Mary Jane Violence

[APerno]

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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

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.

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

What a ridiculous statement,

perhaps the NHS should start employing butchers to carry out operations, and ease the long waiting lists for operations

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[DJA]

The common factor is skill,not speed.

[DJA]

perhaps the NHS should start employing butchers to carry out operations, and ease the long waiting lists for operations

Certainly decrease the surgery waiting lists.

Legal profession would be rubbing their hands in glee.

[DJA]

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

You make that sound easy.

It wasn't.

Records would have been kept.

Relatives consent obtained.

Etc,etc,etc .....

[APerno]

What a ridiculous statement,

perhaps the NHS should start employing butchers to carry out operations, and ease the long waiting lists for operations

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

How can you possibly see what happened to those women as an act of surgery? That is the ridiculous.

The question at hand is the speed in which the organs were removed; that is not surgery.

Your reply was non sequitur; but I guess that came about because you really couldn't address my post so you had no real choice except to become insulting; say something childlike.

Are you actually a published author, or was it just one of those vanity publications?

Yea, I can be unnecessarily insulting too!

[Trevor Marriott]

The common factor is skill,not speed.

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 !

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Michael,

Except that we have no idea why the WM took any organs in the first place let alone specific organs.

Trying to imitate an unknown killer with a decided pattern of activity in order to hide the real motives for a new murder is in my opinion, not only possible here...its probable. And pretty clever too.

Except that that cleverness required that the imitator take a knife and rip open a woman's abdomen and remove her internal organs. That is a little different from grabbing purses on the street.

And I doubt that the police would appraise a likely suspect and conclude "no, he can't be our man. He's a kidney man. We're looking for a uterus man."

c.d.

We cd we do know in the opinion of Dr Phillips at least 1 of the organs taken from one victim was specifically chosen. He cut Annie in such a way as to facilitate its removal easily. And lets not start portraying any of these victims as cut in a fashion that couldnt be duplicated or mimicked by anyone else. All the victims fell to a killer, a lone man or others, and to take a murderer a short walk further in order to disguise the fact he was anywhere near the murder isnt really a stretch. Everyday people kill people. Some people then cut the bodies up. Why? Did they want to cut up people..is that what their murder is all about? For most, no..it isnt, they just need to get the body out of their house/basement/apartment/warehouse, so they make easy to carry packages of their victims. You and I may be squeamish about doing something, that doesnt make it impossible for us or anyone else to do. Just read the papers bud.

If some "everyday murderer",....just killed someone cause they pissed him off while drunk kinda guy, can suddenly have the nerve to cut up a body to dispose of it, he could certainly cut it up to make it look like someone else did it. I say with with respect to Kates murder primarily, I dont think Marys killer intended to mask the intention of the murder by the cutting, I think someone did it so the body in the bed might later be identified incorrectly.

[c.d.]

You and I may be squeamish about doing something, that doesnt make it impossible for us or anyone else to do. Just read the papers bud.

I agree completely, Michael. Certainly not impossible but very improbable. The very fact that this website exists testifies to that. But having multiple killers capable and willing to do such a thing all appear in a specific area in a period of a few months really defies the odds.

Dr. Phillips was only stating his personal opinion. But neither he nor anyone else knows why that particular organ was chosen.

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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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