Zulu influences?

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

[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.

[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.

Hi all,

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.

Kate Eddowes had contrasting opinions on skill exhibitted by the professionals....find the opinions that suggest Annie Chapmans killer had no skill by someone that examined her. Bonds is of course ineligible here.

Cheers.

[Trevor Marriott]

Sam
I am in total agreement that the killer of Eddowes and Chapman crudely mutilated the abdomens. But that is not the issue. The issue is that after crudeley doing those mutilations how come he then apparently shows a level of expertise in removing the organs.

Surely if the killer wanted the organs and possessed a level of expertise why make it harder by perfoming crude mutislations of the abdomen that would only make it harder to extract the organs.

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.

The fact is and i have said this over and over again we cannot conclusively prove or disprove either theory. But it is a matter for each individual to asses and evaluate impartially all the facts in relation to both theories. Sadly it seems a very small minority refuse to do that.

THE END !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[The Good Michael]

Surely if it was a case of just get the organs out(and not to preserve life) this could be done in double quick time.

Indeed. I've done this many times over the years, in very little light... purely for the sake of experimentation mind you.

Mike

[dixon9]

in my humble opinion i think smezenen makes very valid points that 'Jack' was not trying to keep his victims alive when taking out their organs.
Surely if it was a case of just get the organs out(and not to preserve life) this could be done in double quick time.

Dixon9
still learning

[Sam Flynn]

It takes no expertise to crudely hack open a woman's abdomen to extricate various organs from her insides - accidentally lopping off part of a bladder in one case, the large intestine in two other cases, and tearing out a chunk of lung in another.

[Trevor Marriott]

I am the first to agree that a modern day surgeon/enviscretor could remove a uterus in 5-6 mins but we are not talking modern day we are talking about 1888 when even surgeons were know where as skilled as they are today.

The 1888 doctors clearly stated how long it would take to have committed the murder and remove the organ/organs. Based on those doctors opinions the killer would have to have been a surgeon in order to even carry out the removals in that time otherwise had the killer been less exeperienced it would have taken much longer and he would have done a bodged job which clearly isnt the case.

My experts have based their opinion regarding time on the original doctors times having regard to the conditions of the bodies and the crime scenes.

I cannot see why anyone in 2009 should compare or question the original doctors times when we have no direct knowledge of their level of expertise.

[smezenen]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;97659]
We should also look at the time required to remove the organs. The consultant agrees with the Doctors of the day who say 15-20 mins yet some on here still ask us to belive that all this killing mutilation and major surgery took place in a matter on minutes.
[QUOTE]

These experts write from a doctors vantage point and attitude that they are keeping the patient alive. they therefore would need more time to accomplish the task without doing unneccessary damage. Jack didn't have to worry about that.

Mr Marriots experts assume the organs where removed for medical experimentation. Maybe Jack was experimenting with new hat styles.

I know that sounds sarcastic, but its just as likley and has just as much evidence as Mr Marriots theory. The fact is there is absolutly no hard evidence or even a sugestion in the contemporary police or doctors reports or inquest testimony that I have been able to access tthat suggests anything other than removal at the crime scene. Is it possible? Yes. But is it proveable? I'm sorry but the answer is a resounding No.

A good friend of mine is a surgeon and also conducts autopsies for our local area. He has said that a uterous could easily have been removed in less than 5 minutes as long as there is no need to keep the patient/Victim alive. So my expert contradicts Mr. Marriots expert and has made his statement from the killers point of view not the doctors.

[Trevor Marriott]

before finally leaving this topic once and for all i want to put everyhting in perspective. in order to dop that I will use the number two as a guide.

TWO- TWO murders Chapman and eddowes

TWO- TWO Bodies taken to two different makeshift mortuarys where they
were left unattended for many hours

TWO- From what we all now know TWO differnet methods were used to enter
the abdomens and extact the organs

TWO- Based on the aforementioned TWO diffefernet people could have
extracted those organs at the those TWO differnt locations.

TWO- It is a known fact that under legislation passed in 1832 organs and
bodies were freely available to bona fide persons at mortuarys
including these TWO.

i hase set out below extracts from the statment made by a consultant gynecologist whoi reviewed all the material from 1888.

1. Chapmans murder
I note that in this case it is reported that the appendages were removed. In addition the uterus and cervix were removed, the transverse incision cutting through the vagina. However in this case a portion of bladder was also removed.

Anatomically the bladder is loosely attached in front of the cervix and must be reflected out of the way when performing a hysterectomy, (removing the uterus). In patients who have had a pelvic infection (as a prostitute may well have done) this attachment may be quite dense and tough. The removal of a portion of the bladder suggests to me that speed was important, but does not help determine where or when it was done. However I note that in this case it seems to have been important to remove the female pelvic organs intact (i.e. uterus, cervix, ovaries and fallopian tubes), which could, in conjunction with a nephrectomy suggest removal for experimentation.

2 Eddowes
I am first struck by the jagged appearance of the abdominal wound. This does not look like a surgical incision. The irregular nature of it, and some of the minor wounds to underlying organs suggests to me that possibly the knife entered the abdomen which was then opened by pulling the knife upwards as opposed to a surgical incision where one would press down with the blade on the skin. In other words the irregular line suggests the abdomen was opened from inside out rather than outside in.

Someone with anatomical knowledge could accomplish the removal of the uterus quite quickly once access has been obtained. Traction on the organ would allow division of the tissues on either side with one sweep of the knife. The only task that would then remain would be to cut horizontally to remove the organ. In the case of Catherine Eddowes, I note the cervix of the uterus was left behind. Today this would be seen as an integral part of the uterus and therefore I would have expected it to be removed as well if the organ was required for experimentation. However I have no knowledge of Victorian anatomists view of the cervix.

I agree with the suggestion at the time that to have removed a kidney would require a degree of knowledge, but it is interesting that it is the left kidney that was removed rather than the right, which would probably be more difficult to access because of the liver, thereby making the task of removal more difficult to accomplish.

Now analysing that it seems to me that whoever removed the uterus from Chapman did have more than elementary knowledge and that organ was removed for experimentation as against a "trophy" as has been suggested.

However with regards to Eddowes the same method of extracting the uterus was not applied. This must now leave it open to suggest that the same person did not remove the organ from Eddowes.

We should also look at the time required to remove the organs. The consultant agrees with the Doctors of the day who say 15-20 mins yet some on here still ask us to belive that all this killing mutilation and major surgery took place in a matter on minutes.

In concluding there are sufficient new facts available today to cast a serious doubt about the original theory that the killer of Chapman and Eddowes removed the organs at the crime scene.

i would urge the non beleivers to remove the blinkers and the rose tinted spectacles then you will see a whole new world out there. Come and enjoy it !!

[Archaic]

Firstly, Jack did not "remove the intestines" - he shoved them out of the way.

Thank you, Sam, I agree completely.

The female uterus is deep within the body in a "protected" location; it's impossible to access it without moving other internal organs out of the way.

Lighting conditions were poor, Jack enjoyed making a bloody mess & physically handling internal organs, and he was obviously in a big hurry,
so he very rudely went ahead and did it HIS way.

Best regards, Archaic

Hi Sam,

I dont imagine anyone is suggesting that Jack adhered to professional conduct parameters ......just that he does exhibit some attributes or qualities that one would expect to find in a professional medical student at least.....but only in 2 murders of the Canonical Group.

The only statements that have support concerning the level of skill exhibited are by the men that examined the deceased...in my opinion. The men that examined the first 2 concurred on those points.....none of the alleged next 3 victims were seen in similar fashion... they were attributed to Jack based on a mad serial killer premise that was present, not based on the medical evidence.

Cheers G

[Sam Flynn]

One other fact which some posters seem to not want to accept is that it is not necessary to remove the intestines to take out the utreus. This is a medical fact . ACCEPT IT.

Firstly, Jack did not "remove the intestines" - he shoved them out of the way. Secondly - and importantly - it's not strictly necessary for a child to entirely empty the contents of its toy-box in order to get at a particular toy, or for burglars to smash a display cabinet get at a necklace, but when time-pressure, naivety and/or disregard for others intervenes, they do so nonetheless.

Anyone who believes that Jack the Ripper somehow had to adhere to a surgical Code of Conduct in order to achieve his ends is deluding themselves.

[Jeff Leahy]

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.

Thanks for your considered reply Michael. Like you and probably most people here, it is something I have given considerable thought too.

Interestingly I agree that some light would have been available at most of the murder scenes except BERNER STREET. I wonder if that was the real reason he was unable to mutilate?

Pirate