Zulu influences?

[Sam Flynn]

It would seem that some either havent read the professional contemporary opinions on the degree of "expertise" shown in the mutilations of Annie Chapman, or once again choose not to believe the men who examined the women themselves, because to categorize her uterus extraction as "crude" is simply inaccurate based on the medical professionals findings. In fact the skill was in some opinions "surgical", as in formally trained.

So remarkably surgical, in fact, that Chapman's belly was excavated like a sherry trifle from one side, a chunk of her bladder was incidentally removed, and her large intestine was accidentally cut through. That's the evidence.

I doubt that Dr Philips had never seen anything like this before in his puff - as I'd bet that he said over a pipe-full of shag one day, reclining in a studded red leather chair. A fine provincial doctor, I'm sure, but no Nobel prizewinner, and certainly no forensic scientist.

Knowledge has advanced, and the evidence - rather than opinions - is what we should focus upon.

[smezenen]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;98065]
I really think you and the other doubters on this topic should re assess and further evaluate the new facts because since i first mentioned this new theory there has been more new facts and evidence which has emerged to now not just cast a doubt but a "serious" doubt about when and where the organs were removed and by whom.
QUOTE]

What new facts are you speaking of? What new evidence have you found that sugests anything other than organ removal at the scene of the crime? Have you found some long hidden doctors testamony or a police report that states medical students removed the organs in the morgue? If you have no contemporary evidence then all you have is speculation. At your sugestion I have reassed the available evidence and can find nothing that sugests anything other than what was believed by the police and the doctors at the time which is, the organs where removed by the killer. If you Have any evidence that would prove otherwise I would gladly consider it. Until such time as someone presents evidence that contradicts them, we must believe what investigating officials of the day reported and believed.

[perrymason]

So remarkably surgical, in fact, that Chapman's belly was excavated like a sherry trifle from one side, a chunk of her bladder was incidentally removed, and her large intestine was accidentally cut through. That's the evidence.

I doubt that Dr Philips had never seen anything like this before in his puff - as I'd bet that he said over a pipe-full of shag one day, reclining in a studded red leather chair. A fine provincial doctor, I'm sure, but no Nobel prizewinner, and certainly no forensic scientist.

Knowledge has advanced, and the evidence - rather than opinions - is what we should focus upon.

Since there is no way to apply the knowledge accrued since Annie died Sam...in that there was a one time opportunity to actually view the remains 121 years ago...we do have to place substantial weight on the opinions of the men that examined the victims first hand. Unless it can be proven that we should be wary of their expertise.

On that basis, I can agree with Bond, and Phillips.

Bond only saw and touched a single victim...and there was no medical skill or knowledge present in that murder. If anything, thats your Zulu warrior....taking the heart, just like warriors have done for centuries.

Cheers Sam