Zulu influences?

[Supe]

As far as Kellys murder is concerned I would not wish to comment any further on this murder as it is likely to be the subject of further disclosure in the future

Well, well, seems Trev has another book in the hopper, which is no surprise since the only times he shows up is when he has a book to flog. Maybe this time he'll explain where these "students" who removed the organs came from,

Don.

[Dorian Gray]

It is a fact that the bodies were mutilated at the scene however it is also a fact that those bodies were not examined at the scene so neither you nor I can say for sure if the organs had been removed or not.

Trevor,

With regards to your statement above, which mutilations were carried out at the scene according to your theory?

Regards,

Dorian

[perrymason]

I never said organs were removed from Polly Trevor if youll re-read my post, I said they were only taken successfully from Annie....as per the Inquest's medical theory on why these 2 women were killed in the first place.

You dont have to remove flaps of skin to remove a uterus either....and this wasnt conventional surgery anyway. But it does appear that Annie was killed for her uterus primarily, and that Polly was likely a target for the same kind of donation... but since its his first outing, he chose too public a spot to fulfill his objectives.

I dont object to theorizing Trevor, I do object to the imbedded derision in your posts for any other logical answer that does use the supporting evidence.

As Dorian asked a question numerous times....will you commit to an answer? If the mutilations on Polly and Annie specifically were not to obtain organs onsite...just what mutilations do you believe occurred onsite?

Cheers

[Trevor Marriott]

The answer you seek from me is that as it stands all of the mutilations were carried out at the scene.

However it is also a fact that whoever removed the organs from Chapman and Eddowes had some anatomical knowledge, anyone who doesnt belive that is vrey naieve.

If the organs were removed by another after the bodies were removed from the scenes and that person had anataomical knowledge and used that in order to facilitate the removal he may have had to make addittional incisions in order to do that. So that is why when the post mortems were carried out the doctors were able to report that the organs were missing and and been removed as they say with some anatomical knowledge.

I think you and may others on here should read up on what the modern day medical experts say in relation to this. You sit here spouting out what you beleive but you like many others are not prepared to look at new facts and consider them objectively.

There is no new book in the pipeline If there was rest assured it would be based around proven facts !!!!!!

I used to come here a lot but got tired of reading the moronic ramblings of some posters.

[Jeff Leahy]

However it is also a fact that whoever removed the organs from Chapman and Eddowes had some anatomical knowledge, anyone who doesnt belive that is vrey naieve.

Yeah, but my eighteen month old nephew has anatomical knowledge. He sings a rhyme “ heads, shoulders , knees and toes, knees and toes”

He can now point to most parts of the body and access the position of a leg and arm fore instance.

What is disputed is that the Ripper required any surgical or medical training in order to commit these brutal attacks. And I don’t believe that this has ever been proved or established.

Besides most of the key suspects, even if they were not ‘Doctors’ have some suggested connection to some very basic anatomical knowledge.

So it makes little difference when considering potential Jacks.

all the best

Pirate

[smezenen]

Oher than size, the heart of a dear or cow looks very much like a human heart. The most likely place to find a heart is in the chest. I have no idea what a cow uterus looks like but I bet if I look inside the body near the genitals I will find one. A deer liver looks just like a human liver and a cow liver and i'll bet that I could find one in the midsection of any animal I chose to cut open. In fact I can dress a deer and have the liver in my hand in less than 5 minutes.

The point is im not a doctor and other than the animals that I hunt, kill, dress, eat, I have no training in anatomy. So why would jack have to have medical training in order to remove organs.

As was pointed out to me in another post Jack, unlike a surgeon, would have no care about being carefull and precise or about keeping his "patient" alive when removing an organ, so its only logical that Jack could remove an organ in less time with less light.

Now the speculation part, if jack where an avid hunter or worked in a profession such as a slaughter house he would have more than enough knowledge to remove organs quickly and without much light.

[perrymason]

I happen to agree with both the attending physicians for Polly and Annie and Trevors statement that the killer of those 2 women certainly had anatomical knowledge and knife skills. For me, and them, there is no question about it. The partial bladder taken was likely just due to his haste in getting the hell out of that yard, but he removed the uterus cleanly and efficiently and with minimal cuts. In the dark....near 5:30am....as a multiple murderer who was causing police some serious issues and had little time to dawdle...or to "discover" a complete uterus while cutting away aimlessly.

If the killer of those 2 women had those talents and the objectives as set out by the medical expert at the Inquest, and he is the killer that we refer to as Jack the Ripper....then the next 3 alleged victims deaths should be considered with caution.

The only action in those 3 deaths, (C3-C5),....that shows any kind of knife and anatomy skill is the kidney extraction, primarily based on the overall murder timing...

Liz was just murdered by anyone with a knife, Kate was murdered remarkably like the first 2 with some glaring inconsistencies and unique circumstances, and Marys murder neednt have any "surgical" style experience with a knife or a body before entering that room.

None of those 3 have the precision and objective based murder evidence that the first 2 did.

Best regards all

[Jeff Leahy]

I happen to agree with both the attending physicians for Polly and Annie and Trevors statement that the killer of those 2 women certainly had anatomical knowledge and knife skills. For me, and them, there is no question about it. The partial bladder taken was likely just due to his haste in getting the hell out of that yard, but he removed the uterus cleanly and efficiently and with minimal cuts. In the dark....near 5:30am....as a multiple murderer who was causing police some serious issues and had little time to dawdle...or to "discover" a complete uterus while cutting away aimlessly.

If the killer of those 2 women had those talents and the objectives as set out by the medical expert at the Inquest, and he is the killer that we refer to as Jack the Ripper....then the next 3 alleged victims deaths should be considered with caution.

The only action in those 3 deaths, (C3-C5),....that shows any kind of knife and anatomy skill is the kidney extraction, primarily based on the overall murder timing...

Liz was just murdered by anyone with a knife, Kate was murdered remarkably like the first 2 with some glaring inconsistencies and unique circumstances, and Marys murder neednt have any "surgical" style experience with a knife or a body before entering that room.

None of those 3 have the precision and objective based murder evidence that the first 2 did.

Best regards all

Hi Michael

Your conclusion is NOT in dispute. However the description 'anatomical knowledge' is?

What do you and Trevor mean by this exactly?

Because as far as I can see almost anyone could have committed these crimes?

Pirate

[Trevor Marriott]

In concluding my input into this topic which i have spoken about on here several times. i would just like to highlight several important issues arising from the tests conducted by the team of medical experts and also the statement obtained from a master butcher. By the reaction of posters on here would suggest to me that very few have bothered to make any attempt to read and digest these.

1. As we know intestines were taken out/removed by the killer of both Chapman and Eddowes, However it is a fact it is not necessary to have to remove intestines to extract the uterus. So in the case of Chapman the removal of the intestines would suggest was all part of the killers frenzied mutilation of the body. The same would apply in the case Eddowes as we know she also had her uterus removed.

2. The doctors in their post mortems reports suggest that a 6inch bladed knife was the murder weapon. The test showed almost impossible to remove a kidney with such a long knife and with any precision.

4 Another test carried out on a live donor by a consultant gynecolgist was to remove a uterus when perfoming a hysterctomy. This was wrapped in a white cloth to simulate the suggestion that the killer after removing the organs from Eddowes took away the organs in the apron piece. The uterus was left for 15 mins wrapped in the cloth and then the results photographed. The cloth was heavily blood stained and that was just with one organ let alone a kidney also. This test clearly shows and proves that the apron piece was not used to take away the organs in. How it was described at the post mortem was spotted with blood clearly anyone looking at the test results would surley agree.

5.The master butcher i recruited states he would be able to remove a kidney and a uterus from a human body in normal light but would not want to attempt such removals in darkness with his hand inside an abdomen with slippery wet organs and feeling his way around with a sharp knife in his hand.

6 It should also be noted that a sheep is an animal with organs in very similar positions to that of humans. Posters talk of JTR being a slaughtermen.

7.I did read somewhere that there was an order prohibiting the slaughter of oxen,sheep and swine in The City of London if that be the case it must weaken the theory that JTR was a slaughterman

Again I reiterate what i have said previous, everyone is entiled to their own opinion. It is for each individual to assess and evaluate in an impartial manner all the facts and either agree or disagree.

However those that disagree I would invite to put forward valid evidence to support their theory. Because I have to say that there is not one scrap of hard evidence which suggests to me we can totally rely on the theory that the killer removed the organs from Chapman and Eddowes at the scene of the crime. Where as the new evidence certainly casts a major doubt about that 120 year old belief

[perrymason]

Hi Michael

Your conclusion is NOT in dispute. However the description 'anatomical knowledge' is?

What do you and Trevor mean by this exactly?

Because as far as I can see almost anyone could have committed these crimes?

Pirate

Hi Pirate,

And unfortunately.... from my perspective, so do many other people believe the victims remains didnt reveal any uncommon skill or knowledge. I believe thats one reason Mary Kelly can be so readily accepted by so many....clearly a murder that required no skill or training of any kind at all...(as Bond suggested for all 5 victims... even though he only actually inspected 1 first hand),...ans also a woman who was by the evidence, merely murdered by someone with a knife.

The doctors of the investigations of the first 2 victims thought the murderer had those attributes, I would imagine based on the amount of superfluous cutting, the precision and accuracy of external cuts and the cuts made once he could see the internal structures, the overall time he likely took, the environmental issues, ....the "one clean sweep of the knife" line refers to the fact that the uterus was not extracted in a sloppy manner and with a minimum of cuts required.

For me the differentiator is this....the knowledge of where things are internally within women was knowledge that was accessible to anyone who could buy a book and read during that same period...however, the ability to choose an organ and them remove it in near dark, in very trying circumstances,... extremely competently in the opinion of a professional surgeon, is not something that just anyone could do.

Kates kidney through her front within a total time frame of 5-6 minutes for her entire attack and his departure is what keeps me on the fence with Kate. Because otherwise, there is no clear objective and relatively uniform opinion of skills that there was with the first 2 murders. And the circumstances.. beginning with the total elapsed time of perhaps 42 minutes from her release to being found cut up and also including some 7-8 current or ex-policeman as being the closest people to that square at that time, warrant some scrutiny in my opinion.

Hope that explains how I see this question.

Cheers mate.

[The Good Michael]

Just to help Michael out (and others) with keeping this on thread: So, would you say that a Zulu with an asegai would not be able to do anything that required anatomical skill?

Gareth Jr.

[Howard Brown]

Excuse me,Trevor....

Did you actually intend to say this or did you forget to edit it:

7.I did read somewhere that there was an order prohibiting the slaughter of oxen,sheep and swine in The City of London if that be the case it must weaken the theory that JTR was a slaughterman

Just to be on the same page here, there were also laws in effect punishing rank and file East End men, from costermongers to fish porters, should they kill and then mutilate women,yet someone apparently wasn't aware or at least following that crazy edict.

I guess you overlooked the possibility that the Ripper hailed from outside the City district, where such practices weren't banned...

[Trevor Marriott]

I think i mentioned the sarcasting moronic ramblings of some posters on here Hmmmmmmmmmmmm Mr Brown i think you have just joined the club !!!!!!!!!

[Cap'n Jack]

I wrote the following in The Myth in 1993:

'But back to 1888 and 35 Dorset Street after that slight diversion into the world of modern murder. In 1888 it is thought that there were as many as 233 common lodging houses in the Whitechapel area, and this is quoted to show that Crossingham's Lodging House, 35 Dorset Street, was not the only common lodging house available to the poor and needy of that grim area of London at the time of the murders. The cost of a bed in one of these boarding houses was four pence a night, which was about the same as what one of the more than 1,200 working prostitutes of the area could expect to earn from a 'trick'. Four pence was also what the slaughter men could earn for each sheep they killed and dressed in the hell that was the nearby underground slaughter yard north of St Paul's where the poor animals were first thrown live into a pit to break their legs before having their throats cut.'

[Pettifogger]

Devil's Advocate

Could JtR have actually been a Zulu?