Zulu influences?

[perrymason]

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.

Hi Mike,

According to what Ive found regarding Shaka Zulu, the Zulu King until his demise in 1828, he replaced the assegais, which were light throwing javelins, with heavy bladed thrusting spears called i-kwlas....and their trademarks werent what they did to their enemies with weapons but rather how they used the "buffalo formation" battle style that they developed.

Either way, I dont see a javelin or spear for performing field surgery.

Cheers mate

[Howard Brown]

.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

Hi Trevor...

Let this sarcastic moron ask you one more time but in an easier to understand manner...

How does some edict passed in the City of London prohibiting the slaughter of animals relate to or diminish the possibility of someone who practiced shechita ( Kosher slaughter ) or good ol' Goyische slaughter on animals from being the Whitechapel Murderer ?



How Brown,Moron 1st Class.

[perrymason]

.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

Hi Trevor...

Let this sarcastic moron ask you one more time but in an easier to understand manner...

How does some edict passed in the City of London prohibiting the slaughter of animals relate to or diminish the possibility of someone who practiced shechita ( Kosher slaughter ) or good ol' Goyische slaughter on animals from being the Whitechapel Murderer ?


How Brown,Moron 1st Class.

I think in your case Howard its spelled "More-On", because your obviously "More-on" track with the evidence and historical data than the name caller is.

How anyone expects to win agreement with an idea that is as viable as Annie Crook and the evil Prince is one thing...how they expect to do that while insulting members who obviously know their stuff is beyond me.

Is this like "any press is good press"? Does appearing on a site that experts and eager students alike frequent and calling them names endear anyone to the author or encourage the purchase of his ideas in print?

Bad ideas are one thing...bad ideas from a bonehead are another far worse thing.

Cheers HB

[Sam Flynn]

According to what Ive found regarding Shaka Zulu, he replaced the assegais with heavy bladed thrusting spears called i-kwlas

... Lxwa (or thereabouts), pronounced thus. The word is onomatopoeic, and mimics the squelchy sound of a lxwa being extracted from the guts of your enemy (the "lx-" bit), and presumably his scream ("wa!") as a result of this misfortune.

[Trevor Marriott]

Howard

Now you have won your first badge lets see if you can get your second and third for reading and understanding.

The relavance of my previous post is that if a slaughermen living or based locally was extensively involved in the killing of cattle then they are less likely to know the wherabouts of the organs in question in a human, and even less likely to be able to locate and extract the organs with anatomical knowledge in almost total darkness.

So many conflicting theories one minute JTR is a slaughterman living locally now you suggest he is a slaughterman travelling to Whitechapel on a No 9 Bus !!!

[Howard Brown]

The relevance of my previous post is that if a slaughterman living or was based locally & was extensively involved in the killing of cattle then they are less likely to know the whereabouts of the organs in question in a human.--Trevor

Um, based on what Trevor?

Dentists aren't doctors, yet see more throats than most throat surgeons...or doctors.

How is the specialization in one field a hinderance to knowledge in another?

The chances are that any sort of man could perform the mutilations on the women that were present and that no one field can be eliminated because of a proficiency or predilection for another.

If Feigenbaum, the non suspect ,is found to have had some experience with cutting up chickens for his family's meals over the next few years, will that change your opinion of a man with experience slaughtering animals and thereby having new life and the potential to be the Saucy One?

[Trevor Marriott]

Howard you sadly failed the test to get your follow up badges.

I fully accept that any man could have caused those mutilations from any walk of life. But that is not the issue. The issues are that it is suggested that JTR was a slaughterman and as such was able to remove the organs with anatomical knowledge because he would know where to find them beacuse he slaughters and removes the organs from animals on a daily basis.

i have attempted to negate this slaughterman theory by means of a modern day master butcher making a statement. In that statement he states that he by reason of in the past has slaughtered sheep therefore he can say that the organs in a sheep are located in similar locations to that of a human.

He goes onto say that he would be able to remove the organs from a human knowing where they are situated in the body. What he does say is that he would find it almost impossible to remove those organs from a human body in almost total darkness with his hands trying to grab slippery organs and trying to cut blind in a blood filled abdomen with a sharp knife.He also says like the other medical experts that there is no way a kidney could be removed with any precision using a six inch knife. Strangely enough all the other medical experts say the same things. These experts are A forensic pathlogist. A Consultant gynecologist. and a mortuary enviscerator.

Now are they all wrong or are you an expert in these matters and we should beleive you and not them.

I noticed another poster mentioned historical data i dont have a problem with historical data which is useful and relevant but to much irrelevant data can hide the true facts. Sadly the Ripper mystery in lacking in true facts.

I have nothing further to say i rest my case and will now abstain from any further debate on these topics

[Sam Flynn]

Now are they all wrong or are you an expert in these matters and we should beleive you and not them.

Howard's knowledge of the Ripper case might give him the edge over the experts, Trevor, at least in terms of the relevant details. Specifically:

a) it was not almost pitch dark where the eviscerations happened - the darkest site, Mitre Square, would have been sufficiently lit to conduct the mutilations, according to Dr Sequeira;

b) the evisceration victims had lost significant volumes of blood from the neck, so their abdomens were unlikely to have been awash with blood; and

c) Eddowes' kidney was hardly removed with what one might call precision, if the state of the organs in its vicinity is anything to go by. Specifically, the descending colon had been hacked out and the liver, spleen and abdominal aorta all suffered collateral damage from the knife.


Anyhow, back to Natal...

[Howard Brown]

Thanks for the followup...and I sort of think you will continue with the repartee,old bean...

You said:

He goes onto say that he would be able to remove the organs from a human knowing where they are situated in the body.


What he does say is that he would find it almost impossible to remove those organs from a human body in almost total darkness with his hands trying to grab slippery organs and trying to cut blind in a blood filled abdomen with a sharp knife

When did we determine...or should I say, when did YOU determine that the Ripper was working in almost total darkness in the Hanbury Street murder ?

There's total darkness which is potentially an obstacle to the sort of mutilation/evisceration which transpired in Mitre Square and then there's darkness,which of course was what the killer faced in Mitre Square, despite your objections to the contrary.

[Trevor Marriott]

I see now the other posters are disagreeing with each other what chance have we got.!!!!

I did not refer to Hanbury St and i do beleive the amount of light at the rear has never been accuratley established. In any event Chapman was mutilated and her intestines taken out.Now you people suggest the killer also removed the uterus and that was his objective. As i previous stated and it seems i have to keep repeating the facts. If the killer wanted the uterus why remove the intestines there would be no need to. The same with Eddowes

As far as what each indidvual beleives in relation to these issues the statments from the medical experts should not be dismissed lightly.

Eddowes was murdered or found in the darkest part of Mitre Square (fact) and the lamp referred to was some distance away (fact). Its very contardictory how could she have been found in the darkest part if the lamp was that bright. In any event those old lamps gave out very little light certainly not enough to perform major surgery.

Sleep tight and dont have nightmares the truth is out there !!!!!!!! DYOR

[perrymason]

Annies uterus was taken out cleanly and it was almost daylight. Kates kidney was extracted via the front which makes it trickier, but nothing about her murder smacks of the acumen noticed and noted by the physicians of the first 2 women. And youre right,....Kate was killed in near darkness....and cut sloppily.

However, unless the facial marks are the result of the nose wound collaterally, there was enough light to make out her facial features.

Since the opinions summarized in Polly Nichols Inquest at its close suggest that the medical examiners felt both Polly and Annie were likely killed for the same reason, obtaining certain internal organs, one wouldnt need wonder aloud why they were opened and had their intestines removed. It was suggested the only variable that affected his success in Bucks Row was the venue itself, which explains why 10 days later he is in a backyard.

Best regards.

[Supe]

Howard & Sam,

Essentially what Trev has done is fall prey to the "Kon-Tiki fallacy." What can (or cannot for that matter) br done today has no bearing on what happened a thousand years ago or 120. Further, I would trust that none of Trev's panel of experts is a sociopath, psychopath or obssessed serial killer and that makes all the difference in terms of what Jack was capable of doing at THE moment.

As it is, in the rather decent light in the backyard of Hnbury Street Jack made a rather neat excision of the womb, whereas in the poorer light of Mitre Square he was much sloppier--just as one would expect.

Anyway, Trev is stuck with his untenable theories and he can but defend them as he flogs his books. And if the forthcoming material on Kelly is not intended for a book then what is it, yet another dreary TV documentary?

Don.

[Howard Brown]

Supe:

Shhhhh....we were doing fine with the The Case According To Mr. Marriott...and here you come along with your...your...common sense.

Sammy:

Thanks for the facts on the post preceding my last moronic attempt. I didn't get a chance to make a mini list for Trevor, and yours is more eloquent than mine would have been anyway. I want to bear your children for that act of kindness.

Mike:

Mr. Marriott is a little like one of the guys who used to push Stephenson-as-suspect ( Not the urbane one ) until faced with some opposition....and those dreaded f-f-f-acts.

On to Mr. M...

"I see now the other posters are disagreeing with each other what chance have we got.!!!!

I don't think we're disagreeing with each other Trevor. I think you may be referring to another case altogether. We, Sam,myself and Mike and now Nosey Souden, have been discussing the Whitechapel Murders.



I did not refer to Hanbury St and i do beleive the amount of light at the rear has never been accuratley established. In any event Chapman was mutilated and her intestines taken out.Now you people suggest the killer also removed the uterus and that was his objective. As i previous stated and it seems i have to keep repeating the facts. If the killer wanted the uterus why remove the intestines there would be no need to. The same with Eddowes

I know you didn't refer to any specific murder site...but what other site is there with an organ extrication but that one and Mitre Square ?

Are you possibly suggesting that Hanbury Street featured a different killer altogether? Don has adequately explained the matter in his post above...that smart ass.

As far as what each indidvual beleives in relation to these issues the statments from the medical experts should not be dismissed lightly.

Eddowes was murdered or found in the darkest part of Mitre Square (fact) and the lamp referred to was some distance away (fact). Its very contardictory how could she have been found in the darkest part if the lamp was that bright. In any event those old lamps gave out very little light certainly not enough to perform major surgery.

Sleep tight and dont have nightmares the truth is out there !!!!!!!! DYOR

Ah....Do You Own Research. Good thinking.

May I suggest that you give your experts ( and I don't say that contritely ) a copy of the Inquest reports and the medical evidence as provided by those in attendance and THEN ask them what they think?

[Archaic]

Accessing the Uterus

If the killer wanted the uterus why remove the intestines there would be no need to.

Mr. Marriott, I'm very confused by this statement of yours, which you had also made a few pages back in post #45.

I believe the killer WANTED to mutilate the abdomens of the women he killed, he WANTED to pull out their intestines, and frankly, cutting into the abdomen and displacing the internal organs is the quickest way to access and remove the uterus.

A glance at any anatomical chart will demonstrate this fact quite clearly.

You seem to have expected the killer to cut through the pubic bone or even to have attempted to reach in vaginally in order to remove the uterus, and I can't understand why... it would be so much more difficult and time consuming.

I'm afraid that theory really doesn't make any sense to me.

Best regards, Archaic

[Supe]

Howard,

and here you come along with your...your...common sense.

Shhh is right. If it gets around I was accused of using common sense I could be ruined and my reputation in tatters.

Don.