19th Century "anatomical skill"

[Elamarna]

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.

Hi Karl,

I missed your post, if I had seen it, would not have posted much the same.

These things should only need to be said once.

Steve

[Elamarna]

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"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

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

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.


"what he was about"

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


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

That must also be taken into account before reaching any conclusions.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Trevor

A really poor response,

The sources are unreliable in this instance.

And you base that on analysis of what please?

He did not know the organs were missing until he did the post mortem.

Sorry that is not a fact, it is YOUR opinion.

Please stop misleading, by presenting such as an established fact.

this is one of the reasons he initiated the experiment.

What source do you have to back up that definitive statement?
Is it not just an assumption on your part?

His later experiment showed it took an expert 3.30 mins to remove a uterus.

How many times do you need to be told what Brown conducted was not a valid experiment!. There were no controls.
it was a one off test, giving an estimation no more.

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.

So now you are changing your tune again, from 7 to 12 minutes, based on your reading of the above.

I note you have only come up with this since the 10 minute window was pointed out to you.

A classic case of changing the evidence to fit the theory, so obvious.

That is not research!

I still dont see how you can say that someone other than an expert could have removed those organs in less time than an expert.

Of course you don't Trevor, how could you when you exhibit so little personal knowledge of medicine/surgery/butchery.

The cut and slash angle, or the belief that the killer was a butcher might be applicable to the murder and mutilations but not to anything els

Again just your opinion, and obviously written to promote a single line of thinking

As to your 10 minute window you suggest, that is reliant on Watkins leaving the square at 1.30 and not allowing any time for him to walk round it and the killer and Eddowes entering the square by another entrance.

You are then reliant on Harvey being in the square at 1.40 and possibly disturbing the killer who exited by one of the other exit routes. If Watkins took 2 minutes to walk around then that reduces the 10 mins to 8 mins and we must assume he did take the time to walk around as he said he checked every corner.

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.

By suggesting this 10 minute window you appear to be disregarding the fact that Lawende did see the killer and Eddowes at 1.35 if that did happen then there is no 10 minute window in any event, and if they didn't go into the square immediately after they were seen that again reduces the time for the killer to commit the crime.

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

[Karl]

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

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.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Lynn

you are welcome.

I don’t agree with you 100%, but the kidney may have been removed more careful, the initial cuts to the membrane do look a little cleaner, however has we do not know the condition of the kidney, I am of the opinion that it is impossible to be certain, it could have been hacked itself.


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


Great to talk to you,

Steve

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"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

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

[Trevor Marriott]

And what theory is that you think I have?

I just agree with 99.99% of others thats all





Trevor,

While I am perfectly prepared to accept that 5 mins may not be 100% factually accurate, it and the time of 3 mins were given by experts, in sources from the time, so why you dismiss them is beyond me?

Or is it simply, when the sources don't fit the theory, dismiss the sources.

Steve

The sources are unreliable in this instance. Browns time of 5 mins minimum is based on what he saw at the crime scene only. He did not know the organs were missing until he did the post mortem. So therefore extra time has to be added onto that time for organ removals, and this is one of the reasons he initiated the experiment.

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.

I still dont see how you can say that someone other than an expert could have removed those organs in less time than an expert. The most difficult kidney was removed with anatomical knowledge. how many people in 1888 would have sufficient knowledge and expertise to remove that quicker than an expert? The cut and slash angle, or the belief that the killer was a butcher might be applicable to the murder and mutilations but not to anything else.

As to your 10 minute window you suggest, that is reliant on Watkins leaving the square at 1.30 and not allowing any time for him to walk round it and the killer and Eddowes entering the square by another entrance.

You are then reliant on Harvey being in the square at 1.40 and possibly disturbing the killer who exited by one of the other exit routes. If Watkins took 2 minutes to walk around then that reduces the 10 mins to 8 mins and we must assume he did take the time to walk around as he said he checked every corner.

By suggesting this 10 minute window you appear to be disregarding the fact that Lawende did see the killer and Eddowes at 1.35 if that did happen then there is no 10 minute window in any event, and if they didn't go into the square immediately after they were seen that again reduces the time for the killer to commit the crime.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The evidence never lies but doesnt always tell the truth !

[Elamarna]

Hello Steve. Thanks for the support.

Yes, the uterus WAS removed in a very amateurish manner--as opposed to the kidney, and Annie's uterus. Could be coincidence, but, as you say, worthy of looking into.

But I have often downplayed the organ removal, preferring, instead, to focus on the difference in mutilations (cuts). Baxter (rightly or wrongly) averred that there was a HUGE difference in Annie and Kate, with respect to skill in cutting.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn

you are welcome.

I don’t agree with you 100%, but the kidney may have been removed more careful, the initial cuts to the membrane do look a little cleaner, however has we do not know the condition of the kidney, I am of the opinion that it is impossible to be certain, it could have been hacked itself.


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


Great to talk to you,

Steve

[Elamarna]

Of course you do it props up your theory

And what theory is that you think I have?

I just agree with 99.99% of others thats all

Its certainly not fact !

Trevor,

While I am perfectly prepared to accept that 5 mins may not be 100% factually accurate, it and the time of 3 mins were given by experts, in sources from the time, so why you dismiss them is beyond me?

Or is it simply, when the sources don't fit the theory, dismiss the sources.

Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

If the easier to access left kidney was taken from Eddowes rather than her right, doesn't that speak the killer not necessarily being a professional medical man? I'd love a person experienced in killing animals for a living, preferably pigs, to give an opinion.

But if you are going after a kidney and you know where they are located and time is of the essence, are you not going to take the one which is easier to extract especially in the dark ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The evidence never lies but doesnt always tell the truth !

[Trevor Marriott]

Dear Trevor

it can take 3 mins or 5 or up to 7 minutes, I say that because I believe the window for the murder and removal is from 7-10 mins .

Of course you do it props up your theory

so 5 minutes is certainly not fiction!

Its certainly not fact !

Steve

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The evidence never lies but doesnt always tell the truth !

[lynn cates]

Barnard Hughes

Hello Errata. Thanks.

I recall the Paddy Chayefsky classic, "The Hospital." There, the surgeon refers to "hacking out" uteri. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

copycat

Hello Columbo. I tend to agree. I really don't think of "MJK" as a "copycat"
--only Kate.

I think your argument, however, shows how problematic "MJK's" inclusion in the canon is. After all, it was QUITE different from the others.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

the difference

Hello Steve. Thanks for the support.

Yes, the uterus WAS removed in a very amateurish manner--as opposed to the kidney, and Annie's uterus. Could be coincidence, but, as you say, worthy of looking into.

But I have often downplayed the organ removal, preferring, instead, to focus on the difference in mutilations (cuts). Baxter (rightly or wrongly) averred that there was a HUGE difference in Annie and Kate, with respect to skill in cutting.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

which?

Hello Trevor. Thanks.

I was referring to the uterus.

You seem to be talking about the kidney? As I said previously, the kidney was done in a manner VERY different from the kidney.

Cheers.
LC

[Rosella]

If the easier to access left kidney was taken from Eddowes rather than her right, doesn't that speak the killer not necessarily being a professional medical man? I'd love a person experienced in killing animals for a living, preferably pigs, to give an opinion.