19th Century "anatomical skill"

[Elamarna]

Columbo,

I read Trevor's reply with interest, mainly because of his continued reluctance to give any indication that others have also done work on the timings of the police beats around Mitre square, why I can only guess?

So the following, while not at all untrue, does not give the full details.

The officers time can only be approximate because we do not know how fast or how slow they were walking, whether they stopped to check properties or not

There is a very in depth investigation into this area, far more so than Trevor's posting, this is by Gavin Bromley.
Its is spread over two issues of Ripperologist magazine( that gives some indication on the amount of work it invoves) #74 & 75.

Not sure if you have read it, but it is a very interesting and in depth work.

Now while one might not agree with this work, I feel that for posts to give an alternative set of timings without even mentioning that alternatives exist is somewhat Disingenuous.

regards


Steve

[Harry D]

Trevor has been peddling this nonsense about the organ removal for years. It's one of his favourite hobby horses, along with Eddowes' bloody apron being a menstrual rag. Unfortunately for him, both theories are just as implausible now as they were when he first came up with them.

[Elamarna]

Dear Trevor,

Comments as follows

Rummaging around as you put it would take extra time. If the killer knew what he was looking for and where it was why waste time rummaging around?

Why do you assume he knew what he wanted?

The talk about how difficult it is to find the kidney is highly misleading, if the intestines are moved and partially removed, as they were, you uncover the area of the kidneys.
To say you cannot/could not find it by touch is not true, you can,it varies from individual. While I agree it is not easy, it is possible.
You completely ignore the possibility that the Kidney was found by accident, and once found removed.
While you may consider that unlikely to ignore it demonstrates a high degree of bias.

The officers time can only be approximate because we do not know how fast or how slow they were walking, whether they stopped to check properties or not

Absolutely true Trevor, but why can I ask do you not even mention other possible scenarios for timings some of which attempt to answer those very points?
Surely you should attempt to argue that your timings are equally as valid or better than others should you not?

Again depending at what speed they walked

Now Trevor, I am sure you know exactly how long Church passage was and indeed is, to suggest it could take 1.30 is a figure you have just conjured up to fit your theory is it not?

Yes the killing but not the removal of the organs. Dr Sequeira was quoted as saying 3 mins to do all of this. Dr Brown was quoted as saying 5 minutes. It has been proved by Dr Browns later experiment that those times to just remove the organs were way out. So by the calculation 7 mins is the absolute minimum an expert would need, but I suspect the killer was no expert simply after organs.

Sorry Trevor

One "experiment" proves nothing, any scientist will confirm this, even Pierre will agree I am sure.

An experiment requires repeatability, you need to do it several times in the same conditions to get any idea of accuracy.

in addition, this "experiment" only showed how long it would take a trained doctor, who will have a different technique from a non trained person, Which may or may not slow him down.

To test properly you need the same conditions with the procedure carried out by trained doctors, maybe a trained butcher and someone not trained but who uses a knife well, and finally someone with no skill set at all. However the non trained persons need a trial before the experiment proper, because Eddowes was not the first and the killer had done it before.
All using the same knife of course, which should be long bladed, as per inquest testimony.

Of course such experiments could not be carried out on people, but anatomically the pig is a perfectly acceptable substitute.

Once that is done, you have an experiment, from which you can draw genuine conclusions.

What you quote is not an experiment; it is only one part of the work which needs to be done for an experiment.

respectfully

Steve

[John Wheat]

Trevor has been peddling this nonsense about the organ removal for years. It's one of his favourite hobby horses, along with Eddowes' bloody apron being a menstrual rag. Unfortunately for him, both theories are just as implausible now as they were when he first came up with them.

Your not wrong Harry D. However it doesn't stop threads being highjacked and the amount of bullshit written about organ removal.

Cheers John

[Elamarna]

Your not wrong Harry D. However it doesn't stop threads being highjacked and the amount of bullshit written about organ removal.

Cheers John

John

I agree entirely, the problem is of course if someone keeps posting this stuff are we too ignore it or respond.
Often not that easier choice, when has in this thread there is a link, between the skills available and if they were demonstrated in the cases.

steve

[Trevor Marriott]

John

I agree entirely, the problem is of course if someone keeps posting this stuff are we too ignore it or respond.
Often not that easier choice, when has in this thread there is a link, between the skills available and if they were demonstrated in the cases.

steve

And the argument cuts both ways. I dont keep coming on here shouting about the organs removal continually. That is done by you and others. I respond accordingly because new members come on here and read the posts and may be influenced by all this talk and personal explanations about the old accepted organ removal theory. There is a need for them to be made aware that this old accepted theory is not as clean cut as it is made out to be.

The problem is that from my perspective with the old accepted theory, there are so many resident on here who keep peddling that theory, which clearly does not stand up to close scrutiny, and as I have said before they cannot or as the case may be simply will not acknowledge the flaws which have been highlighted and accept that there has to be another plausible explanation.

Its is a simple exercise for all prove or disprove what you believe happened !

I wait to see the hard proof to show it did happen, that proof if there is any should exclude the use of the terms "What I think" "Maybes" "What could have happened" "I belive" or "What if"

When evaluating evidence opinions count for nothing.

One thing you should all remember "The evidence never lies, but it doesn't always tell the truth"

I also read Gavin Bromley`s two articles in which his Mitre Sq timings you seek to rely on. Can I say they are way out because his overall timings are based on a time limit of 3 mins to do all of this as quoted by Dr Sequeira and 5 mins by Dr Brown. In the light of Dr Browns experiment that negates his time frame. So yes there are alternatives which have to be looked at, but when they are looked at if what is suggested is incorrect then they are dismissed as is the case with Gaving Bromley`s timings

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

And the argument cuts both ways. I dont keep coming on here shouting about the organs removal continually. That is done by you and others. I respond accordingly because new members come on here and read the posts and may be influenced by all this talk and personal explanations about the old accepted organ removal theory. There is a need for them to be made aware that this old accepted theory is not as clean cut as it is made out to be.

The problem is that from my perspective with the old accepted theory, there are so many resident on here who keep peddling that theory, which clearly does not stand up to close scrutiny, and as I have said before they cannot or as the case may be simply will not acknowledge the flaws which have been highlighted and accept that there has to be another plausible explanation.

Its is a simple exercise for all prove or disprove what you believe happened !

I wait to see the hard proof to show it did happen, that proof if there is any should exclude the use of the terms "What I think" "Maybes" "What could have happened" "I belive" or "What if"

When evaluating evidence opinions count for nothing.

One thing you should all remember "The evidence never lies, but it doesn't always tell the truth"

I also read Gavin Bromley`s two articles in which his Mitre Sq timings you seek to rely on. Can I say they are way out because his overall timings are based on a time limit of 3 mins to do all of this as quoted by Dr Sequeira and 5 mins by Dr Brown. In the light of Dr Browns experiment that negates his time frame.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor

Once again reinforcing the points in post 99.

With regards to your comments on Gavin Bromleys work, no one said you had not read it, just that you did not acknowledge the work or give a reasoned argument against it.

Your comments are to dismiss it in about 50 words, not with detailed arguments but with the same old line of it does not fit Dr Browns "experiment".


I note you updated while i was post and added:

"then they are dismissed as is the case with Gaving Bromley`s timings"

Can I respectfully ask who has dismissed the mentioned work?


Please stop claiming that Dr Brown proved the time needed, he certainly did not, it appears that there is a basic failure to understand how science works.

What Dr Brown arrange was not an experiment, it was a one off test done by one person. It is therefore a personal opinion of his, and does not standup to scientific scrutiny!

In post #108 I explained why it was not a meaningful scientific experiment, that is not my view, that is how science works.

I also gave an example of what would be a meaningful experiment; what you cite gives no meaningful conclusion, it shows how ONE man performed ONCE.

It is also clear that there is no attempt what so ever to address any of the points raised in post#108.


The claim that "the old theory do not stand up to close scrutiny," is a personal view, it is not a statement of accepted fact, arrived at to allow your theory to be put forward; not as a possible theory,which noone has any problem with, but as the only real option.


Let me be very clear, the hypnosis that the organs were removed in the mortuary for sale to "medical research" is unrealistic:
The uterus from Eddowes was damaged, so the people harvesting the organs were incompetent we have to beleive!

Please tell me why a researcher would buy a damaged organ, scientist do not used such items!

I also note that when asked what these organs would be used for the only response was to say "medical research". No specific knowledge of any actual use.
If there was research being done on human uterus at the time in London, it will be recorded and the work published. ( I have no idea if there was any by the way, but then I am not the one claiming the organs were used for such.) So it should be easy, if time consuming to provide backup to the theory should it not?

The comments at the beginning of the post, are really not worthy of comment, other than to say they reinforce the comments I made in #99, about a lack of ability or willingness to look at things other than through a very restricted viewpoint.


steve

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor

Once again reinforcing the points in post 99.

With regards to your comments on Gavin Bromleys work, no one said you had not read it, just that you did not acknowledge the work or give a reasoned argument against it.

I did acknowledge it, both articles are well written, but the writer has set out his stall as far as timings are concerned. Timings which I say do not stand up to close scrutiny. If you want to accept those that`s your perrogative, and I have no doubt you will accept them because you want to believe that the killer took the organs, so you and others will sing the praises of anyone who supports what you believe.

Your comments are to dismiss it in about 50 words, not with detailed arguments but with the same old line of it does not fit Dr Browns "experiment".

Its not just that, but that experiment has to be looked at closely in the grand scheme of things in trying to assess whether or not the killer had time. In my opinion by what those Victorian doctors said with regards to timings he did not. Also based on those timings provided to a number of modern day medical experts who are removing organs from dead people on a daily basis they concur with me. They dont have to they, have not been pressured.

As to suggesting a non medical person could have removed those in less time than an expert is non nonsensical.


Please stop claiming that Dr Brown proved the time needed, he certainly did not, it appears that there is a basic failure to understand how science works.

He set the parameter

We are not taking about science we are talking about hard facts. Science is not going to change the witness testimony or the times included in that testimony and that is an important part of this whole debate. Because no matter who it was if they didn't have the time then they could not have done it, and with regards to time there has to be parameters. Those parameters have been initially set by Sequeria and Brown, along with the witnesses. So the question is could it be done in those times by someone of equal standing to them. Browns experiment shows he was wrong and he must have known he was wrong to initiate that experiment.

What is so difficult about that for you to understand?

The claim that "the old theory do not stand up to close scrutiny," is a personal view, it is not a statement of accepted fact, arrived at to allow your theory to be put forward; not as a possible theory,which noone has any problem with, but as the only real option.

It may be a personal view to you, but its a real possibility, and I am sure that anyone other than the hardliners on here who take an interest in the mystery when presented with the full facts from both sides will quite rightly agree that the old theory does not stand up to close scrutiny.

Let me be very clear, the hypnosis that the organs were removed in the mortuary for sale to "medical research" is unrealistic:
The uterus from Eddowes was damaged, so the people harvesting the organs were incompetent we have to beleive!

That could be attributable to the fact that the remover was having to work quickly to avoid detection, and the remover might have been a medical student, with limited practical experience

Please tell me why a researcher would buy a damaged organ, scientist do not used such items!

If the organs were removed covertly to avoid payment no payment would need to be made.

I also note that when asked what these organs would be used for the only response was to say "medical research". No specific knowledge of any actual use.

You know as well as I do that all organs were used for medical research and that organs were always in great demand. We dont have to specify what that research was because we dont know the type of research each recipient was using the respective organs for.


If there was research being done on human uterus at the time in London, it will be recorded and the work published. ( I have no idea if there was any by the way, but then I am not the one claiming the organs were used for such.) So it should be easy, if time consuming to provide backup to the theory should it not?

I am sure not everything in 1888 was done by the book and recorded. If that`s what you believe then feel free to use your time to do so !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

"The evidence never lies, but it doesn't always tell the truth"

[Elamarna]

I did acknowledge it, both articles are well written, but the writer has set out his stall as far as timings are concerned. Timings which I say do not stand up to close scrutiny. If you want to accept those that`s your perrogative, and I have no doubt you will accept them because you want to believe that the killer took the organs, so you and others will sing the praises of anyone who supports what you believe.

I must have missed that completely.

At last you are saying it is your view the timings do not stand up to close scrutiny, I am fine with that.

Actually I go on the evidence and there is NONE for your theory, other than what you think you see.

Its not just that, but that experiment has to be looked at closely in the grand scheme of things in trying to assess whether or not the killer had time. In my opinion by what those Victorian doctors said with regards to timings he did not. Also based on those timings provided to a number of modern day medical experts who are removing organs from dead people on a daily basis they concur with me. They dont have to they, have not been pressured.

As to suggesting a non medical person could have removed those in less time than an expert is non nonsensical.

Here again, you cannot, or appear to be unwilling, to comprehend that experts do things in a different way to non experts.
There is no way a medical trained person can say how long it would take a non trained person, they are different animals, operating in completely different ways

"non nonsensical" I see a double negative.

However what do you base that statement on?
Have there been any experiments or controlled tests done to support this viewpoint?
Is your statement backed by hard facts or scientific evidence? Or is it just an opinion?


Hang on why not carry out the experiment I suggested and see if you opinion stands up?

He set the parameter

We are not taking about science we are talking about hard facts. Science is not going to change the witness testimony or the times included in that testimony and that is an important part of this whole debate. Because no matter who it was if they didn't have the time then they could not have done it, and with regards to time there has to be parameters. Those parameters have been initially set by Sequeria and Brown, along with the witnesses. So the question is could it be done in those times by someone of equal standing to them. Browns experiment shows he was wrong and he must have known he was wrong to initiate that experiment.

Once again ignore the facts, its what you do time and time again, it is not a fact there was not time, it is an opinion!

The test done by Brown was not an experiment, it was a test to give an idea of how long it would take a particular medical professional to carry out the procedure. not even a representative sample of at least 2.

What is so difficult about that for you to understand?

How can one understand, and by that it is clear you mean accept, ideas that are wrong, that are not based on science, yet claim to be an experiment, and which are disingenuous.

It may be a personal view to you, but its a real possibility, and I am sure that anyone other than the hardliners on here who take an interest in the mystery when presented with the full facts from both sides will quite rightly agree that the old theory does not stand up to close scrutiny.

A possibility means it is not impossible, no more. And of course it is not impossible.

Most people one hopes will accept the facts, not unbacked theories.

That could be attributable to the fact that the remover was having to work quickly to avoid detection, and the remover might have been a medical student, with limited practical experience

So no real answer, nothing backed by any facts.

If the organs were removed covertly to avoid payment no payment would need to be made.

Really?

So why break the law if there is no financial gain for the perpetrator?

There appears to be no understanding that such organs would be useless for research purposes.

You know as well as I do that all organs were used for medical research and that organs were always in great demand. We dont have to specify what that research was because we dont know the type of research each recipient was using the respective organs for.



I am sure not everything in 1888 was done by the book and recorded. If that`s what you believe then feel free to use your time to do so !

Now I don't say this often, but that is pure nonsense.
It seems clear there is no real understanding of the history of "Medical Research".

No we don't know, and not knowing does not mean one can just say of course they were used for "medical research".


Please tell me what the last statement is based on?

What data leads you to that?

What would be the point of research if you do not publish it?

We are talking about real science not the world of Mary Shelley.


Why not see if research was being conducted on those organ types in 1888, in London? A positive result, while not proving the case would at least strength the at present incredibly weak theory.

Why should anyone else do research to support a claim that these organs were used for research, a claim that at present has no support and it appears one which there is an unwillingness to look at, to provide support.

What does that say about the theory?


There really is little point in carrying on a debate when such a closed position is demonstrated time after time.


Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

I must have missed that completely.

At last you are saying it is your view the timings do not stand up to close scrutiny, I am fine with that.

Actually I go on the evidence and there is NONE for your theory, other than what you think you see.






Here again, you cannot, or appear to be unwilling, to comprehend that experts do things in a different way to non experts.
There is no way a medical trained person can say how long it would take a non trained person, they are different animals, operating in completely different ways

"non nonsensical" I see a double negative.

However what do you base that statement on?
Have there been any experiments or controlled tests done to support this viewpoint?
Is your statement backed by hard facts or scientific evidence? Or is it just an opinion?


Hang on why not carry out the experiment I suggested and see if you opinion stands up?





Once again ignore the facts, its what you do time and time again, it is not a fact there was not time, it is an opinion!

The test done by Brown was not an experiment, it was a test to give an idea of how long it would take a particular medical professional to carry out the procedure. not even a representative sample of at least 2.








How can one understand, and by that it is clear you mean accept, ideas that are wrong, that are not based on science, yet claim to be an experiment, and which are disingenuous.





A possibility means it is not impossible, no more. And of course it is not impossible.

Most people one hopes will accept the facts, not unbacked theories.




So no real answer, nothing backed by any facts.





Really?

So why break the law if there is no financial gain for the perpetrator?

There appears to be no understanding that such organs would be useless for research purposes.






Now I don't say this often, but that is pure nonsense.
It seems clear there is no real understanding of the history of "Medical Research".

No we don't know, and not knowing does not mean one can just say of course they were used for "medical research".


Please tell me what the last statement is based on?

What data leads you to that?

What would be the point of research if you do not publish it?

We are talking about real science not the world of Mary Shelley.


Why not see if research was being conducted on those organ types in 1888, in London? A positive result, while not proving the case would at least strength the at present incredibly weak theory.

Why should anyone else do research to support a claim that these organs were used for research, a claim that at present has no support and it appears one which there is an unwillingness to look at, to provide support.

What does that say about the theory?


There really is little point in carrying on a debate when such a closed position is demonstrated time after time.


Steve

You are right it has come down to a closed position. You have yours and I have mine, but so far you haven't put forward anything in support of yours. All you have done is create a smokescreen in attempt to negate mine.

You rely on Gavin Bromley but much of what he says is in line with what I say.

I am going to say one final time that your suggestion that anyone could remove a uterus and a kidney, plus carry out all the other things the killer is supposed to have done at the crime scene in the little time available to him. in almost total darkness, with a long bladed knife beggars belief.

Remember prove or disprove, that cuts two ways and if either cant be achieved then it comes down to the balance of probability, based on all that is available to consider.

We have reached an impasse so as you say there is no point in continuing to rattle sabres. Its down to the public to make up their minds based on what is presented to them in support of both he old and new theories.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

"The evidence never lies, but it doesn't always tell the truth"

[Elamarna]

You are right it has come down to a closed position. You have yours and I have mine, but so far you haven't put forward anything in support of yours. All you have done is create a smokescreen in attempt to negate mine.

You rely on Gavin Bromley but much of what he says is in line with what I say.

I am going to say one final time that your suggestion that anyone could remove a uterus and a kidney, plus carry out all the other things the killer is supposed to have done at the crime scene in the little time available to him. in almost total darkness, with a long bladed knife beggars belief.

Remember prove or disprove, that cuts two ways and if either cant be achieved then it comes down to the balance of probability, based on all that is available to consider.

We have reached an impasse so as you say there is no point in continuing to rattle sabres. Its down to the public to make up their minds based on what is presented to them in support of both he old and new theories.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

"The evidence never lies, but it doesn't always tell the truth"

Fine by me

steve

[Elamarna]

Hi all

I just want to make something clear which may have got lost in the debate.

Trevor stated the time available for the procedure was between 3-4 minutes and he then said:

You rely on Gavin Bromley but much of what he says is in line with what I say.

However in Ripperologist #74 Gavin Bromley provides two ranges for the time available for the killer:
A narrow one which he gives as 7.19 - 9.59 minutes.
A wider range which is 6.49 - 10.22 minutes.

So it seems clear that working on Gavin's figures, the procedures were certainly capable of being carried out, even using Trevor's time for the procedures.

While not wishing to start this up again, it appears that Trevor’s comment above is not accurate, given his timings are significantly different from those of Gavin.

I just felt that needed to be made clear.

Best wishes to all

Steve

[Pierre]

Hi all

I just want to make something clear which may have got lost in the debate.

Trevor stated the time available for the procedure was between 3-4 minutes and he then said:

However in Ripperologist #74 Gavin Bromley provides two ranges for the time available for the killer:
A narrow one which he gives as 7.19 - 9.59 minutes.
A wider range which is 6.49 - 10.22 minutes.

So it seems clear that working on Gavin's figures, the procedures were certainly capable of being carried out, even using Trevor's time for the procedures.

While not wishing to start this up again, it appears that Trevor’s comment above is not accurate, given his timings are significantly different from those of Gavin.

I just felt that needed to be made clear.

Best wishes to all

Steve

Hi Steve,

Yes, data must always be interpreted. And sometimes there is room for different interpretations. As I see the problem you are/have been discussing, there are two dimensions that are important.

Firstly, could the killer have inflicted those injuries to the victims at the murder sites at the minimum time range postulated by analysing the sources, and secondly, "could the killer have" - what do we (we researchers) mean by this? As we know, the problem of the so called anatomical knowledge is always at the base of this last dimension. And we do not have any possibility to say anything about his anatomical knowledge other than from our own critical analyse of the sources. So we could pose two questions:

1. Was there enough time for anyone to inflict those injuries, given that we base the answer exclusively on sources and use source criticism, where we discuss the problems and possibilities with the answer?

2. Was there enough time for Jack the Ripper to inflict those injuries, given that we have data from other sources to compare with?

Kind regards, Pierre

[lynn cates]

Kate

Hello Karl.

"Personally I dismiss Elizabeth Stride, and I also now tend to dismiss Mary Jane Kelly. The police did not speculate a different killer than Jack because of the mutilations involved, because after all: "who other but he?" And indeed, that is the only reason to assume it was JtR. But to me MJK looks more like a murder made to look like a Ripper murder. Already there had been an unusually long pause since the last one, and there was no murder afterwards either, attributed to Jack."

Good thinking. Now, include Kate Eddowes and you shall be near the truth.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

all or none?

Hello Trevor, All. If one wishes to argue that Kate's kidney were removed by a trained medical person post mortem, one needs do little to convince me. After all, it was removed "carefully" in contrast to the hack and mangle job performed on the rest of Kate.

However, the uteri are a very different story. Annie's done with skillful mutilations; Kate's, unskillful.

Why are both sides in the argument insisting on "all or none"?

Cheers.
LC