could be right or wrong and the same goes for Brown. What remains is his view that cannot be discarded, not least since it has been seconded by latter day surgical and medical people on the boards.

Hope that cherry does not hurt. It will come out...you know when!

Five points buried. Deep.

Dr Phillips competent? Yes. Thatīs why he held the office he did. Thatīs why he was called in to look at many of the cases. Does his failure to recognize the similarities I listed make him a bad doctor? No, it makes you a bad suggester.
I somehow believe he DID notice that both women had their abdomens opened up from ribs to pubes, etcerera.
Are you trying to suggest that Phillips believed that Kelly and Chapman fell to different hands? Please enlighten us!

Six points burned.

I have no medical experience, and I am therefore not allowed to have an opinion. Reading up wonīt help me, I need an exam.

Need I say more? Seven out of seven points gone to the rats.

You really canīt help yourself, can you?

[Fisherman]

I could add that you are a true Marriott afficionado, John - that point about how I am no medico (no legal expert, no psychologist, no butcher etc) is one he favours very much.

If we are not allowed to discuss the different aspects, then what ARE we allowed to discuss? Our own fields of work? Mine is journalism, requiring a talent for quickly reading up on, researching and understanding whatever subject you are to write about. In a sense, the fewest occupations seem more suited to me to look at the case.

Whatīs YOUR occupation, John? Murder squad detective? Brain surgeon? Psychiatric therapist? An obscure official or clerk?

How dare YOU discuss the case and itīs implications, if you are not educated in all areas it touches on?

Can we ditch the "you are no medical man" crap and move on now?