How did JtR see in the dark?

[John G]

It really depends. After the capture of Joseph James DeAngelo, all cards are back on the table, because he was an officer during most of his crimes, including homicides.

Despite being stationed in two different parts, either side of Sacramento, the barriers we thought existed to LE being the offender are not barriers at all.

For example, constables can go outside of their beat going to and from work. Some constables may fill in for others.

I would like to know which parts of their equipment were bought by themselves and which they could keep, even if thrown off the force.

I suspect if JtR was a PC that he was fired at some point, either at the start of the crimes (and the real start is important here), during the crimes or after them. He would also have had a record of consorting with prostitutes in the force.

Ah, are you suggesting that he may have been fired prior to the murders but retained his uniform?

Otherwise I think a uniformed killer would have two major problems. Firstly, he risked getting blood and gore on his uniform, and he would surely have a problem explaining that to his sergeant on parade.

Secondly, if he was seen by a Whitechapel officer that officer would be aware that he was way off beat. He would therefore be attracting unwelcomed attention to himself (this would also apply if he was a former officer who retained his uniform), which he was presumably keen to avoid.

[Batman]

But if he was a PC, he surely wouldn't be in uniform?

It really depends. After the capture of Joseph James DeAngelo, all cards are back on the table, because he was an officer during most of his crimes, including homicides.

Despite being stationed in two different parts, either side of Sacramento, the barriers we thought existed to LE being the offender are not barriers at all.

For example, constables can go outside of their beat going to and from work. Some constables may fill in for others.

I would like to know which parts of their equipment were bought by themselves and which they could keep, even if thrown off the force.

I suspect if JtR was a PC that he was fired at some point, either at the start of the crimes (and the real start is important here), during the crimes or after them. He would also have had a record of consorting with prostitutes in the force.

[Sam Flynn]

Hello John

Thanks for your questions, and the interesting info, but I'd rather not stray off-topic.

[John G]

Not really, as the "one sweep of the knife" and "avoiding the rectum" bits came from the writer of a somewhat sensationalist Lancet editorial rather than Phillips himself. What does undermine Phillips' analysis of the perpetrator's skill is that he himself notes that neither the bladder nor the colon escaped unscathed, and Chapman's abdomen was opened rather inefficiently in the form of three pieces of flesh, rather than a single, long cut.

Thanks for this, Gareth, much appreciated. Wasn't it the case that, following Dr Phillips' conclusions, the police targeted local hospitals on the assumption that the perpetrator was possibly a medical professional?

Regarding the cuts to Chapman's abdomen, "Those familiar with autopsy or surgery will know that skin is often the hardest tissue to cut." (Black, Rutty, Hainsworth, Thomson (2017) Moreover, as one of Trevor's experts points out in relation to Chapman, who may well have been emaciated, "...evisceration is more difficult in a person with a poor covering of body fat. When a person is very thin the skin at autopsy loses it's elasticity. It is more difficult to carefully remove organs when the opening cannot be stretched." (Marriott, 2015)

In other words, the killer, who would have been using a Victorian knife, and possibly not one kept in tip-top condition, may have found it too problematic to open the abdomen with a single cut, particularly considering the time pressures he would have been under.

[Sam Flynn]

Doesn't this seriously undermine Dr Phillips' analysis regarding the skill of the perpetrator?

Not really, as the "one sweep of the knife" and "avoiding the rectum" bits came from the writer of a somewhat sensationalist Lancet editorial rather than Phillips himself. What does undermine Phillips' analysis of the perpetrator's skill is that he himself notes that neither the bladder nor the colon escaped unscathed, and Chapman's abdomen was opened rather inefficiently in the form of three pieces of flesh, rather than a single, long cut.

[John G]

If JtR was a PC then yes.

But if he was a PC, he surely wouldn't be in uniform?

[John G]

yes you are right parts of her bladder were cut through to be specific but these were specific cuts to enable the other organs to be accessed and I quote from one of my medical experts on the topic of Chapman

"An interesting point is the removal of the pelvic organs. The report states that the uterus and its appendages and the upper portion of the vagina, and parts of the bladder had been entirely removed. To remove the appendages, the uterus, the fallopian tubes and ovaries in one frenzied attack and one slice of a blade would be almost impossible. It is a very difficult and quite a skilled undertaking to remove these organs carefully even by today’s methods especially as the comment is that they were cleanly cut and the cut missed the rectum. These specific organs are in very close proximity to each other and at post-mortem are removed by a mixture of blunt dissection and sharp knife. Even doing this carefully it is still possible to damage some of the surrounding organs and tissues. There would have been no need for the killer to remove the intestines to facilitate the removal of the uterus"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Doesn't this seriously undermine Dr Phillips' analysis regarding the skill of the perpetrator?

[Batman]

Do you think it was the same one?

If JtR was a PC then yes.

[Scott Nelson]

Do you think it was the same one?

[Batman]

Was it it part of police training to render miscreants unconscious? To prevent them from crying out?

Probably a truncheon blow to the head in a riot.

A truncheon penetrating Smith doubles as a good weapon to have given Tabram her headache.

[MrBarnett]

Nothing wrong with this suggestion at all. It's perfectly viable and also has the additional factor that they know how to subdue someone from experience.

In fact, many of the victims could only be seen properly under such lighting conditions.

This is probably the easiest explanation of all. That the very type of lighting used to see them properly was the very same one used when the acts were committed.

Was it it part of police training to render miscreants unconscious? To prevent them from crying out?

[Sam Flynn]

How many officers who approached these crimes scenes need the use of a lantern to see the bodies?

Correction: they used the lanterns to inspect the bodies. Of course they could see them, even if they were lying down dead, and at a distance. Unlike the killer, who first saw them upright and alive, and was right up close to them as he killed and mutilated. He had no need of a lantern to do either.

[Batman]

How much experience would be required to subdue a small, weak, sickly and/or drunken woman?
Eh? Witnesses were perfectly able to see some of the victims from the other side of the street, with no lanterns at all.

How many officers who approached these crimes scenes need the use of a lantern to see the bodies?

Tabram, Nichols, Stride and Eddowes.

Chapman was discovered around 6 a.m so it appears one was not needed. Kelly in a room with window light.

[Sam Flynn]

Nothing wrong with this suggestion at all. It's perfectly viable and also has the additional factor that they know how to subdue someone from experience.

How much experience would be required to subdue a small, weak, sickly and/or drunken woman?

In fact, many of the victims could only be seen properly under such lighting conditions

Eh? Witnesses were perfectly able to see some of the victims from the other side of the street, with no lanterns at all.

[Batman]

Or, could he have used a lantern like a Police one, it wouldn't show light in anything but the direction it was aimed and, wasn't really bright enough to attract attention from a distance when aimed correctly? Mad suggestion or not?

Nothing wrong with this suggestion at all. It's perfectly viable and also has the additional factor that they know how to subdue someone from experience.

In fact, many of the victims could only be seen properly under such lighting conditions.

This is probably the easiest explanation of all. That the very type of lighting used to see them properly was the very same one used when the acts were committed.