Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The kidney removal of Catherine Eddowes.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    I think the question should be...


    Could a man with no anatomical knowledge, no skill with a knife, and/or no surgical skill, manage to inflict the injuries that he did on his victims?

    (We have to consider that the killer had limited restrictions with time and light when attempting to answer that question)


    If the answer is a resounding NO, then the killer is considerably more likely to have been an individual who was used to cutting things up for a living.

    A surgeon
    A person with surgical experience
    A person with medical experience
    A butcher
    A horse slaughterer
    A professional killer
    Any profession that used a knife


    For me, the killer almost certainly needed to have been at least one of the above list.


    If not, then how could a man with no anatomical knowledge, no surgical skill, and/or no skill with a knife, manage to do what he did?

    The killer may have been lucky to flee and escape, but luck doesn't play a part in the level of njuries he managed to achieve in the relatively short amount of time he had, and all in relative darkness.
    "Great minds, don't think alike"

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

      On another point, I rule out a surgeon or a doctor as the Anatomy Act allowed Bona Fide medical personnel access to organs from mortuaries

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
      Rule them out from what exactly ?
      'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by The Rookie Detective View Post

        If the answer is a resounding NO, then the killer is considerably more likely to have been an individual who was used to cutting things up for a living.

        A surgeon
        A person with surgical experience
        A person with medical experience
        A butcher
        A horse slaughterer
        A professional killer
        Any profession that used a knife


        For me, the killer almost certainly needed to have been at least one of the above list.
        I am with you on this.

        Now that you mention horse slaughteres... I sometimes ponder the possibility that Nichols was done in by one of the slaughterers employed right there in Bucks Row. For subsequent murders the culprit was smart enough to operate a little further from his place of employment to avoid drawing attention.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by The Rookie Detective View Post
          I think the question should be...


          Could a man with no anatomical knowledge, no skill with a knife, and/or no surgical skill, manage to inflict the injuries that he did on his victims?

          (We have to consider that the killer had limited restrictions with time and light when attempting to answer that question)


          If the answer is a resounding NO, then the killer is considerably more likely to have been an individual who was used to cutting things up for a living.

          A surgeon
          A person with surgical experience
          A person with medical experience
          A butcher
          A horse slaughterer
          A professional killer
          Any profession that used a knife


          For me, the killer almost certainly needed to have been at least one of the above list.


          If not, then how could a man with no anatomical knowledge, no surgical skill, and/or no skill with a knife, manage to do what he did?

          The killer may have been lucky to flee and escape, but luck doesn't play a part in the level of njuries he managed to achieve in the relatively short amount of time he had, and all in relative darkness.
          hi rookie
          good post and completely agree. i would add a hunter/ fisherman to the list. at the very least the ripper had anatomical knowledge and was skilled with tje knife.
          "Is all that we see or seem
          but a dream within a dream?"

          -Edgar Allan Poe


          "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
          quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

          -Frederick G. Abberline

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

            Rule them out from what exactly ?
            From being the killer !!!!!!!!!!!!!

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

              hi rookie
              good post and completely agree. i would add a hunter/ fisherman to the list. at the very least the ripper had anatomical knowledge and was skilled with tje knife.
              Yes, I agree.

              An individual who was experienced at hunting animals and various prey is an excellent point. They would no doubt be skilled with a knife and I think you're spot on with that idea.

              It would be good to have a list of all those suspects and/or persons of interest that would fit into the list.

              it's always surprised me that subjective observations like age, height, appearance, ethnicity, attire etc... sometimes take precedence over the fact that the Ripper must of had at least one of the following...


              Anatomical Knowledge
              Surgical Skill
              Skill with a knife
              Experience with a knife


              I feel that at least one of those listed above can be attributed to the Ripper. Not necessarily all, but one at least.
              "Great minds, don't think alike"

              Comment


              • #82
                Fishman in his East End 1888 describes the mortuaries in questions as no more than a h

                Comment


                • #83
                  Not sure what happened there..fat fingers. Per Fishman the Mortuaries were described as no more than human slaughterhouses. Small , not well lit and not furnished with medical equipment. I have not read where the Doctors in the case of Chapman and Eddowes distinguished the Intestine specific anatomy like descending colon or transverse colon. The Peritoneum was not a thick membrane. This begs the question..Did the killer get a better view of the abdomen in emerging light after he removed " intestines " during Chapman and apply what he learned to Eddowes? Butchers deal with viscera daily with animals v a mortuary assistant with no medical skill as they are not the ones removing organs.
                  i do not believe this killer was a transient because of the depth of local knowledge required to escape in a 20 to 30 minute cycle. If the Eddowes apron on Goulston Street showed anything it showed a killer completely comfortable within an area teaming with Constables and plain clothes detectives all the while taunting them. He lived right there. No transient could be that lucky ( my opinion).

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                    From being the killer !!!!!!!!!!!!!

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                    Why !!!!!!!!!!!!!
                    'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Not this yet again. The organs were taken by the killer. The idea that they were taken in the mortuary is a theory invented for the sake of having a theory.
                      Regards

                      Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                      “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                        Not this yet again. The organs were taken by the killer. The idea that they were taken in the mortuary is a theory invented for the sake of having a theory.
                        Well, all the facts and the evidence points to that theory being correct !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                          Well, all the facts and the evidence points to that theory being correct !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                          There’s not one single piece of evidence that even vaguely points to that conclusion. It’s the usual case Trevor of you coming up with an idea and thinking that just because you thought of it then it must be true. The body of Eddowes got to the mortuary in the early hours (I can’t recall the time but I’m guessing at some time around 3ish?) and the inquest took place at 2.30 in the afternoon. At some point after its arrival Dr. Phillips checked the mutilations at the request of Dr. Brown. So he would have checked for missing organs in the open abdomen. This was the highest profile murder that the police had ever had. The mortuary, which wasn’t an old shed, but was described as “the best building of the kind in London,” would I would have assumed been fairly secure. Maybe even with a Constable on guard (which I seem to recall occurring with one of the other victims?) Any potential organ thieves would have been only too aware of the attention that this body would get and of the possibility of police and doctors visiting at any time. You are suggesting that, in broad daylight, someone just took the risk of swiping organs without caring that someone like Phillips or Brown might have said “hold on, those organs were there when we checked earlier.”

                          I wish you’d give this one up Trevor.

                          Regards

                          Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                          “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                            There’s not one single piece of evidence that even vaguely points to that conclusion. It’s the usual case Trevor of you coming up with an idea and thinking that just because you thought of it then it must be true. The body of Eddowes got to the mortuary in the early hours (I can’t recall the time but I’m guessing at some time around 3ish?) and the inquest took place at 2.30 in the afternoon. At some point after its arrival Dr. Phillips checked the mutilations at the request of Dr. Brown. So he would have checked for missing organs in the open abdomen. This was the highest profile murder that the police had ever had. The mortuary, which wasn’t an old shed, but was described as “the best building of the kind in London,” would I would have assumed been fairly secure. Maybe even with a Constable on guard (which I seem to recall occurring with one of the other victims?) Any potential organ thieves would have been only too aware of the attention that this body would get and of the possibility of police and doctors visiting at any time. You are suggesting that, in broad daylight, someone just took the risk of swiping organs without caring that someone like Phillips or Brown might have said “hold on, those organs were there when we checked earlier.”

                            I wish you’d give this one up Trevor.

                            But that's the point no one checked the bodies for missing organs before the post mortems and you have no evidence to the contrary

                            Did you not look at the pics I posted earlier in this thread, I was present at those post mortems and took the pics and I saw and had explained to me by modern medical experts the degree of difficulty involved in a killer trying to remove these organs in almost total darkness

                            You really do need to take a fresh look at how these organs went missing and who took them because you are clearly blinkered in your misguided belief that the killer took them.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                              But that's the point no one checked the bodies for missing organs before the post mortems and you have no evidence to the contrary

                              Did you not look at the pics I posted earlier in this thread, I was present at those post mortems and took the pics and I saw and had explained to me by modern medical experts the degree of difficulty involved in a killer trying to remove these organs in almost total darkness

                              You really do need to take a fresh look at how these organs went missing and who took them because you are clearly blinkered in your misguided belief that the killer took them.

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                              So Dr. Brown asked Dr. Phillips to view the body just for fun? He asked him because he had seen the mutilations and missing organs in Chapman and he wanted his opinion. But the point that you are deliberately missing Trevor is that the organ thief wouldn’t have known that Phillips or Brown hadn’t looked into the abdomen unless they had invited him along. So he was taking a massive risk in stealing an organ that for all he knew might have been seen by a doctor. Why would they jeopardise their whole operation rather than simply wait until after the post mortem, when they knew that there would be no further interest in the body and that they would have had the cover of darkness. The points against are too many.

                              The organs were taken by the killer, however long it took, they were taken. Why we keep having to waste time over these tiresome theories? Over and over and over again. They don’t add up.
                              Regards

                              Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                              “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                              Comment


                              • #90

                                Would an organ thief really have stolen organ before a post Mortem had been carried out?
                                1. He wouldn’t have known what any Doctor that had already examined the corpse had or hadn’t seen - so there would have existed a chance that of an organ being stolen that a Doctor had already noted as present.
                                2. With a post mortem still to do how could an organ thief have confidence that, at some point a police officer or a doctor might not show up for some reason connected to the ongoing investigation.
                                3. Surely any organ thieving would have been done after a post mortem when the thief could have absolute confidence that the doctors and police had no further use for the corpse.
                                4. Would organ thieves operate in broad daylight, especially at a mortuary like Golden Lane which, at that time, could probably have been described as state of the art.

                                These so called (non-existent) thieves had a choice. a) Wait until after the PM when all was quiet and risks were massively reduced, or b) Do it in broad daylight with more than one risk of discovery leading to the scuppering of their ‘earner.’
                                Why would they be so stupid? Remember Trevor….


                                Herlock’s Maxim No 2 - “ A theory is usually weakened if it relies on the suggestion of acts of egregious stupidity by those involved at the time.”
                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes.

                                “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X