19th Century "anatomical skill"

[Columbo]

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

The problem with tests such as these is that they're not real world scenarios. Doctors are trained to do a procedure a certain way. They don't have the mentality a distressed murdered who's in a time crunch so they don't really perform these tests with any degree of accuracy.

Columbo

[Karl]

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.

Why do you assume age probably didn't mean anything to him? And although we know Polly Nichols apparently looked ten years younger than she was, the same is not true for the other victims. And even Polly didn't look to be in her '20s, far from it.

But even dismissing the age discrepancy - and I don't see why we should - there is the height discrepancy. Why would Jack now suddenly target a woman much taller than himself? This discrepancy, too, can only be explained away by assumption, but none of the assumptions have struck me as more plausible than the simplest one: different killer involved. No matter how you cut it (no pun intended), Mary Jane Kelly was a completely different victim from the others.

There is no reason to assume she wasn't a victim.

I provided two very good reasons to assume she wasn't. That is without even taking the nature of the mutilations or the controversy of time of death (both date and time of day) into account.

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.

Prostitutes were killed both before and after the "canonical five". 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.

[Columbo]

Why do you assume age probably didn't mean anything to him? And although we know Polly Nichols apparently looked ten years younger than she was, the same is not true for the other victims. And even Polly didn't look to be in her '20s, far from it.

But even dismissing the age discrepancy - and I don't see why we should - there is the height discrepancy. Why would Jack now suddenly target a woman much taller than himself? This discrepancy, too, can only be explained away by assumption, but none of the assumptions have struck me as more plausible than the simplest one: different killer involved. No matter how you cut it (no pun intended), Mary Jane Kelly was a completely different victim from the others.

I provided two very good reasons to assume she wasn't. That is without even taking the nature of the mutilations or the controversy of time of death (both date and time of day) into account.



Prostitutes were killed both before and after the "canonical five". 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.

I think you're reading a bit much into all of it. thinking that the ripper is looking for a certain age etc. They were all murders by chance encounters in my opinion.
We may disagree about Mary Kelly being a victim but I am in agreement with you about Stride. Her's is very obviously not a ripper.

Columbo

[Trevor Marriott]

The problem with tests such as these is that they're not real world scenarios. Doctors are trained to do a procedure a certain way. They don't have the mentality a distressed murdered who's in a time crunch so they don't really perform these tests with any degree of accuracy.

Columbo

How do you know the killer was mentally distressed. or even distressed?

It doesnt matter who the killer was, a general dogsbody or surgeon. In order to remove the organs he would still have been faced with the highlighted problems at the crime scene in trying to remove them. Those problems would have added to him being able to find, take hold of them and extract them quickly.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Pierre]

Why do you assume age probably didn't mean anything to him? And although we know Polly Nichols apparently looked ten years younger than she was, the same is not true for the other victims. And even Polly didn't look to be in her '20s, far from it.

But even dismissing the age discrepancy - and I don't see why we should - there is the height discrepancy. Why would Jack now suddenly target a woman much taller than himself? This discrepancy, too, can only be explained away by assumption, but none of the assumptions have struck me as more plausible than the simplest one: different killer involved. No matter how you cut it (no pun intended), Mary Jane Kelly was a completely different victim from the others.

I provided two very good reasons to assume she wasn't. That is without even taking the nature of the mutilations or the controversy of time of death (both date and time of day) into account.

Prostitutes were killed both before and after the "canonical five". 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.

Hi Karl,

I will try to answer the two questions about age discrepancy and height discrepancy. I start with a question!

What variables can explain the age and height discrepancies?

1. Sampling frame. A population of destitute women in different ages and heights when the killer is in a state of

2. Preparedness. Access to time and a knife.

3. Lack of policemen on the street.

I think these three variables are sufficient to answer the questions. There is no reason to think that he had a preferred age och height in mind, since the evidence do not point in that direction. The victimology is simple. Destitute women in whatever ages or with whatever heights, who could not defend themselves.

The values on the first to variables must have been easy to obtain. The third should have been a bit more difficult.

Regards, Pierre

[Columbo]

How do you know the killer was mentally distressed. or even distressed?

It doesnt matter who the killer was, a general dogsbody or surgeon. In order to remove the organs he would still have been faced with the highlighted problems at the crime scene in trying to remove them. Those problems would have added to him being able to find, take hold of them and extract them quickly.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

He had to be at least a little worried about getting caught, especially if he's seen pulling out body parts. Of course he was a little distressed and not to mention probably aroused by the act. Let's not make JTR out to be some sort of calm, cool Dracula.

As far as being a doctor or whatever, it is important because, as I mentioned before a surgeon will do something in a procedural way. He'll know the best places to cut to get what he wants. Why do you think Phillips thought it would take him 15 minutes to do what JTR did in 6 or 7 minutes? because he knows how he was trained to do it as opposed to someone who wasn't trained.

Finding the uterus would not be difficult since most people who've ever had sex knows the general location of it.

Now the kidneys are a different story. As you pointed out in your book, those would take a little more time and a bit more knowledge to take them out quickly. This is where I agree with your theory that Eddowes kidney was taken out at the mortuary and not at the time of the murder.

Columbo

[Trevor Marriott]

Finding the uterus would not be difficult since most people who've ever had sex knows the general location of it.

I think you must have sex in a different way to me then !

Now the kidneys are a different story. As you pointed out in your book, those would take a little more time and a bit more knowledge to take them out quickly. This is where I agree with your theory that Eddowes kidney was taken out at the mortuary and not at the time of the murder.

So are you suggesting that this deranged killer committed the murder and then carried out a ferocious attack on the body inflicting mutilations, and then suddenly switched off to be the cool organised person capable of removing these organs with a degree of anatomical knowledge ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Columbo]

So are you suggesting that this deranged killer committed the murder and then carried out a ferocious attack on the body inflicting mutilations, and then suddenly switched off to be the cool organised person capable of removing these organs with a degree of anatomical knowledge ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No, I'm suggesting we have a man who killed women with the expressed interest of degrading and mutilating their bodies and taking away a trophy. He was under stress, rushed and worried about getting caught. He throttled them into unconsciousness and cut their throats. He wasn't some howling hyena making a ferocious killing on an unsuspecting rabbit. He obviously wasn't cool and organized and yeah he knew where some parts were.

Columbo

[Elamarna]

Dear Trevor

I have been watching and reading the last 2 days, not just your posts, but rereading your books too.

In doing so one thing is very clear: there is an unwillingness to even consider that anatomical knowledge was not a prerequisite to the murderer removing the organs.

There is then an attempt by the production of a suggested timeline, that the organs could not have been removed in the time YOU allow.

However here there appears to be a reluctance to even acknowledge that this time line is not the only one which has been produced/suggested.
There is a degree of such certainty that this timeline is correct that it seems there is a real inability to consider it may be less than 100% accurate.

Now while it is an interesting hypothesis and indeed it is not impossible, but highly improbably in my opinion, that is not how it is often presented.

It may not be intended, but often the impression given is that it is the only realistic option.

respectfully

Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

Dear Trevor

I have been watching and reading the last 2 days, not just your posts, but rereading your books too.

In doing so one thing is very clear: there is an unwillingness to even consider that anatomical knowledge was not a prerequisite to the murderer removing the organs.

There is then an attempt by the production of a suggested timeline, that the organs could not have been removed in the time YOU allow.

However here there appears to be a reluctance to even acknowledge that this time line is not the only one which has been produced/suggested.
There is a degree of such certainty that this timeline is correct that it seems there is a real inability to consider it may be less than 100% accurate.

Now while it is an interesting hypothesis and indeed it is not impossible, but highly improbably in my opinion, that is not how it is often presented.

It may not be intended, but often the impression given is that it is the only realistic option.

respectfully

Steve

But it is a realistic option in the light of the flaws in the old accepted theory

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

But it is a realistic option in the light of the flaws in the old accepted theory

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Dear Trevor


Yes it is possible, I have never said it is not, just improbably! Not realistic to my mind



"in the light of the flaws in the old accepted theory "


These are flaws You see, regards skill and timings.

That reply just underlines the points made in post #99

respectfully

steve

[Pierre]

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

Hi Trevor,

you assume the following:

"Add up to 2 mins max for the killer to make her at ease..."

That could have been done already before Lawende saw them and/or when they walked down Church passage.

So historically those 2 minutes are not necessary.

Regards, Pierre

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

you assume the following:

"Add up to 2 mins max for the killer to make her at ease..."

That could have been done already before Lawende saw them and/or when they walked down Church passage.

So historically those 2 minutes are not necessary.

Regards, Pierre

You fail to notice that I said times quoted are approx !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Columbo]

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

Well if you're suggesting that the killer didn't have enough time to take out the organs,then you have to explain why he was able to rummage around inside Eddowes moving other organs looking for at least one of the organs that was missing.

So your times are basically approximations correct? Did you walk the route? I know Mitre Square stills exist in a fashion. What calculations were done with older blueprints to get the times you came up with?

a minute and a half is a long time and you can walk quite far so I would be pretty sure the distance covered from church passage to the murder site is more likely less than a minute judging from the diagrams available.

The killing itself would probably take less than 3-4 minutes as put forth by at least a few contemporary doctors in the documentaries about JTR (which being in the USA, that and books are all I have to go on)

Even the slashing to her face can be done extremely quick so I would think 7 minutes would be plenty of time. Not to mention we're really not sure how far off the PC's times are If he's off by 3-4 minutes it would certainly provide plenty of time.

Columbo

[Trevor Marriott]

Well if you're suggesting that the killer didn't have enough time to take out the organs,then you have to explain why he was able to rummage around inside Eddowes moving other organs looking for at least one of the organs that was missing.

Rummaging around as you put it would take extra time. If the killer knew what he was looking for and where it was why waste time rummaging around?

So your times are basically approximations correct? Did you walk the route? I know Mitre Square stills exist in a fashion. What calculations were done with older blueprints to get the times you came up with?

The officers time can only be approximate because we do not know how fast or how slow they were walking, whether they stopped to check properties or not

a minute and a half is a long time and you can walk quite far so I would be pretty sure the distance covered from church passage to the murder site is more likely less than a minute judging from the diagrams available.

Again depending at what speed they walked

The killing itself would probably take less than 3-4 minutes as put forth by at least a few contemporary doctors in the documentaries about JTR (which being in the USA, that and books are all I have to go on)

Yes the killing but not the removal of the organs. Dr Sequeira was quoted as saying 3 mins to do all of this. Dr Brown was quoted as saying 5 minutes. It has been proved by Dr Browns later experiment that those times to just remove the organs were way out. So by the calculation 7 mins is the absolute minimum an expert would need, but I suspect the killer was no expert simply after organs.

Columbo

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk