Tweet
[QUOTE=Garry Wroe;302982]I’ve been banging that drum for decades, Trev. To my mind the evidence does not support the notion of Stride as a Ripper victim. I would disagree with you, however, in that I believe an increasing number of people over recent years have begun to question the concept of the double event.
The Whitechapel Murders file, Trev, was merely a documentary repository incorporating information relating to a number of attacks on women committed over a relatively short period of time in a confined geographical area. It was the press rather than investigators, in point of fact, which attributed a link of common authorship across these crimes. If you’d care to read the relevant reports you’ll find that Dr Phillips ruled out several victims on the basis of ‘anatomical and professional grounds’. Anderson even described the McKenzie crime as an ‘ordinary murder’. It is therefore wrong to suppose that investigators believed a single assailant to have been responsible for all of the crimes contained within the Whitechapel Murders file.
I don't subscribe to a single killer in any event but it appears that the police did hence McNaghten mentioning five and five only, and I don't recall any other officer suggesting anything to the contrary. The police also build there case based on the evidence they are provided. It appears they did not take onboard the medical evidence you refer to.
The heart was not accounted for, Trev.
This has always been a contentious issue based on the ambiguous comment by the doctor that the heart was absent from the pericardium. Bbut that is not clear proof that it was missing from the room or taken away by the killer.
To try to come to a proper conclusion about this there were several newspapers reported that no organs were removed from the room. Now i treat newspaper report wih caution but in this case several different papers corroborate each other with the same story, Can they all be wrong ?
The Times 10th November
[I]The latest account states upon what professes to be indisputable authority that no portion of the woman's body was taken away by the murderer. As already stated, the post-mortem examination was of the most exhaustive character, and surgeons did not quit their work until every organ had been accounted for and placed as closely as possible in its natural position.
The Echo 12th November
Nothing of any importance was discovered in the ashes at the deceased's house. A small portion only of the remains is missing, while it is noticeable as a special incident in the barbarous murder that the organ hitherto taken away at the mutilations was found in the room, although it had been cut out of the body...
The Times 12th November
As early as half past 7 on Saturday morning, Dr. Phillips, assisted by Dr. Bond (Westminster), Dr. Gordon Brown (City), Dr. Duke (Spitalfields) and his (Dr. Phillips') assistant, made an exhaustive post-mortem examination of the body at the mortuary adjoining Whitechapel Church. It is known that after Dr. Phillips "fitted" the cut portions of the body into their proper places no portion was missing. At the first examination which was only of a cursory character, it was thought that a portion of the body had gone, but this is not the case. The examination was most minutely made, and lasted upwards of 2 ½ hours after which the mutilated portions were sewn to the body, and therefore the coroner's jury will be spared the unpleasant duty of witnessing the horrible spectacle presented to those who discovered the murder. The ashes found in the fireplace of the room rented by the deceased woman were also submitted to a searching examination, but nothing likely to throw any light on this shocking case could be gleaned from them.
Read the reports, Trev. Most of the doctors considered the killer medically maladroit. I explored this issue in my book and presented a list of modern killers who had conducted far more technically demanding procedures than the Ripper ever did, yet not a single one of them had an atom of medical knowledge or experience.
Yes but how many did it in almost total darkness in only a matter of minutes in a public place with a long blade knife not suitable for carrying out such removals
Dr Brown amongst others noted that Eddowes was wearing part of an apron.
No he doesnt
The table knife was blunt, Trev. It could not have made the clean cut which separated the two sections of apron.
There is no evidence to suggest a clean cut was made it would have been easy to put the knife in and cut the parts which had been sewn.
But she was, Trev. The documentary evidence is incontrovertible.
No it is not you are cherry picking again
Refer to Brown. The apron was tied around her neck. No matter how technically demanding you consider the exercise might have been, the simple reality is that the killer cut away part of Kate’s apron, took it away with him, then deposited it in the Goulston Street vestibule. Medical men as well as policemen attested to as much. If you are going to dispute such testimony you’ll have to demonstrate the impossibility of that sequence. Simply saying that it couldn’t have been accomplished isn’t good enough.
Where does Brown say the apron was tied round her neck ?
[B]Why cant you accept the mortuary lists. As I said previous they made two lists of clothing she was wearing. Had she been wearing a bib apron then the top part would still be around her neck. The evidence you refer to is inconclusive to suggest she was.
Insp Collard "Apparently wearing, found outside her dress" either she was or she wasnt ? he was there when the body was stripped. outside her dress ! thats not wearing is it ?
Halse " I saw deceased stripped and saw a portion of the apron was missing"
Did he see the body after it had been stripped. He doesn't mention her
wearing an apron!
However in a newspaper report he says "A portion of the apron was found on her" On her ?why not say she was wearing ?
Dr Brown " it was the corner of the apron with a string attached" Note corner with a string attached you cant tie an apron with one string !
Then his telegraph report
Dr. Brown: Yes I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.
Conflicts with inquest testimony does it not. He couldn't not have fitted the Gs piece to the body because when the body was stripped the GS piece had only just been found, and it was no taken to the mortuary till much later.
[/B]
Aw, now I’m disappointed. Still, since no-one at the time suggested that anyone other than the killer took away the victims’ organs, we can now categorically dismiss your contention to the contrary. Right?
Why should they there was not sufficient blood on the piece for that to be considered. Do you not think that Dr Brown when asked about the marks on it would not have said the killer could have taken away the organs in it but no he mentions wiping a hand or a knife. If you were the one who started this myth about the organs being taken away then you should now re think but of course you wont because you nailed your colours to the mast with your book.
Unfortunately, Trev, as I have stated previously, your demonstration was not a valid comparison. Although Eddowes’ apron was officially described as white, it was so old and dirty that those who saw it initially thought it black. Someone, somewhere, as I recall, described it as being ‘filthy grey’. This is important for evaluation purposes because the darker the sample material, the greater is the difficulty in discerning bloodstains with the naked eye – which is why today’s crime scene analysts use luminol for detecting blood evidence. Your experiment, remember, was conducted using a pristine white cloth.
The demonstration was very valid I am sure they could recognize the difference between blood and dirt-- come on get real, especially when those who saw it referred to blood spots and stains. Put a kidney and a uterus in the cloth what do you have? Take a look at attached photo. Also for the benefit of you and Fisherman I have also show a photo showing the size of a kidney when removed from the renal fat.
The other problem is that we have no detailed description of the blood and other matter found on the apron. Brown, for example, spoke of smears – as though the killer had wiped his hands and knife on the garment. There was also the suggestion of possible faecal contamination. Contrast this, however, with Long’s contention that the material was wet with blood at three o’clock. This, as I outlined in a previous post, was roughly an hour and a quarter after the killer departed the crime scene. So now we have one of two possibilities. Either the killer left Goulston Street shortly before Long discovered the apron remnant, or he had visited the scene much earlier and Long had failed to spot the garment. If the former, whatever blood remained on the killer’s hands and knife would have dried of its own accord, so there would have been little or no wet blood transference from hands to cloth. If the latter, the cloth would have been exposed to the open air for more than an hour and thus would have dried by natural processes. In other words, irrespective of when the killer deposited the cloth in the vestibule, the blood should have dried by the time Long chanced upon it. Yet Long stated that the cloth was wet with blood at three o’clock. How could this have been so if the material was merely bloodsmeared as a consequence of the killer having wiped his hands and knife upon it?
As you say blood on the killer hands would have dried within a few seconds no need to walk 9 minute with incriminating evidence. As to the knife again one swipe of the knife job done get rid of the apron piece asap.
As for him cutting himself this is another feeble explanation to prop up the old theory. Those who suggest this probably now accept that the killer did not take the organs away in it !
I take it, Trev, that you are here referring to the Eddowes murder. If so Dr Brown stated that the mutilations could have been completed in five minutes. That said, I tend to agree that the killer would have required more time than is generally accepted to complete the crime in its entirety. By this I mean walking along Church Passage, reaching the south-east corner of the square, subduing Kate, cutting her throat, performing the mutilations, cutting away the apron remnant and making his getaway. For this reason I disagree that the killer was disturbed by Harvey. Trusting to the timetable that emerged through the various testimonies, I remain convinced that Harvey didn’t visit the square as claimed. But that’s another issue.
Thats easy to say that bu doing so you give the killer more time!. We simply do not know exactly to the minute what time the killer did have. So you cannot disregard the fact that he might have been disturbed.
[/B]
Not if the killer groped around in the abdominal cavity until he found something of interest, then held the organ in his left hand whilst he cut it away with the knife he held in his right hand. Other serialists have accomplished similar tasks under similar lighting conditions without too many problems.
You cannot grope and take hold of a kidney it sits encased flush in renal fat you have to see it.
I suppose that depends on the expert, Trev. Nick Warren doesn’t appear to see this as much of an issue.
Well I would concede that modern day surgeons and I say surgeons as against mere doctors probably could do this because they are doing this all the time day after day. But we are not talking about a highly skilled Victorian surgeon are we?
Grope, grasp, pull, cut. He did it. And so have many others.
With respect, Trev, you have demonstrated only that you have failed to take on board the evidence handed down to us through the various police statements, press reports and inquest depositions. On top of this you have neglected the case histories of those whose criminal activities provide an invaluable insight into the behaviors and psychology of the Whitechapel Murderer.
No I have assessed and evaluated it in a professional manner. Each crime must be looked at as a separate crime. I am aware that some modern day killers have carried out similar crimes, but where did they get the idea from, perhaps Jack the Ripper 1888 murdering and mutilating women removing organs? Our Jack or Jacks have a lot to answer for do they not, especially if we now prove he didn't do all he is supposed to have done.
The Whitechapel Murders file, Trev, was merely a documentary repository incorporating information relating to a number of attacks on women committed over a relatively short period of time in a confined geographical area. It was the press rather than investigators, in point of fact, which attributed a link of common authorship across these crimes. If you’d care to read the relevant reports you’ll find that Dr Phillips ruled out several victims on the basis of ‘anatomical and professional grounds’. Anderson even described the McKenzie crime as an ‘ordinary murder’. It is therefore wrong to suppose that investigators believed a single assailant to have been responsible for all of the crimes contained within the Whitechapel Murders file.
I don't subscribe to a single killer in any event but it appears that the police did hence McNaghten mentioning five and five only, and I don't recall any other officer suggesting anything to the contrary. The police also build there case based on the evidence they are provided. It appears they did not take onboard the medical evidence you refer to.
The heart was not accounted for, Trev.
This has always been a contentious issue based on the ambiguous comment by the doctor that the heart was absent from the pericardium. Bbut that is not clear proof that it was missing from the room or taken away by the killer.
To try to come to a proper conclusion about this there were several newspapers reported that no organs were removed from the room. Now i treat newspaper report wih caution but in this case several different papers corroborate each other with the same story, Can they all be wrong ?
The Times 10th November
[I]The latest account states upon what professes to be indisputable authority that no portion of the woman's body was taken away by the murderer. As already stated, the post-mortem examination was of the most exhaustive character, and surgeons did not quit their work until every organ had been accounted for and placed as closely as possible in its natural position.
The Echo 12th November
Nothing of any importance was discovered in the ashes at the deceased's house. A small portion only of the remains is missing, while it is noticeable as a special incident in the barbarous murder that the organ hitherto taken away at the mutilations was found in the room, although it had been cut out of the body...
The Times 12th November
As early as half past 7 on Saturday morning, Dr. Phillips, assisted by Dr. Bond (Westminster), Dr. Gordon Brown (City), Dr. Duke (Spitalfields) and his (Dr. Phillips') assistant, made an exhaustive post-mortem examination of the body at the mortuary adjoining Whitechapel Church. It is known that after Dr. Phillips "fitted" the cut portions of the body into their proper places no portion was missing. At the first examination which was only of a cursory character, it was thought that a portion of the body had gone, but this is not the case. The examination was most minutely made, and lasted upwards of 2 ½ hours after which the mutilated portions were sewn to the body, and therefore the coroner's jury will be spared the unpleasant duty of witnessing the horrible spectacle presented to those who discovered the murder. The ashes found in the fireplace of the room rented by the deceased woman were also submitted to a searching examination, but nothing likely to throw any light on this shocking case could be gleaned from them.
Read the reports, Trev. Most of the doctors considered the killer medically maladroit. I explored this issue in my book and presented a list of modern killers who had conducted far more technically demanding procedures than the Ripper ever did, yet not a single one of them had an atom of medical knowledge or experience.
Yes but how many did it in almost total darkness in only a matter of minutes in a public place with a long blade knife not suitable for carrying out such removals
Dr Brown amongst others noted that Eddowes was wearing part of an apron.
No he doesnt
The table knife was blunt, Trev. It could not have made the clean cut which separated the two sections of apron.
There is no evidence to suggest a clean cut was made it would have been easy to put the knife in and cut the parts which had been sewn.
But she was, Trev. The documentary evidence is incontrovertible.
No it is not you are cherry picking again
Refer to Brown. The apron was tied around her neck. No matter how technically demanding you consider the exercise might have been, the simple reality is that the killer cut away part of Kate’s apron, took it away with him, then deposited it in the Goulston Street vestibule. Medical men as well as policemen attested to as much. If you are going to dispute such testimony you’ll have to demonstrate the impossibility of that sequence. Simply saying that it couldn’t have been accomplished isn’t good enough.
Where does Brown say the apron was tied round her neck ?
[B]Why cant you accept the mortuary lists. As I said previous they made two lists of clothing she was wearing. Had she been wearing a bib apron then the top part would still be around her neck. The evidence you refer to is inconclusive to suggest she was.
Insp Collard "Apparently wearing, found outside her dress" either she was or she wasnt ? he was there when the body was stripped. outside her dress ! thats not wearing is it ?
Halse " I saw deceased stripped and saw a portion of the apron was missing"
Did he see the body after it had been stripped. He doesn't mention her
wearing an apron!
However in a newspaper report he says "A portion of the apron was found on her" On her ?why not say she was wearing ?
Dr Brown " it was the corner of the apron with a string attached" Note corner with a string attached you cant tie an apron with one string !
Then his telegraph report
Dr. Brown: Yes I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.
Conflicts with inquest testimony does it not. He couldn't not have fitted the Gs piece to the body because when the body was stripped the GS piece had only just been found, and it was no taken to the mortuary till much later.
[/B]
Aw, now I’m disappointed. Still, since no-one at the time suggested that anyone other than the killer took away the victims’ organs, we can now categorically dismiss your contention to the contrary. Right?
Why should they there was not sufficient blood on the piece for that to be considered. Do you not think that Dr Brown when asked about the marks on it would not have said the killer could have taken away the organs in it but no he mentions wiping a hand or a knife. If you were the one who started this myth about the organs being taken away then you should now re think but of course you wont because you nailed your colours to the mast with your book.
Unfortunately, Trev, as I have stated previously, your demonstration was not a valid comparison. Although Eddowes’ apron was officially described as white, it was so old and dirty that those who saw it initially thought it black. Someone, somewhere, as I recall, described it as being ‘filthy grey’. This is important for evaluation purposes because the darker the sample material, the greater is the difficulty in discerning bloodstains with the naked eye – which is why today’s crime scene analysts use luminol for detecting blood evidence. Your experiment, remember, was conducted using a pristine white cloth.
The demonstration was very valid I am sure they could recognize the difference between blood and dirt-- come on get real, especially when those who saw it referred to blood spots and stains. Put a kidney and a uterus in the cloth what do you have? Take a look at attached photo. Also for the benefit of you and Fisherman I have also show a photo showing the size of a kidney when removed from the renal fat.
The other problem is that we have no detailed description of the blood and other matter found on the apron. Brown, for example, spoke of smears – as though the killer had wiped his hands and knife on the garment. There was also the suggestion of possible faecal contamination. Contrast this, however, with Long’s contention that the material was wet with blood at three o’clock. This, as I outlined in a previous post, was roughly an hour and a quarter after the killer departed the crime scene. So now we have one of two possibilities. Either the killer left Goulston Street shortly before Long discovered the apron remnant, or he had visited the scene much earlier and Long had failed to spot the garment. If the former, whatever blood remained on the killer’s hands and knife would have dried of its own accord, so there would have been little or no wet blood transference from hands to cloth. If the latter, the cloth would have been exposed to the open air for more than an hour and thus would have dried by natural processes. In other words, irrespective of when the killer deposited the cloth in the vestibule, the blood should have dried by the time Long chanced upon it. Yet Long stated that the cloth was wet with blood at three o’clock. How could this have been so if the material was merely bloodsmeared as a consequence of the killer having wiped his hands and knife upon it?
As you say blood on the killer hands would have dried within a few seconds no need to walk 9 minute with incriminating evidence. As to the knife again one swipe of the knife job done get rid of the apron piece asap.
As for him cutting himself this is another feeble explanation to prop up the old theory. Those who suggest this probably now accept that the killer did not take the organs away in it !
I take it, Trev, that you are here referring to the Eddowes murder. If so Dr Brown stated that the mutilations could have been completed in five minutes. That said, I tend to agree that the killer would have required more time than is generally accepted to complete the crime in its entirety. By this I mean walking along Church Passage, reaching the south-east corner of the square, subduing Kate, cutting her throat, performing the mutilations, cutting away the apron remnant and making his getaway. For this reason I disagree that the killer was disturbed by Harvey. Trusting to the timetable that emerged through the various testimonies, I remain convinced that Harvey didn’t visit the square as claimed. But that’s another issue.
Thats easy to say that bu doing so you give the killer more time!. We simply do not know exactly to the minute what time the killer did have. So you cannot disregard the fact that he might have been disturbed.
[/B]
Not if the killer groped around in the abdominal cavity until he found something of interest, then held the organ in his left hand whilst he cut it away with the knife he held in his right hand. Other serialists have accomplished similar tasks under similar lighting conditions without too many problems.
You cannot grope and take hold of a kidney it sits encased flush in renal fat you have to see it.
I suppose that depends on the expert, Trev. Nick Warren doesn’t appear to see this as much of an issue.
Well I would concede that modern day surgeons and I say surgeons as against mere doctors probably could do this because they are doing this all the time day after day. But we are not talking about a highly skilled Victorian surgeon are we?
Grope, grasp, pull, cut. He did it. And so have many others.
With respect, Trev, you have demonstrated only that you have failed to take on board the evidence handed down to us through the various police statements, press reports and inquest depositions. On top of this you have neglected the case histories of those whose criminal activities provide an invaluable insight into the behaviors and psychology of the Whitechapel Murderer.
No I have assessed and evaluated it in a professional manner. Each crime must be looked at as a separate crime. I am aware that some modern day killers have carried out similar crimes, but where did they get the idea from, perhaps Jack the Ripper 1888 murdering and mutilating women removing organs? Our Jack or Jacks have a lot to answer for do they not, especially if we now prove he didn't do all he is supposed to have done.
Attached Files
Sink the Bismark
Comment