View Single Post
Old 11-11-2016, 05:06 PM
Richard Patterson Richard Patterson is offline
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 531

Originally Posted by Karl View Post
The thing is, apart from the Eddowes kidney, nothing points to anatomical knowledge at all. And even in the Eddowes case, there is clear evidence of lack of surgical skill. Not everyone agrees that the "canonical five" were all committed by the same person, either. I personally don't - Elizabeth Stride, in particular, doesn't seem very Ripperish. But even if we stipulate that they were all victims of the same killer: anatomical knowledge/surgical skill is still hotly debated, and by no means established - so it can hardly be described as fact. And because it is still debated, you cannot use someone's surgical skill to boost their status as suspects any more than you can use someone's lack of surgical skill to boost their status as suspects.

You are right that whether the murderer had anatomical knowledge or not is still hotly debated. The debate began with the first murder and still continues. When I wrote that people see that the murderer had anatomical knowledge, I should have qualified my statement by adding that not all people see this and that people also believe that the murderer had no medical skill. I do not think either of us will end the debate on if he did or did not in this thread. All I can say is that my suspect Francis Thompson did have considerable anatomical knowledge having studied for several years at a college that emphasized practical learning in dissection and what were then new techniques in organ removal. Did the Ripper have medical knowledge? I could provide a list as long as your arm from professionals and experts stretching back to 1888 that state that he did, as I am sure you could do the same showing that he did not.

Author of

"Jack the Ripper, The Works of Francis Thompson"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote