change in modus operandi

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Glenn,

So the fact that Brown and Sequeira for example, state medical knowledge, albeit limited, is irrelevant to barber-surgeon Chapman?

Monty,

Sequeira, as I recall, didn't credit the Ripper with any medical knowledge at all - in fact, I think he considered the Ripper to be a complete amateur, based on the observations in connection with Eddowes' murder. Sequeira's conclusion was most certainly that the ripper had NO medical knowledge and showed no skill whatsoever.

Brown based the part about medical knowledge on the removal of the kidney - which is fair enough - but also made the mistake to assume that the fact that the killer knew about its position would indicate medical knowledge, which is quite incorrect since any slaughterer (especially of pigs) would be well aware of the position of all vital internal organs.

Again - the question of the Ripper's medical knowledge (and also in connection with Klosowski) has to be irrelevant, since there exists numerous cases where people have done similar things as the Ripper without having no medical training or experience whatsoever.

All the best

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

... but he is too oft dismissed out of hand in my most humble and irrelevant opinion.

And that is probably because there is no logical or sensible reason to ever include or consider him in the first place.

All the best

[Monty]

Glenn

Sequeira states, at the Eddowes inquest, that he felt the killer didnt possess "any great anatomical skill". Not that the killer possessed no skill at all. That statement indicates Sequeiras belief that the killer had a limited skill, as Ive stated.

He is dismissed because evidence is built against him, not solely because he was a poisoner and poisoners dont do knives.

Monty

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

That's the key word, Monty. No greater ANATOMICAL skill. Which is even lower than no great medical skill. You can have anatomical skill without being medically trained. It is not the same thing.
Sequeira was simply asked at the inquest if he found the perpetrator to possess any greater anatomical knowledge and he replied 'no'.
It shall also be noted that Brown talked about mainly anatomical skill - not necessarily medical.

In other words, possibly the same kinds of knowledge or skill that anyone in the butcher would have, and no medical training would in any way be required - as we have seen in other mutilation cases where organs are taken.

All the best

[Monty]

Glenn,

Apologies, I meant anatomical knowledge. You can have anatomical knowledge without being a surgeon or even a butcher true, but skill? a practised ability?

Sequiera was asked if the killer had possed any GREAT anatomical skill. Sequiera didnt state the killer had no anatomical skill whatsoever and as a barber surgeon, Chapman would have had a slightly higher knowledge than a butcher.

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Monty,

Yes, Monty, especially skill.
It's true that Klosowski as a barber surgeon (although even the level of his so called training has been debated on these Boards) would have slightly more anatomical knowledge and possibly skill than a butcher - but the point is: it wouldn't be needed, as far as the Ripper crimes are concerned, since the Ripper's level of skill doesn't display anything beyond what a butcher would be able to do - somthing that even Phillips admitted when he was asked about it.
A butcher would probably handle the speed and the difficult circumstances on the crime scenes much better than anyone with surgical experience.

So again - the point about Klosowski having ' medical knowledge' and being a barber surgeon is not a valid argument and never has been.

All the best

[Ben]

Agreed, Glenn.

Sequiera was markedly unimpressed by the level of "skill" displayed by Eddowes' killer. Note that the phrase "did not have any great skill" can encompass anyone from a totally unskilled operator to a man with limited (i.e. not "great" experience). He's clearly not ruling those with no skill or experience whatsoever.

Best regards,
Ben

[nickie]

Hi All,
While I agree that the level of skill for the Ripper crimes wouldn't take the level known to a surgeon, there is still something about Chapman that intrigues my curiosity. I am in no way implying that he was the Ripper, there are obviously more possible and probable candidates for the man responsible. I think the biggest problem is the lack of hard evidence against any one of the suspects which allows for anyone to be a hotly debated topic. Thank you all for the interest in this post. I so enjoy the educational value of everyone's knowledge of the case, it is a great help as someone who is relatively new to the research end of the case.

[Sam Flynn]

I'm wondering how one could possess anatomical skill, anyway. Knowing that "De toe bone connected to de foot bone", where they are and indeed how they are connected, requires a degree of knowledge for sure - but simply knowing something rather well isn't the same as displaying a "skill".

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

That's a good point, Sam. I would assume - of course - one is referring here to placement of internal organs, combined with the fact the general level of education was not the same among the general public in 1888 as it is today.
But I agree, 'anatomical skill' is perhaps a strange term.
I think we can say with some certainty that the Ripper had some basic anatomical knowledge, but that could of course apply to thousands of people of different working categories in the East End in those days. Medical skill was hardly needed for the things the Ripper did - some skill with the knife - yes - but again, that would also apply to hundreds of the male population, since the knife was a primary working toool for most people.

All the best

[Monty]

Sam,

Thats the exact point I was trying to make, thank you.

And I think this is what sticks Chapman apart from the other lesser thought of suspects and probably why Abberline said what he supposedly said. The possibility he had skill, limited as it may be. That said, its highly unlikely Chapman was our man in my opinion. Too much against.

[mercurior]

i heard that a serial killer may change his modus operandi, but rarely changes his signature.

the killing of a wife, would be at odds with the killing of prostitutes. Being married must have meant a certain closeness towards an individual, whereas to my mind the ripper killed strangers, maybe people he created a relationship with.

to have such a divergence of signature, the stranger killing, to a wife killing. seems a stretch to me. Of course i am not an expert, maybe other people better qualified may expand on it. or not ;-)

[mariag]

Agreed, boys. He must have had some knowledge, given his previous training, and maybe some practical application of it. Those circumstances by themselves, along with his being a foreigner and a known killer do make him attractive. He certainly is someone who should have been looked at and investigated.

That said, his crimes just don't jibe with my opinion of Jack.

[Graham]

I'm wondering how one could possess anatomical skill, anyway. Knowing that "De toe bone connected to de foot bone", where they are and indeed how they are connected, requires a degree of knowledge for sure - but simply knowing something rather well isn't the same as displaying a "skill".

Hear de word of de Lord!

Graham

[sdreid]

There have been serial killers who have also killed spouses so that doesn't eliminate anything. You can't pigeonhole all serial killers. There are probably more kinds out there than we have even thought of yet.