19th Century "anatomical skill"

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor

Nice try, However and there is always one of those,
You do not give Bromleys conclusions, or even really discuss them; just the same unproven idea disguised to look like debate.
That is so much easier than addressing the article itself is it not?

Gavin Bromley's length first article is reduced to 3 comments, given there are no quotation marks I assume they are not direct quotes?

The Bromley quotes are from his 1st article and are direct quotes

Does that give a very balanced viewpoint?

Very balanced to those who are not blinkered

Of course you are now pushing this new time for the procedure which you have come up with since the possibility of a 10 minute window was pointed out, what a coincidence.

My time window was in place long before you mentioned Bromley`s and has not changed. I am now merely pointing out the flaws in his and your 10 minute window, and the 6.49 mins in Bromleys analysis on this particular scenario

How may one ask is that possible when the evidence presented by yourself is so slanted to fit the theory.

The answer is it is not slanted.

Did I invent the witness Lawende?
Did I alter the witness timings?
Did I wrongly quote Dr Brown when he says anatomical knowledge was used?
Did I wrongly quote Dr Brown who said that it would have taken 5 minutes to murder and mutilate as he found the body?
Was I responsible for the 12 hour gap before the post mortem was carried out and whatever did or didnt happen during that time window?

The timings fit and there is enough other evidence to show that the old accepted theory of the killer removing the organs is flawed. As is the apron piece and the graffiti, but those I am sure will soon surface again because there is a need to keep the old accepted theories alive and kicking

You may not like it, you may not accept it, but that is the reality and its not going to go away.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The evidence never lies but it doesnt always tell the truth !

[Karl]

Hello Karl.

"Personally I dismiss Elizabeth Stride, and I also now tend to dismiss Mary Jane Kelly. The police did not speculate a different killer than Jack because of the mutilations involved, because after all: "who other but he?" And indeed, that is the only reason to assume it was JtR. But to me MJK looks more like a murder made to look like a Ripper murder. Already there had been an unusually long pause since the last one, and there was no murder afterwards either, attributed to Jack."

Good thinking. Now, include Kate Eddowes and you shall be near the truth.

Cheers.
LC

Include Catherine Eddowes in what, exactly? Among victims traditionally believed, but not actually killed by Jack the Ripper?

[Elamarna]

Trevor

Nice try, However and there is always one of those,
You do not give Bromleys conclusions, or even really discuss them; just the same unproven idea disguised to look like debate.
That is so much easier than addressing the article itself is it not?

Gavin Bromley's length first article is reduced to 3 comments, given there are no quotation marks I assume they are not direct quotes?

Does that give a very balanced viewpoint?

I think not


Of course you are now pushing this new time for the procedure which you have come up with since the possibility of a 10 minute window was pointed out, what a coincidence.

I really have nothing more to add to this thread now. It is for each individual to form their own un-biased opinions as to whether or not the killer did remove the organs and had sufficient time to do so, or he did not.

How may one ask is that possible when the evidence presented by yourself is so slanted to fit the theory.


steve

[lynn cates]

collateral damage

Hello Karl.

"There is absolutely no way to ascertain the condition of missing pieces."

Quite. However, one can always look at the collateral damage to surrounding tissues.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

chalk and cheese

Hello (again) Trevor.

"If it had been hacked then Brown would have said so, as the hacking might point to someone with little medical experience. Instead he infers the opposite

"The way in which the kidney was cut out showed that it was done by somebody who knew what he was about."

"He must have had a good deal of knowledge as to the position of the abdominal organs, and the way to remove them""

But again, this conflates kidney with uterus. Let's keep chalk separate from cheese. The kidney WAS removed with apparent precision--the uterus and the mutilations, not so.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

window

Hello Trevor.

"His later experiment showed it took an expert 3.30 mins to remove a uterus. How much extra time would have been to be added to that to remove the left kidney the most difficult one of the two kidneys, at least the same time again I would suggest. So add 7 mins to 5 mins and that makes 12 mins, and there is not a 12 min window of opportunity anywhere to be found."

But, as I have suggested, let's put the kidney in brackets. Suppose that Kate's killer did the mutilations AND the uterus only. Would your time window work then?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Don't be afraid of the dark.

Hello Steve. Thanks.

"I have often wondered if Baxter's comments about perceived differences between victims, could be due to the different lighting conditions."

Possibly. And that has been offered from time to time. Of course, it is unlikely that Mitre sq was significantly darker than Buck's Row.

Cheers.
LC

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,

you claimed on Sunday to have read the 2 articles by Gavin Bromley, given those comments above that must be questioned.

If you have read those articles you would know that those timings do indeed assume that Watkins walked around the square.

You would know that those timings do not assume that Harvey came to the square at precisely 1.40 and of course he was never in the square on his beat.

Lawende is not proven to have seen Eddowes although I would say he probably did, however the time he gives is an estimation, and there is a difference, small I agree, between the times given by the 3 men.

All of this was covered by Gavin, you obviously must have missed 90% of the details in the article.

I said before there was little point in debating with yourself, but while posts as disingenuous as #140 are posted I will continue to point out the serious failings of such.

Steve

Lets look at what Bromley says, seeing as you hold his analysis in such high esteem, and to be fair to him he has done a very good analysis covering all possibilities. It his final conclusions that are questionable which you seem to concur with.

Bromley`s first scenario

The square was definitely empty at about 1:30 until possibly as late as 1:33:30, the latest Watkins would have left the square.

The earliest Harvey arrived at the end of Church Passage would have been about 1:40:19, though the earliest time was possibly nearer 1:40:49.

Now that is 10 mins, but in fact approx 7 only if Watkins didnt leave until 1.33

Bromley

Therefore, we have a gap of at least 6:49 minutes between Watkins leaving the square on his previous round and Harvey appearing at the end of Church Passage.

I agree, and those timings are possible with reservations because we don’t know if the killer and Eddowes entered the square in between those times, or how they entered the square and at what time. This scenario only works if they entered the square at the exact time Watkins left.

With those timings we get back to Dr Browns 5 mins for the murder and mutilations, and then add to that the time to remove the organs that leaves 2 mins out of the 7 and that is not enough time.

Bromley`s second scenario

Watkins could have left the square as early as 1:31:36, and Harvey reached the end of Church Passage as late as 1:41:58, so the time between the two events could have been as much as 10:22 minutes.

Again, I agree those times are possible, but realistically those 10 minutes have to be spot on accurate, because again we dont know exactly when they entered the square, and these times dont allow for the time it took Eddowes and the killer to walk into the square, and for the killer to put her at ease to be able to carry out the murder without her being able to scream out. So I suggest that 10 mins is reduced to 8 mins. Take away Dr Browns 5 minutes that leave 3 mins to remove the organs and do all the other stuff -That again is not enough time.

Time is the important factor in this scenario 5 mins to commit the murder and mutilations, 3 mins to remove a uterus, and a kidney, plus nicking the eyelids, plus cutting or tearing the apron, and being able to exit the square before Harvey or Watkins came back. Again I say that is not enough.

All of the above scenarios are well put by Bromley. But he seems to sidestep the timings relative to Lawendes sighting which for comparison purposes i will again put my analysis here based on Lawende.

Pc Watkins at 1.30am walks around the sq and sees no one. so it must be assumed that the murder had not taken place at that time.He says he sees no one.We dont know how long it took him to do that 1- 2 mins perhaps. He sees no one in the vicinity on leaving after checking all the corners of the square. So that is 1.31/32 in line with Bromleys analysis

Lawende sees a couple standing talking at the entrance to Mitre Sq at the Church passage entrance. This was at 1.35am. Now he doesn't see them enter the sq at that time. This timing is fairly precise according to the witness.

It is assumed that this was Eddowes with her killer. This is a fair assumption as no one else was seen in the area, and no one else came forward to identify themselves as being either one of that couple.

If that were Eddowes and the killer, we do not know how long after being seen they entered the sq it could have been 1.36am. 1.37am. or even as late as 1.38am, but for this exercise I will be generous and work with 1.36am approx and all other times I refer to will also be approx with very little room for error I have to say with any of the times I quoted.

Add 1.00 mins for the killer and Eddowes to walk down Church passage to the murder location depending on how fast they were walking. I timed it and it takes 1 minute That takes the time to 1.37.

Add 1 mins perahps more for the killer to make her at ease and to then carry out the murder and mutilations. Takes us to 1.38 secs

Pc Harvey says he came down Church Passage at about 1.40am. he saw no one in the vicinity of Church passage so the couple seen a short time previous had gone. He saw no one in the Sq but he may not have been able to see into the darkness of the murder scene.

So if the couple had entered the sq say at 1.36 which based on Lawendes 1.35am sighting, they would have only been in there for approx 4 minutes. If it were 1.37 that leaves 3 minutes. Neither sufficient time to carry out the removal of the organs.

By reason of the light behind him as he came down Church passage the killer would have been able to not only hear Pc Harveys footsteps, but see him coming by the light that was behind him from a light at the entrance to Church passage.

Now the killer could have fronted it out and watched and waited but that was an awful risk to take not knowing if the officer would walk down the path and then be on top of him. I would therefore suggest that the killer on seeing and hearing him exited the sq at that point via Mitre Street unseen by Pc Harvey

Pc Watkins states he came back into the sq at 1.44am and found the body

I really have nothing more to add to this thread now. It is for each individual to form their own un-biased opinions as to whether or not the killer did remove the organs and had sufficient time to do so, or he did not.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The evidence never lies but it doesnt always tell the truth !

[Elamarna]

Yes the murder but not the removal of the organs

Personal opinion, not backed by the data, No chance of agreement

Its only ridiculous to whose who blindly accept the old accepted theory without question

No only to those not trying to push a particular theory.

The Anatomy Act was drawn up so the the medical profession could obtain organs and bodies for medical research. Why do you want to know what the specific research was, it is irrelevant

It is not irrelevant, if no research was being carried out on those particular organs at that time why would there be a market for those organs?
I have honestly said I have no idea if there was or not.
Why is there no desire to prove there was?

I never said they would be sold for financial gain please dont misquote me

Neither did I suggest that!

Please read what is written:

"It was suggested that the organs would not be sold for financial gain on Sunday, and when asked, following that suggestion idea, why someone would break the law for no gain, no answer has been provided!"


How have I misquoted?

The post said, you said NO financial gain.

Nice attempt at deflecting the question

That question which you have still not attempted to answer is why would someone break the law and face the possible consequences of such, if there were no financial gain for them?

This is becoming boring now.

It must be so gruelling when others don't just roll over and accept the nonsense that some post


Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

This is becoming boring now

Dear Trevor



Sorry that comment is absolute nonsense., No Responsible research should say any such thing as "we must assume" in those circumstances.




Of course that is your right to disagree.
Let us be clear I am not proposing a butcher, just stating that they would have the skill set too carry out the murder.

Yes the murder but not the removal of the organs

It is far less ridiculous than your mortuary removal theory in my opinion, a theory for which you provide no hard evidence.

Its only ridiculous to whose who blindly accept the old accepted theory without question

There is an unwillingness to say what the organs could be used for!

The Anatomy Act was drawn up so the the medical profession could obtain organs and bodies for medical research. Why do you want to know what the specific research was, it is irrelevant

It was suggested that the organs would not be sold for financial gain on Sunday, and when asked, following that suggestion idea, why someone would break the law for no gain, no answer has been provided!

I never said they would be sold for financial gain please dont misquote me

[Elamarna]

Dear Trevor

He could know from what he saw whether or not the kidney had been hacked. In the absence of him saying that we must assume there was no hacking and accept his anatomical knowledge comment.

Sorry that comment is absolute nonsense., No Responsible research should say any such thing as "we must assume" in those circumstances.

I totally disagree with this ridiculous butcher suggestion. For a start the
only animal with organs anywhere near to be positioned the same as a human is a pig, and I bet there were very few if any pork butchers in The East End with the population being predominantly Jewish who would have even known where to start to locate these organs in a human. To believe otherwise is simply and excuse to prop up the old accepted theory

Of course that is your right to disagree.
Let us be clear I am not proposing a butcher, just stating that they would have the skill set too carry out the murder.
It is far less ridiculous than your mortuary removal theory in my opinion, a theory for which you provide no hard evidence.

There is an unwillingness to say what the organs could be used for!

It was suggested that the organs would not be sold for financial gain on Sunday, and when asked, following that suggestion idea, why someone would break the law for no gain, no answer has been provided!


You bet there were few pork butchers? That is a great bit of research is it not?

Can you provide data to back up that statement? and is not 1 more than enough.


steve

[Karl]

So how do you know it was hacked out ?

Never said it was. Just pointing out that you cannot say anything about the condition of the missing kidney.

[Trevor Marriott]

Dr. Brown could not possibly comment on whether the missing kidney had been hacked or not, because it was, after all, missing. There is absolutely no way to ascertain the condition of missing pieces.

So how do you know it was hacked out ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The evidence never lies but it doesnt always tell the truth !

[Trevor Marriott]

If you are talking about the kidney, how could brown make any comment, he could not see it to see what condition it was in, only that the membrane had been cut along with the blood vessels.

He could know from what he saw whether or not the kidney had been hacked. In the absence of him saying that we must assume there was no hacking and accept his anatomical knowledge comment.


Could be applied equally to a butcher as a doctor; to say otherwise is to ignore the facts.

I totally disagree with this ridiculous butcher suggestion. For a start the
only animal with organs anywhere near to be positioned the same as a human is a pig, and I bet there were very few if any pork butchers in The East End with the population being predominantly Jewish who would have even known where to start to locate these organs in a human. To believe otherwise is simply and excuse to prop up the old accepted theory

The last statement by Brown is of course is valid and should be considered very carefully, however it is one doctors opinion, others disagreed.

Who disagreed with Browns post mortem findings in relation to Eddowes ?

Steve

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The evidence never lies but it doesnt always tell the truth !

[Karl]

I never understood why people think MJK is a copycat murder. It went beyond just taking out a few organs and cuts on the face. Why the extreme mutilation when it wasn't needed?

Columbo

MJK looks like a murder with the intent to make identification as difficult as possible. This would make sense if the victim was someone other than MJK, but I don't really subscribe to that theory myself. The mutilations are not necessarily incongruent with the Ripper killings, but to have leapt that far and after a perdiod of non-activity... The timing just strikes me as wrong. And contrary to the waves of dismissal to what I have said on the topic before, the victim was wrong. Too young, too tall. Much too tall. It could still be the Ripper, but there really is nothing to tie MJK as such in terms of MO or victimology, the link to which can only be claimed by dismissing them. And they are dismissed thus:

MO: The mutilations are not the same as we have seen. So this is viewed as evidence FOR the Ripper, because...
-None of the Ripper victims showed the same mutilations
-It is not at all unfeasible that the Ripper had evolved to that point

So the MO discrepancy can be dismissed. But that still doesn't mean there's a match here, and there isn't.

Victimology: MKJ was much younger and much taller than the others. So this is viewed as evidence FOR the Ripper, because...
-There aren't enough victims to establish a pattern anyway
-Maybe he was feeling adventurous

Again, the discrepancy is dismissed. But again, there is no match, and this time, not even remotely.

Time of death: could be in the middle of the night, could be late in the morning. Maxwell claims to have seen MJK after 08:30, and Lewis at around 10:00. If true, that means the murder took place in broad daylight. But this can be dismissed because of certain interpretation of when rigor mortis would set in in this case, as well as a cry of "murder" at around 3am. Notwithstanding the fact that the three witnesses who heard this cry did themselves dismiss it at the time, on account of hearing such cries all the time. Also notwithstanding the fact that different interpretations of rigor mortis could easily land the time of death a good deal later than 08:30.

So which is more reasonable to dismiss as far as time of death is concerned? A cry with an established time, but no established connection to the murder; interpretations of rigor mortis which simply amounts to speculation coloured by bias, or two eyewitnesses, one of whom spoke to the victim? Maurice Lewis only claims he saw MJK, and as we do not know how well he saw her, he might have been mistaken. Of course, he might also not have been mistaken, but let us assume - like so many others have assumed - that he was. I find no reason to doubt Maxwell, however, who was adamant about speaking to MJK at 08:30. And there really is no good reason to dismiss her testimony, except if we know time of death was earlier. But we don't. We only assume as much, because it fits better with the narrative.

It's all very circular: we can choose these bits of evidence and dismiss those bits of evidence, because we bits we choose fit with MJK being a Ripper victim. And we know she's a ripper victim because of the bits of evidence we have chosen. The fact that other bits of evidence point to a different conclusion can be dismissed, because we know she was a Ripper victim.

If one starts out with the conclusion, rather than ending up with one, finding pieces of evidence to support that conclusion is a cinch.