Mary Jane Violence

[packers stem]

Ehrm - I don´t think that Lechmere - if the killer - had no anatomical insights as he cut Annie Chapman open. I think he may well have been involved in cutting up horse carcasses, and I believe he killed as early as 1873, and he would have gained a lot of insight into human anatomy during the early deeds in the 1870:s. The 1873 victim was cut into many pieces, and would have offered a very good option to learn a thing or two about anatomy.
Not that I want any debate over this, but since you seemingly think that I have a need to claim that there was no anatomical insight at all involved in the Ripper murders, I thought it best to correct you on that point. Lechmere would have opened a woman up and taken out her heart and lungs from the body (Rainham), for example, before he killed Chapman if he was the combined Ripper/Torso killer.

You should also keep in. mind that there were contemporary wax museums using a so called anatomical Venus to convey anatomical insights to the Londoners. These were wax models of women, where the innards could all be plucked out and demonstrated to the audience, what they looked like, where they were placed etcetera.The wax museums were popular within the working classes, and very much frequented. Just about anybody could have had far-reaching insights into the human anatomy through this phenomenon.

You are stating your 'belief' that he was also the torso killer as some kind of 'evidence' that he was already anatomically experienced though .....
It's only evidence for the very few who may believe that likely .
It's similar to when people point to the bible as evidence of God's existence...... if you believe the bible was merely written by imaginative men then it's not of evidential value

Horse anatomy is not similar
Here's a link on various renal anatomies for everyone

https://en.wikivet.net/Renal_Anatomy_-_Anatomy_%26_Physiology

As for waxworks , I'm not even going to bother going there

[Sam Flynn]

The killer could well have been aware of some kind of anatomy i.e. people have kidneys, women have reproductive organs etc.

Quite, and he could easily have known where they were in the abdomen. This was hardly forbidden knowledge, and (let's face it) it wouldn't take much of a genius to know where the womb was. Even an approximate knowledge would suffice, as once he was inside the abdominal cavity, it wouldn't take long to locate pretty much any organ in what is a rather small volume/area in the scheme of things.

[packers stem]

I think 'gooey intestines' are a bit different to an organ. The killer could well have been aware of some kind of anatomy i.e. people have kidneys, women have reproductive organs etc. but may not necessarily have had any practical experience (beyond maybe some amateur stuff with the pet cat or something), like a butcher or a surgeon. surely the fact he was so quick is a possible explanation as to frenzied rip and grab approach as is the fact that he took different parts from different victims. I would imagine a surgeon or a butcher would have had a particular organ in mind say and gone in specifically for that. Though I fear any kind of methodical approach would have resulted in him being caught.

Tristan

To someone with no knowledge , a part of the small intestine would be just as much a trophy.
It wasn't a case that the first thing found was grabbed, so by definition, it wasn't 'slash and grab'
The uterus was removed (twice ) ,in Eddowes case without damaging the bladder ,which in the dark is some feat .
The left kidney is half underneath the rib cage.
To cut it out someone had to know it was behind the membrane and wasn't simply a cyst !
The membrane was cut ,not ripped, not torn but cut ! So he puts the knife underneath the ribcage and slices and then 'carefully' removes the kidney and yet people continue to ignore this evidence.

I suspect the kidney was deliberately targeted precisely for this reason , that it's an easily overlooked organ and hidden, to show to the world that he WAS surgically trained .
It's gone right over the heads of most people though in their pursuit of a 'profile' compliant eastender

[Losmandris]

Quite

Bovines have both kidneys on the right ,whereas Eddowes left kidney was removed.
Ovines have tiny kidneys 5-6 cms covered in fat
Only porcine anatomy is similar enough ..... and there, with the flying pig, go the Jewish butchers .....

or

Your local bricklayer in his demented 'frenzy' apparently completely ignores all the gooey intestines he could have run off with and digs his hands under the rib cage and by total fluke ,happens to cut the membrane and carefully remove the kidney !
The left kidney is higher than the right and the top half of it is protected by the two lowest ribs .
He therefore cuts underneath the ribcage with little room for manoeuvre......
Oh ....... in almost complete darkness

tbh ,I wouldn't expect a 10 year old to fall for this lol

Fact is ,nearly everyone pushing for zero anatomical skill does so either because they already have a pet suspect..... kos ,druitt ,lech,hutch who we know would not have anatomical skill or the random local bricky/ butcher / tailor and they don't fancy any surgeons would live in flower and dean street

I think 'gooey intestines' are a bit different to an organ. The killer could well have been aware of some kind of anatomy i.e. people have kidneys, women have reproductive organs etc. but may not necessarily have had any practical experience (beyond maybe some amateur stuff with the pet cat or something), like a butcher or a surgeon. surely the fact he was so quick is a possible explanation as to frenzied rip and grab approach as is the fact that he took different parts from different victims. I would imagine a surgeon or a butcher would have had a particular organ in mind say and gone in specifically for that. Though I fear any kind of methodical approach would have resulted in him being caught.

Tristan

[Fisherman]

Quite

Bovines have both kidneys on the right ,whereas Eddowes left kidney was removed.
Ovines have tiny kidneys 5-6 cms covered in fat
Only porcine anatomy is similar enough ..... and there, with the flying pig, go the Jewish butchers .....

or

Your local bricklayer in his demented 'frenzy' apparently completely ignores all the gooey intestines he could have run off with and digs his hands under the rib cage and by total fluke ,happens to cut the membrane and carefully remove the kidney !
The left kidney is higher than the right and the top half of it is protected by the two lowest ribs .
He therefore cuts underneath the ribcage with little room for manoeuvre......
Oh ....... in almost complete darkness

tbh ,I wouldn't expect a 10 year old to fall for this lol

Fact is ,nearly everyone pushing for zero anatomical skill does so either because they already have a pet suspect..... kos ,druitt ,lech,hutch who we know would not have anatomical skill or the random local bricky/ butcher / tailor and they don't fancy any surgeons would live in flower and dean street

Ehrm - I don´t think that Lechmere - if the killer - had no anatomical insights as he cut Annie Chapman open. I think he may well have been involved in cutting up horse carcasses, and I believe he killed as early as 1873, and he would have gained a lot of insight into human anatomy during the early deeds in the 1870:s. The 1873 victim was cut into many pieces, and would have offered a very good option to learn a thing or two about anatomy.
Not that I want any debate over this, but since you seemingly think that I have a need to claim that there was no anatomical insight at all involved in the Ripper murders, I thought it best to correct you on that point. Lechmere would have opened a woman up and taken out her heart and lungs from the body (Rainham), for example, before he killed Chapman if he was the combined Ripper/Torso killer.

You should also keep in. mind that there were contemporary wax museums using a so called anatomical Venus to convey anatomical insights to the Londoners. These were wax models of women, where the innards could all be plucked out and demonstrated to the audience, what they looked like, where they were placed etcetera.The wax museums were popular within the working classes, and very much frequented. Just about anybody could have had far-reaching insights into the human anatomy through this phenomenon.

[c.d.]

I am kind of set for the time being on them cd, youre right. Because I don't see the burden of proof met either. We are perhaps more alike than first meets the eye.

Hello Michael,

The problem is that so much of the evidence has been lost and is unavailable to us. So I don't see how we can apply the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. We are forced to apply a what is more likely so standard or a preponderance of the evidence. Using that standard I believe that Jack killed all of the victims in the C5. Obviously you don't which is fine. These boards would be quite dull if everybody agreed.

c.d.

[packers stem]

Knowledge first,to be able to know what you are looking for, and where it is located, skill needed then to be able to take hold of it to be able to cut it out, with skill required to not to be able to damage the bladder.

For those who suggest a butcher here is a likely suspect !

Quite

Bovines have both kidneys on the right ,whereas Eddowes left kidney was removed.
Ovines have tiny kidneys 5-6 cms covered in fat
Only porcine anatomy is similar enough ..... and there, with the flying pig, go the Jewish butchers .....

or

Your local bricklayer in his demented 'frenzy' apparently completely ignores all the gooey intestines he could have run off with and digs his hands under the rib cage and by total fluke ,happens to cut the membrane and carefully remove the kidney !
The left kidney is higher than the right and the top half of it is protected by the two lowest ribs .
He therefore cuts underneath the ribcage with little room for manoeuvre......
Oh ....... in almost complete darkness

tbh ,I wouldn't expect a 10 year old to fall for this lol

Fact is ,nearly everyone pushing for zero anatomical skill does so either because they already have a pet suspect..... kos ,druitt ,lech,hutch who we know would not have anatomical skill or the random local bricky/ butcher / tailor and they don't fancy any surgeons would live in flower and dean street

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

[QUOTE=Michael W Richards;n724176]

As a matter of fact Tristan, I see a butcher who is a great candidate for Annies murder, and it would be logical to presume Polly fell for the man first. He was seen by Mrs Fiddymont of the Price Albert pub…"Mrs. Fiddymont, Chappell and Taylor later attended two identity parades, the first including suspect William Piggott and the second with John Pizer. In the first line-up, only Chappell picked out Piggott, but then stated that she was not sure if he was the man seen in the Prince Albert. With Pizer, no identification was made. Following the arrest of Jacob Isenschmidt, another parade was intended as soon as he was deemed to be in a satisfactory mental condition to participate^[2] . Inspector Frederick Abberline stated in a report that Isenschmidt was "identical with the man seen in Prince Albert P.H."<sup>[3

I should add that this is likely the only connection any of the cases had to royalty.</sup>

So by Abberlines reasoning then Jacob Isenschmidt must be identical to George Chapman?

[Michael W Richards]

[QUOTE=Losmandris;n724170]

Surgeons move deliberately, carefully; why would you conclude that a doctor would be able to remove an organ faster than a butcher?

Butchers wheeled their knifes with speed all day long and it is not unreasonable to assume that for every body a surgeon might ever cut into (abdominal surgery at the time being in its infancy), by comparison a butcher will cut into a score of bodies. It is the butcher who has the hand speed and the experience needed to remove the organs quickly, (within the time frame you offer up,) not a surgeon, who is not practiced, under any circumstance, to cut into a body quickly.

Medical knowledge does not add speed to the act, only hands on experience will make you faster, and surgeons never practice speed (but butchers do); the words speed and surgeon do not go together.

(I am speaking of abdominal surgery, not amputations, which I know were done quickly.)

It should come as no surprise that Dr. Brown's guys couldn't match the speed of the killer, the Ripper was a professional butcher who handled his knifes like an artist, probably with a speed and panache that would make most surgeons envious.

More likely he was in a frenzy and was pulling out anything he could get his hands on or could feel in the dark. I don't think JtR showed any of the skill or care of either a butcher or a surgeon, if he did, he would have never done it in time.

Tristan

As a matter of fact Tristan, I see a butcher who is a great candidate for Annies murder, and it would be logical to presume Polly fell for the man first. He was seen by Mrs Fiddymont of the Price Albert pub…"Mrs. Fiddymont, Chappell and Taylor later attended two identity parades, the first including suspect William Piggott and the second with John Pizer. In the first line-up, only Chappell picked out Piggott, but then stated that she was not sure if he was the man seen in the Prince Albert. With Pizer, no identification was made. Following the arrest of Jacob Isenschmidt, another parade was intended as soon as he was deemed to be in a satisfactory mental condition to participate^[2] . Inspector Frederick Abberline stated in a report that Isenschmidt was "identical with the man seen in Prince Albert P.H."<sup>[3

I should add that this is likely the only connection any of the cases had to royalty.</sup>

[Losmandris]

[QUOTE=APerno;n724047]

Surgeons move deliberately, carefully; why would you conclude that a doctor would be able to remove an organ faster than a butcher?

Butchers wheeled their knifes with speed all day long and it is not unreasonable to assume that for every body a surgeon might ever cut into (abdominal surgery at the time being in its infancy), by comparison a butcher will cut into a score of bodies. It is the butcher who has the hand speed and the experience needed to remove the organs quickly, (within the time frame you offer up,) not a surgeon, who is not practiced, under any circumstance, to cut into a body quickly.

Medical knowledge does not add speed to the act, only hands on experience will make you faster, and surgeons never practice speed (but butchers do); the words speed and surgeon do not go together.

(I am speaking of abdominal surgery, not amputations, which I know were done quickly.)

It should come as no surprise that Dr. Brown's guys couldn't match the speed of the killer, the Ripper was a professional butcher who handled his knifes like an artist, probably with a speed and panache that would make most surgeons envious.

More likely he was in a frenzy and was pulling out anything he could get his hands on or could feel in the dark. I don't think JtR showed any of the skill or care of either a butcher or a surgeon, if he did, he would have never done it in time.

Tristan

[Michael W Richards]

That line in bold is what the real truth is all about, still... after 131 years, deaths were thought to be linked. They still are, without any known evidence to support that conclusion.. other than other opinions. Not one shred of known evidence connects one victim to another, or any victim to a lone killer. Yet people still think that Jack the Ripper killed at least 5 women.

Hello Michael,

You are absolutely correct. The majority opinion of most Ripperologists is that the deaths are thought to be linked. Is there evidence for that belief? For those who hold that opinion, yes there is.

But just because there is not 100% hard and fast evidence it does not NECESSARILY follow that we can conclude that there were different killers. That case has to be made on its own merits and I (and the majority of Ripperologists) don't think that burden has been met.

You, probably more than any other poster on these boards, are absolutely wedded to your beliefs. Don't take them so personally.

c.d.

I am kind of set for the time being on them cd, youre right. Because I don't see the burden of proof met either. We are perhaps more alike than first meets the eye.

[Fisherman]

I never suggested there was not a mutilating killer in operation, I suggested that is the only type of killer, and not one who was an expert in female anatomy who could remove these organs in double quick time in almost total darkness

The Anatomy Act allowed for bona fide medical persons to go to mortuaries and lawfully take organs for medical research is that stealing ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Actually, since you refuse to answer my question why a post mortem room thief would fail to take out Eddowes´ kidney undamaged, I can help you out on that score: because it was never a post mortem thief who did it, it was the killer, and the reason for the sloppy work was that it was very dark and he was under time pressure. You see, that is how these things work logically.

[John Wheat]

If the killer removed the organs from eddowes then his knowledge of where to locate them, and how to remove them must have been on a par with Dr Browns expert because it took him 3 mins just to remove the uterus, and in the process he damaged the bladder and we do not know under what condition this was carried out. Add to that the time it would have taken to locate and remove the kidney on top of that, by my reckoning that adds up to an absolute minimum total of 5 mins for an expert in anatomy to carry out the removals. Dr Brown states also as least 5 mins but that was a guess and that's why he asked an expert.

Add to that the time to walk into the square, carry out the murder and the mutilations, rifle her pockets. cut her apron and then leave. Unless the killer was such an expert the time frame does not fit. How many persons would have those skills in any event ?

If the couple seen were the killer and Eddowes they were seen at 1.35am, that means they had not entered the square at that time

So lets say they made a move to enter the square at 1.36am - 1 min to walk slowly to crime scene, take us to 1.37am- 5 mins min just to remove organs + time to carry out all the other things he is supposed to have done, being conservative 1 minute, tha all add up to taking him to 1.43am and that is the bottom line.

Pc Harvey comes back down the passage and into the square at 1.41am/1.42am and no doubt disturbs the killer.

Based on those timings there was not enough time for the killer to have removed the organs in the square that is fact

If the couple entered the square any later than 1.37 then there is definitely no time to do all that he is supposed to have done.

Two victims, two different mortuaries, two different methods of removing the uterus from the two victims, two victims bodies left for many hours before post mortems conducted.

Tabram, Stride, Nichols, Kelly, Mckenzie, Coles, no attempts made to remove organs from any of these now isn't that strange when there is supposed to have been one lone killer? and before the old chestnut is rolled out yet again that he was disturbed, once or twice maybe but not six times

The only crackpot theory is with those who believe the killer removed the organs from Chapman and Eddowes at the crime scenes, and I would suggest those read up on the workings of the anatomy act which allowed bona fide medical persons to go to mortuaries and lawfully take organs for medical research. Now on that I do concede that the bodies of Eddowes and Chapman should not have been tampered with, but as the saying goes "needs must when the devil calls" and we do not know what went on at the mortuaries on those days.

And that is why when the post mortems were carried out the doctors saw signs of anatomical knowledge in the way they were removed.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

As I said a crackpot theory. And one with no evidence whatsoever.

[c.d.]

That line in bold is what the real truth is all about, still... after 131 years, deaths were thought to be linked. They still are, without any known evidence to support that conclusion.. other than other opinions. Not one shred of known evidence connects one victim to another, or any victim to a lone killer. Yet people still think that Jack the Ripper killed at least 5 women.

Hello Michael,

You are absolutely correct. The majority opinion of most Ripperologists is that the deaths are thought to be linked. Is there evidence for that belief? For those who hold that opinion, yes there is.

But just because there is not 100% hard and fast evidence it does not NECESSARILY follow that we can conclude that there were different killers. That case has to be made on its own merits and I (and the majority of Ripperologists) don't think that burden has been met.

You, probably more than any other poster on these boards, are absolutely wedded to your beliefs. Don't take them so personally.

c.d.

[Michael W Richards]

If the killer of MJK wanted to disguise his crime as work of "Jack The Ripper", would he need to eviscerate her, and at any rate, why to that extent?
Stride was accepted at the time as a victim of the same killer. Several female deaths after were thought of as being the same killer. If someone wanted Mary dead and for it to look like a serial killing, all he had to was kill her. The police and press would have undoubtedly linked it. They included Tabram and Smith at the time.
I'm not arguing for one, two or however many killers, just seems unlikely for a cover up by someone known to her.

That line in bold is what the real truth is all about, still... after 131 years, deaths were thought to be linked. They still are, without any known evidence to support that conclusion.. other than other opinions. Not one shred of known evidence connects one victim to another, or any victim to a lone killer. Yet people still think that Jack the Ripper killed at least 5 women.

For myself, I think thats because people want to imagine that sort of inhumanity and brutality as very rare, which is, unfortunately, far from the truth. In reality, anyone can do terrible things, because of mental illness is only 1 possible answer. Religion, Money, Secrets, Power, Jealousy, Rage,..there is a long list of possible catalysts when any murder is discovered, find the most probable one, and follow it. Kate, most probably in my mind, was killed to shut her up. She was a threat. Mary its quite possible was killed by a current or ex lover....who may or may not have known whether she really was who Barnett says she told him she was. Liz was killed in 2 seconds by a brutish man in anger. See...3 possible answers that do not include mentally ill man who cant control himself and needs to kill and mutilate. I do think that there is a man like that, I think he killed Annie then Polly. But his level of sickness became uncontrolled in other aspects of his life and gave his madness away, and he was put away...without anyone ever knowing, or perhaps acknowledging, that Jack was then off the streets. Institutionalizing Isenschmidt might have ended what could have been a continuing series of murder/mutilations..maybe getting to a room 13 point on its own. Whomever signed those papers may well have locked Jack up without even knowing it.

Lets say Im correct...just for jolly...then cant you see the answers I suggest for murders after that as quite plausible?