Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How did JtR see in the dark?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    But Chapman's bladder was damaged, and probably under better lighting conditions. Which brings us back to the topic of this thread.
    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"

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
    Of course, surgeons aren't trained to remove organs at speed.

    But in this case clearly Brown was concerned with the times for him to ask an expert to carry out the removal in as quick time as possible. If he was concerned 130 years ago why should we still not be concerned given the results of his expert 130 years on.

    There was a superstar knacker at John Harrison's yard who was apparently able to kill and strip a horse carcase in 20 minutes, compared to the hour or more a less talented slaughtermen would take. His skill made him a wealthy man - his fingers apparently 'dripped with diamonds'. And of course, horse slaughtering was generally carried out at night - by flickering candlelight at least as late as the 1870s.

    I'm not trying to push a slaughterman suspect here, my point is just that someone who wasn't surgically trained might well have been able to do the job quicker than someone who had been.
    It all comes down to how much time the killer would have with Eddowes from walking down Church passage to when he left the square (disturbed by Pc Harvey or otherwise)

    In my book there is some new medical evidence to support the belief that the organs from Chapman and Eddowes were not removed by the same person.

    Clearly by the posts of some members here they are never going to accept the fact that the organs were not removed by the killer, which I accept is there prerogative, but they are clearly not prepared to even consider alternatives, and that is a sad fact, and says a lot about the state of ripperolgy on these forums

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    But of course the star interview report was dated Oct 1st, If Both Brown and Sequeira had been interviewed before the post mortem then they would not have known about any organs being missing, so the time they mentioned 3 & 5 mins respectively could not have included the time it would have taken to remove the organs.

    You have to use Browns expert as a yardstick to how long it would have taken to remove the organs in the same way they were removed from Eddowes. It took him 3 minutes to remove a uterus, and he still manged to damage the bladder, which was not done to Eddowes, add to that the time taken to locate and remove a kidney, I would suggest that it would have taken at least another 2 minutes. So we have a minimum of 5 mins with just the organ removals, add to that the extra time to cut or tear the apron, to murder and mutilate, and to rifle her pockets,

    Did the killer have that much time with Eddowes? In my opinion, the answer is no, and if you want it breaking down as I have done, I would suggest you read the revised chapter on Eddowes which appears in "Jack the Ripper- The Real truth" Now available in paperback as well as kindle



    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    Of course, surgeons aren't trained to remove organs at speed.

    There was a superstar knacker at John Harrison's yard who was apparently able to kill and strip a horse carcase in 20 minutes, compared to the hour or more a less talented slaughtermen would take. His skill made him a wealthy man - his fingers apparently 'dripped with diamonds'. And of course, horse slaughtering was generally carried out at night - by flickering candlelight at least as late as the 1870s.

    I'm not trying to push a slaughterman suspect here, my point is just that someone who wasn't surgically trained might well have been able to do the job quicker than someone who had been.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    It took him 3 minutes to remove a uterus, and he still manged to damage the bladder, which was not done to Eddowes
    But Chapman's bladder was damaged, and probably under better lighting conditions. Which brings us back to the topic of this thread.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    Not if they're included in the injuries to which he did refer. He was unlikely only to offer his opinion on the external wounds without also including the most important injuries of all, namely the removal of the organs.
    Not beyond the bounds of possibility. I'd put it at a comfortable 4-5 minutes, but I don't think Sequeira was too wide of the mark; he might even have been right.
    But of course the star interview report was dated Oct 1st, If Both Brown and Sequeira had been interviewed before the post mortem then they would not have known about any organs being missing, so the time they mentioned 3 & 5 mins respectively could not have included the time it would have taken to remove the organs.

    You have to use Browns expert as a yardstick to how long it would have taken to remove the organs in the same way they were removed from Eddowes. It took him 3 minutes to remove a uterus, and he still manged to damage the bladder, which was not done to Eddowes, add to that the time taken to locate and remove a kidney, I would suggest that it would have taken at least another 2 minutes. So we have a minimum of 5 mins with just the organ removals, add to that the extra time to cut or tear the apron, to murder and mutilate, and to rifle her pockets,

    Did the killer have that much time with Eddowes? In my opinion, the answer is no, and if you want it breaking down as I have done, I would suggest you read the revised chapter on Eddowes which appears in "Jack the Ripper- The Real truth" Now available in paperback as well as kindle



    Leave a comment:


  • Rob1n
    replied
    Originally posted by Damaso Marte View Post
    The killer was used to the typical lighting conditions of late 19th century London at night. This doesn't seem particularly strange to me.
    Yes, that makes sense.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rob1n
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    Originally posted by Batman View Post
    Who starts a fire in Kelly's room.
    No. Tabram only.

    Leave a comment:


  • DJA
    replied
    How did she afford the coal!

    Leave a comment:


  • Batman
    replied
    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
    There's one category of person for whom the amount of light would be irrelevant - a blind man.
    Who starts a fire in Kelly's room.

    Leave a comment:


  • MrBarnett
    replied
    There's one category of person for whom the amount of light would be irrelevant - a blind man.

    Leave a comment:


  • DJA
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    Indeed. I used to struggle reading by the light of those energy-saving lightbulbs, but I've adjusted to them over time.
    No you haven't

    Leave a comment:


  • DJA
    replied
    Reminds me of a long past Aussie entertainer renowned for being up at the crack of Dawn.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    "He even arranged stuff on the ground as he rooted through her pockets."

    ... by the light of dawn.

    Leave a comment:


  • DJA
    replied
    Originally posted by Batman View Post
    In the Whitechapel murders, we have a problem that requires a solution. A solution which may be a clue. That problem is over poor lighting conditions and how JtR could have operated in darkness.

    The whole light issue is a mystery. What is the best explanation put forward for this fiend with night vision and a healthy diet of carrots for vitamin A?
    Perhaps "we" seek a pathologist who was sufficiently skilled that he could operate by touch alone.

    Hmm ..... first two murders were near the London Hospital,probably on his way home along "Hanbury Street" past Dr Phillips residence.

    Probably carrying chalk at the start of the term.

    Four of the CV5 within his expertise.

    Explains the cashous and lack of "post mortem" due to a Stride's genetic disease.

    The attempt at Chapman's head removal.

    Too much to list ..... again.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X