19th Century "anatomical skill"

[Elamarna]

Ok
So the body wasnt filled with blood, but you accept that blood could have been present, and another factor, which may have inhibited the removal of the organs by the killer along with a long blade knife, and very little or no light at all to see inside the abdomen.

This is really a mute point whether the abdomen was filled with blood or not the issue is all about timings if he didnt have the time then he didnt remove the organs and therefore there has to be another explanation for the removal.

This has been a trying day so I am going to have a cup of tea and a valium sandwich

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor don't stress,

yes it is about timing, and you raised the blood issue first as a reason why it would have been difficult. so lets now put that particular debate to bed.


let me try and explain how i see what you suggest.

You have taken a set of timings for the mitre square murder, however not everyone agrees with them, they may be a few minutes out, either way.

Therefore the window you suggest is not the only possible window for the murder.
You also do not appear to consider, or if you do reject, the possibility that the killer was there when Harvey walked down church passage.

Then we have the time you say the killer must have had to do the killing, You have reports from doctors of how long it would take them to do it professionally. and you appear to see that has set in stone.

It may not have been done by a trained hand, indeed the nature of the cuts argues against such, it is therefore impossible to say how long it would take with any real degree of certainty.
Pure cut and slash would probably be far quicker than a methodical approach, however he must have done similar before.

To be honest, I see nothing which tells me he could not have taken the organs out in the time.

By the way I have read your books, sitting nicely in my book shelve and even bought your video, I do not however buy your theory.

The most interesting thing to me was your attempt to get the files opened, a shame you did not succeed, but a valiant effort.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Thanks for your reply Trevor. It is very interesting, although I do no know your source.

Now, I would like other people to comment on this:

There were two posts. In the first, I wrote to Trevor, since his hypothesis is that organs were being taken at the hospital from Chapman and Eddowes by people working in the hospital:

Do you know if removal of organs was allowed before the post mortem examination in murder cases?

And in the second, Trevor replied:

No, officially the bodies were not supposed to be tampered with but needs must when the devil calls. Why pay to purchase organs when there an opportunity presents itself to acquire them for nothing.

What do people here think about this?

Thanks.

Regards, Pierre

Pierre

These were not even pristine organs, the uterus was certainly not whole, and we have no idea about the condition of the kidney.

I cannot see why anyone would want to buy such items, can you?


In addition it has been suggested they could be used for "medical research", however no one has suggested what research would be done, just the glib use of the term "medical research" with no explanation.

steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;385549]

Pierre

These were not even pristine organs, the uterus was certainly not whole, and we have no idea about the condition of the kidney.

It that was the case, you make a very important remark.

I cannot see why anyone would want to buy such items, can you?

In such a case, certainly not.

In addition it has been suggested they could be used for "medical research", however no one has suggested what research would be done, just the glib use of the term "medical research" with no explanation.

steve

That, together with what might have been the fact that it was not allowed to take organs from a murder victim before the post mortem, as well as the fact that it would obscure the investigation of the Whitechapel murders (my own hypothetical historical fact!) and perhaps lower the chances of understanding the methods of the killer, makes it very difficult to believe in the hypothesis of Trevor.

Best wishes, Pierre

[Elamarna]

It that was the case, you make a very important remark.

Pierre, knowing how you like the source data, I should have supplied the following by Dr Brown, from the Eddowes post mortem report:

"The lining membrane over the uterus was cut through. The womb was cut through horizontally, leaving a stump of three quarters of an inch. The rest of the womb had been taken away with some of the ligaments. The vagina and cervix of the womb was uninjured. "


so you can see the Eddowes uterus at least was not complete.

Steve

[Pierre]

Pierre, knowing how you like the source data, I should have supplied the following by Dr Brown, from the Eddowes post mortem report:

"The lining membrane over the uterus was cut through. The womb was cut through horizontally, leaving a stump of three quarters of an inch. The rest of the womb had been taken away with some of the ligaments. The vagina and cervix of the womb was uninjured. "


so you can see the Eddowes uterus at least was not complete.

Steve

Perfect, Steve. Thanks.

Yes, it is a very good hypothesis that the uterus was not useable for medical purposes.

I think Trevor is wrong.

Regards, Pierre

[Karl]

Thanks for your reply Trevor. It is very interesting, although I do no know your source.

Now, I would like other people to comment on this:

There were two posts. In the first, I wrote to Trevor, since his hypothesis is that organs were being taken at the hospital from Chapman and Eddowes by people working in the hospital:

Do you know if removal of organs was allowed before the post mortem examination in murder cases?

And in the second, Trevor replied:

No, officially the bodies were not supposed to be tampered with but needs must when the devil calls. Why pay to purchase organs when there an opportunity presents itself to acquire them for nothing.

What do people here think about this?

Thanks.

Regards, Pierre

I think that would be a valid point, when the demand and cost warranted it. But in 1888, there was no particular demand, and only a pittance to be saved. There was no actual motive to go about stealing organs; the demand was perfectly satisfied legally.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor don't stress,

yes it is about timing, and you raised the blood issue first as a reason why it would have been difficult. so lets now put that particular debate to bed.


let me try and explain how i see what you suggest.

You have taken a set of timings for the mitre square murder, however not everyone agrees with them, they may be a few minutes out, either way.

Therefore the window you suggest is not the only possible window for the murder.
You also do not appear to consider, or if you do reject, the possibility that the killer was there when Harvey walked down church passage.

Then we have the time you say the killer must have had to do the killing, You have reports from doctors of how long it would take them to do it professionally. and you appear to see that has set in stone.

It may not have been done by a trained hand, indeed the nature of the cuts argues against such, it is therefore impossible to say how long it would take with any real degree of certainty.
Pure cut and slash would probably be far quicker than a methodical approach, however he must have done similar before.

To be honest, I see nothing which tells me he could not have taken the organs out in the time.

By the way I have read your books, sitting nicely in my book shelve and even bought your video, I do not however buy your theory.

The most interesting thing to me was your attempt to get the files opened, a shame you did not succeed, but a valiant effort.


Steve

Steve
I dont suspect that for one minute that everybody will suddenly accept the theory, especially those who have published books or written dissertations all using the killer removing the organs theory, or those who simply have other agendas. But I would not have gone to the lengths I have gone to if I had not seen the flaws in the accepted theory.

As to the time he might have had or might not have had here is an extract from a previous post on the same topic regarding times.

"Look at the mitre sq timings if the witnesses are to be believed because really the organs removal issue is pivotal to all of this.

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.

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 failry 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.

Now 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 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 1.30 mins for the killer and Eddowes to walk down Church passage to the murder location depending on how fast they were walking. That takes the time to 1.37.30sec

Add up to 2 mins max for the killer to make her at ease and to then carry out the murder and mutilations. Takes us to 1.39.30 secs

Pc Harvey says he came back 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 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 with a degree of medical precision as was described. Because a minimum of 7 mins would be required based on Dr Browns expert experiment, and that minimum of 7 minutes does not take into account all the other things he is supposed to have done to the victim. There has to be a time frame, its so easy to keep saying he had time

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

So looking again at the times, and I keep going back to these times, the killer would not have had enough time to do all that he is supposed to have done. Where does the minimum of 7 minutes for organ removal required by a skilled surgeon come from? Any amateur would take even longer. You or anyone else cannot say the organs were removed in much less time because it would not be humanly possible based on Dr Browns timed experiment and the time Dr Phillips stated it would take him to remove the organs from Chapman.

"I think I can guide you by saying that I myself could not have performed all the injuries I saw on that woman, and effect them, even without a struggle, under a quarter of an hour. If I had done it in a deliberate way, such as would fall to the duties of a surgeon, it would probably have taken me the best part of an hour"

And why did Dr Brown commission the experiment from a female anatomy expert? This indicated he had concerns about the removal of the organs, there can be no other explanation.

Without being biased because I have tried to remain the opposite I believe the old accepted theory does not stand up to close scrutiny in many ways. Right from the murder itself to the Goulston St fiasco, and there has to be other explanations. These theories that have not been tested but simply relied as being correct.

Historical facts are there to be proved or disproved

If you look at it from the other side. How can you prove the old accepted theory when there are so many flaws jumping out at you to disprove it.

As you say its for each individual to accept or reject. Me I am happy and confident with the results of my investigation.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

I think that would be a valid point, when the demand and cost warranted it. But in 1888, there was no particular demand, and only a pittance to be saved. There was no actual motive to go about stealing organs; the demand was perfectly satisfied legally.

Well if the organs and bodies were so plentiful why did they charge for specimens why not say come and help yourself ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

Steve
I dont suspect that for one minute that everybody will suddenly accept the theory, especially those who have published books or written dissertations all using the killer removing the organs theory, or those who simply have other agendas. But I would not have gone to the lengths I have gone to if I had not seen the flaws in the accepted theory.

As to the time he might have had or might not have had here is an extract from a previous post on the same topic regarding times.

"Look at the mitre sq timings if the witnesses are to be believed because really the organs removal issue is pivotal to all of this.

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.

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 failry 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.

Now 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 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 1.30 mins for the killer and Eddowes to walk down Church passage to the murder location depending on how fast they were walking. That takes the time to 1.37.30sec

Add up to 2 mins max for the killer to make her at ease and to then carry out the murder and mutilations. Takes us to 1.39.30 secs

Pc Harvey says he came back 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 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 with a degree of medical precision as was described. Because a minimum of 7 mins would be required based on Dr Browns expert experiment, and that minimum of 7 minutes does not take into account all the other things he is supposed to have done to the victim. There has to be a time frame, its so easy to keep saying he had time

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

So looking again at the times, and I keep going back to these times, the killer would not have had enough time to do all that he is supposed to have done. Where does the minimum of 7 minutes for organ removal required by a skilled surgeon come from? Any amateur would take even longer. You or anyone else cannot say the organs were removed in much less time because it would not be humanly possible based on Dr Browns timed experiment and the time Dr Phillips stated it would take him to remove the organs from Chapman.

"I think I can guide you by saying that I myself could not have performed all the injuries I saw on that woman, and effect them, even without a struggle, under a quarter of an hour. If I had done it in a deliberate way, such as would fall to the duties of a surgeon, it would probably have taken me the best part of an hour"

And why did Dr Brown commission the experiment from a female anatomy expert? This indicated he had concerns about the removal of the organs, there can be no other explanation.

Without being biased because I have tried to remain the opposite I believe the old accepted theory does not stand up to close scrutiny in many ways. Right from the murder itself to the Goulston St fiasco, and there has to be other explanations. These theories that have not been tested but simply relied as being correct.

Historical facts are there to be proved or disproved

If you look at it from the other side. How can you prove the old accepted theory when there are so many flaws jumping out at you to disprove it.

As you say its for each individual to accept or reject. Me I am happy and confident with the results of my investigation.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Dear Trevor,

i have already posted on that post, and said i prefer the timings given by Gavin Bromley.

i am sorry but repeating the post does not persuade me any more than last time that those timings you discuss are correct. so best we leave it.

Steve

[Karl]

Well if the organs and bodies were so plentiful why did they charge for specimens why not say come and help yourself ?

Things aren't necessarily free just because they are plentiful. The market for pencils, for example, is pretty well saturated. There is no shortage, nor will there be in the foreseeable future. Yet they aren't free. They cost very, very little individually, though.

In the case of organs from the coroner's office, sure there are no expenses in production. But some degree of control is desirable, so not just anyone can come in and claim a kidney here, a lung there. The easiest way to achieve that control is to attach a price tag. That way, there will be fewer weirdos from the street demanding organs for spurious reasons, less traffic in the corridors consequently (and thus better working conditions), and fewer applicants of whom to ask for credentials. No riff-raff, please.

[Errata]

I just don't understand why a medical professional would harvest organs the wrong way, and use a ridiculous knife to do it when they undoubtedly had an appropriate knife available to them.

[John Wheat]

I just don't understand why a medical professional would harvest organs the wrong way, and use a ridiculous knife to do it when they undoubtedly had an appropriate knife available to them.

They wouldn't and didn't.

[Trevor Marriott]

I just don't understand why a medical professional would harvest organs the wrong way, and use a ridiculous knife to do it when they undoubtedly had an appropriate knife available to them.

The term medical professional for the purpose of this exercise encompasses medical students, anatomists, doctors and surgeons, each one had practical experience according to there status.

Where does the ridiculous knife figure in this? We only know of a long bladed knife used by the killer. If the organs were removed at the mortuary by one of the aforementioned we do not know what instrument was used.

Furthermore just to add a bit more to the pot, if the organs were removed at the mortuary then we do not know how much additional damage was caused to the abdomen which was later attributed to the killer.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

They wouldn't and didn't.

Your input to this thread is as always priceless

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Columbo]

Evenly distributed, though. With Jack the Ripper's "canonicals", you do not have an even distribution from 25-47, but an even distribution from 43-47 - and then there's the last one, at 25. That's a hefty deviation. The heights, similarly: the five "canonical" ones did not range evenly from 5' to 5'7", but the first four ranged from 5' - 5'2" tall - and then there was the last one, at 5'7". That, too, is a considerable deviation, especially if we take eye witness testimonies into account, suggesting the killer was only slightly taller than the victims of 5'2. An important criteria for the serial killer is that he feels he is capable of overpowering his victim, and would therefore hesitate to tackle someone, even a woman, who was taller than himself. Especially if that woman was, as MJK was, described as "butch".

Hey Karl,

Since it was a game with JTR, he may have been feeling adverturous and the opportunity arose when he came across a slightly drunk Mary Kelly. Age probably didn't mean anything to him, and most of the victims apparently looked younger then they were so I would read much into age.

There is no reason to assume she wasn't a victim. The police at the time considered her a victim and there is no proof to the contrary just speculation. There were no other killings of prostitutes in their quarters reported as far as I can tell.

Columbo