How did he do it?

[Barrister]

I am sure this has been addressed in the past, but I missed it and hope you will indulge me. How in the world was the Ripper able to remove select organs from the victims in complete darkness of the type that existed in Whitechapel in the LVP? I can't even debone a chicken breast in the dark and, if I tried, my hands would be sliced to pieces. If he carried a lantern, he almost certain would have called so much attention to himself that he would have been caught. I just can't imagine that kind of skillful surgery under such conditions and I am not convinced JtR had any medical experience. Let me know your thoughts.

[Trevor Marriott]

I am sure this has been addressed in the past, but I missed it and hope you will indulge me. How in the world was the Ripper able to remove select organs from the victims in complete darkness of the type that existed in Whitechapel in the LVP? I can't even debone a chicken breast in the dark and, if I tried, my hands would be sliced to pieces. If he carried a lantern, he almost certain would have called so much attention to himself that he would have been caught. I just can't imagine that kind of skillful surgery under such conditions and I am not convinced JtR had any medical experience. Let me know your thoughts.

Good to see another questioning the old accepted theory. Glad to have you aboard but expect a rough ride from those who want to keep the old accepted theory alive.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

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

[Aldebaran]

I am sure this has been addressed in the past, but I missed it and hope you will indulge me. How in the world was the Ripper able to remove select organs from the victims in complete darkness of the type that existed in Whitechapel in the LVP? I can't even debone a chicken breast in the dark and, if I tried, my hands would be sliced to pieces. If he carried a lantern, he almost certain would have called so much attention to himself that he would have been caught. I just can't imagine that kind of skillful surgery under such conditions and I am not convinced JtR had any medical experience. Let me know your thoughts.

You won't have to go back very far in the thread "Is Kosminski still the best suspect?" to find my thoughts on this very problem. I think you might find them of interest.

[David Orsam]

I am sure this has been addressed in the past, but I missed it and hope you will indulge me. How in the world was the Ripper able to remove select organs from the victims in complete darkness of the type that existed in Whitechapel in the LVP? I can't even debone a chicken breast in the dark and, if I tried, my hands would be sliced to pieces. If he carried a lantern, he almost certain would have called so much attention to himself that he would have been caught. I just can't imagine that kind of skillful surgery under such conditions and I am not convinced JtR had any medical experience. Let me know your thoughts.

I agree with you to a certain extent but my conclusion would be that, in that case, the murders were committed elsewhere and the bodies moved.

HOWEVER,

I can't ignore the evidence of the surgeon, George William Sequeira, at the Eddowes inquest. He said he knew the locality and, although he said Eddowes was murdered in "the darkest portion of the square", he also said quite categorically:

"There would have been sufficient light to enable the perpetrator of the deed to have committed the deed without the addition of any extra light".

In the face of that very clear evidence, I find it hard to argue that there wasn't any light in that part of the square. There must have been some. He knew Mitre Square personally and I don't.

Equally, Chapman could have been murdered between 5.20 and 6:00am, with Richardson saying of the crime scene, as at about 5.20am, that, "It was not light, but it was getting so, and was sufficient for him to see all over the place".

For the two outdoor murders for which there were organs removed, in other words, one could argue that there was sufficient light to enable to killer to see what he was doing.

[niko]

I would say "how did they do it" ??????

[Wickerman]

How in the world was the Ripper able to remove select organs from the victims in complete darkness of the type that existed in Whitechapel in the LVP?

Your question is your first problem, in no case did the killer operate in "complete darkness".

With Chapman, the killer operated as dawn was breaking, and in the Eddowes case Dr. Sequeira said: "Where the murder was committed was probably the darkest part of the square, but there was sufficient light to enable the miscreant to perpetrate the deed."
We have no opinion with the Nichols murder, except the comment that there was a streetlamp at the end of the row.

Much of the 'Jack the Ripper' mystery is created by modern day students and authors of the case making incorrect assumptions.

[Trevor Marriott]

Much of the 'Jack the Ripper' mystery is created by modern day students and authors of the case making incorrect assumptions.

Those students and authors you speak of are simply doing what should have been done years ago, and that is to try to prove or disprove the different parts of this mystery that have made it of interest worldwide all these years.

So far those who seek to disprove are winning by a country mile

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

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

[Elamarna]

Those students and authors you speak of are simply doing what should have been done years ago, and that is to try to prove or disprove the different parts of this mystery that have made it of interest worldwide all these years.

So far those who seek to disprove are winning by a country mile

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

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

Don't make me laugh anymore Trevor, the fantasy theory is only winning in one mind.

Steve

[Michael W Richards]

I am sure this has been addressed in the past, but I missed it and hope you will indulge me. How in the world was the Ripper able to remove select organs from the victims in complete darkness of the type that existed in Whitechapel in the LVP? I can't even debone a chicken breast in the dark and, if I tried, my hands would be sliced to pieces. If he carried a lantern, he almost certain would have called so much attention to himself that he would have been caught. I just can't imagine that kind of skillful surgery under such conditions and I am not convinced JtR had any medical experience. Let me know your thoughts.

Its a real conundrum until you imagine people of that era doing so many "procedures" in poor light in the middle of the night and at breakneck speed so as to maximize the output. There is a suspect who fits that profile and was later identified by a witness as having been a few hundred feet from the Hanbury murder scene in the early morn, wild and with blood on him. It wasnt that all Five were "surgically" dissected, its that some appear to have been. But I submit repetition creates some very steady moves, deliberate.

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Wickerman;386546]

With Chapman, the killer operated as dawn was breaking,

That may not be correct as Dr Phillips times the death much earlier when it would have been still dark

and in the Eddowes case Dr. Sequeira said: "Where the murder was committed was probably the darkest part of the square, but there was sufficient light to enable the miscreant to perpetrate the deed." /QUOTE]

In the light of The Star article on the murder dated Oct 1st relating to him being interviewed before the post mortem was carried out and the organs found to be missing Sequeira also says

"The work had been quickly done."

Q "By an expert, do you think?"

"No, not by an expert, but by a man who was not altogether ignorant of the use of the knife. It would have taken about three minutes."

He says three minutes to carry out the murder and mutilations, but not enough time to remove the organs.

Dr Brown also interviewed by the Star at the same time

Q "How long would it have taken him to mutilate the body as you found it?"

A. At least five minutes

Kudos to the original poster for being brave enough to come here and openly challenge the old accepted theory. He is not alone.

Someone on here suggested there were no sources for proving the killer did not have enough time to remove the organs. I might suggest they remove the blinkers and re consider their position.

Eliminate the possibility of the killer removing the organs and all other plausible explanations jump to the front of the queue.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

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

[Elamarna]

Its a real conundrum until you imagine people of that era doing so many "procedures" in poor light in the middle of the night and at breakneck speed so as to maximize the output. There is a suspect who fits that profile and was later identified by a witness as having been a few hundred feet from the Hanbury murder scene in the early morn, wild and with blood on him. It wasnt that all Five were "surgically" dissected, its that some appear to have been. But I submit repetition creates some very steady moves, deliberate.

Michael,

your first point is one often missed by many.

your final sentence is also very true and again a point often missed.


Regards


Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

Don't make me laugh anymore Trevor, the fantasy theory is only winning in one mind.

Steve

Yes and a mind, which would appear to be far superior to yours.

I bet as we speak you are reading a book on how to untie knots

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win”
Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948)

[Trevor Marriott]

Its a real conundrum until you imagine people of that era doing so many "procedures" in poor light in the middle of the night and at breakneck speed so as to maximize the output. There is a suspect who fits that profile and was later identified by a witness as having been a few hundred feet from the Hanbury murder scene in the early morn, wild and with blood on him. It wasnt that all Five were "surgically" dissected, its that some appear to have been. But I submit repetition creates some very steady moves, deliberate.

Is it a coincidence that the only two victims who were found to be missing organs were the two victims that had their abdomens ripped open in such a way that those open abdomens would make it easier for someone later to remove them.

The same two victims that were left for 12 hours before the post mortems were carried out.

The same two victims who went to different mortuaries whose post mortem reports show that entry to the abdomens was made in two different ways.

The same two victims who uteri were removed differently

The last two paras point to two different persons removing the organs from the two victims

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

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

[Elamarna]

and in the Eddowes case Dr. Sequeira said: "Where the murder was committed was probably the darkest part of the square, but there was sufficient light to enable the miscreant to perpetrate the deed." /QUOTE]

In the light of The Star article on the murder dated Oct 1st relating to him being interviewed before the post mortem was carried out and the organs found to be missing Sequeira also says

"The work had been quickly done."

Q "By an expert, do you think?"

"No, not by an expert, but by a man who was not altogether ignorant of the use of the knife. It would have taken about three minutes."

He says three minutes to carry out the murder and mutilations, but not enough time to remove the organs.

Dr Brown also interviewed by the Star at the same time

Q "How long would it have taken him to mutilate the body as you found it?"

A. At least five minutes

Dr. Sequeira does not say it took 3 minutes without removing any organs.

It is only fair to point out that the idea that the doctors are talking about the time taken with out the organs being removed is a theory has yet untested, based on a single interpretation of one newspaper article.

Regards

Steve

[Elamarna]

Yes and a mind, which would appear to be far superior to yours.

I bet as we speak you are reading a book on how to untie knots

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win”
Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948)

Trevor

Personal insults now, I do not do so to you.
However those who cannot argue often resort to insults.

And to do so is certainly not humorous.


However the statement is incorrect, while I have no idea of your intellectual capacity, the content of your posts is wanting much of the time, both in terms of accuracy and source analysis.
Repeating something not supported by the sources over and over again does not make it real.

Why would I be reading on how to untie knots, my arguments are not convoluted, and are based on the sources.


For information my current reading is:

1. Current Research in Egyptology 2016

2. Asiatics in Middle Kingdom Egypt by Phyllis Saretta

What's yours?



Steve