Did he have anatomical knowledge?

[lynn cates]

manner of speaking

Hello Gwyneth. Thanks.

Perhaps just a manner of speaking?

Cheers.
LC

[Cogidubnus]

Thank you. My concept to what may have happened is new, and I was hoping to learn more from you all before expressing it.

Hello Futz...the key word there is before...and with all due respect we've all been newbies here and have all made our first posting with some degree of trepidation about whether we're going to get jumped on or whatever...We've all made statements that I feel sure we look back on and cringe...

Under the circumstances Wickerman Jon asked you a very fair question...had you read the thread before expressing a firm opinion on it...and to be fair to you you freely admitted that you hadn't...

So, being honest with yourself, as I'm sure you will be (having been so once) how much attention do you feel we ought to pay to your views?

It follows, and I mean this with the greatest of respect (having been there myself), you need to do at least a little basic research, and at the very least read the threads before commenting...If you know nothing about a particular subject, say so (no shame in it!)...and in my limited experience someone will nearly always come along to help and guide you...

You've possibly made a slightly false start...please don't compound it...hope you take this as it's intended

All the best

Dave ( another newbie)

[Wickerman]

Hello Lynn,

Then why didn't he say so? Diemschutz and friend went off together in one direction, Eagles in another, Eagles says "I" - does rather imply that he went off alone (so he thought) or he would have said "I and X" or "I and another man".

Cheers,

Gwyneth

Hi Gwyneth.

Lynn is correct, Diemshitz & Kozebrodski ran off along Fairclough St. and found Spicer, all three returned to Dutfields Yard.
Kozebrodski then left with Eagle to go up Berner St. to Commercial Rd.

What you will often find in court testimony is that a witness is expected to respond to what 'he' did, and not to speak for others. Rarely will you hear a 'we', the witness is expected to speak only for himself (or herself).

[Futzbucket]

Hello Futz...//...hope you take this as it's intended

All the best

Dave ( another newbie)

Absolutely. I guess I was just excited to finally be able to be a part of this, sorry for walking in like I did.

[curious4]

The other man

Hi Gwyneth.

Lynn is correct, Diemshitz & Kozebrodski ran off along Fairclough St. and found Spicer, all three returned to Dutfields Yard.
Kozebrodski then left with Eagle to go up Berner St. to Commercial Rd.

What you will often find in court testimony is that a witness is expected to respond to what 'he' did, and not to speak for others. Rarely will you hear a 'we', the witness is expected to speak only for himself (or herself).

Hello Jon,

I do believe you (and Lynn) but don't remember seeing this anywhere. Can you point me in the right direction?

Best wishes,

C4/Gwyneth

[Cogidubnus]

Absolutely. I guess I was just excited to finally be able to be a part of this, sorry for walking in like I did.

That's ok mate...it's just an unfortunate minor side-effect of the quite sensible site rules that these things can't be discussed by private message until you've got 25 postings in!

I hope incidentally you enjoy yourself here and get as much out of the site as I do!

Every good wish

Dave

[lynn cates]

That explains it.

Hello Jon.

"What you will often find in court testimony is that a witness is expected to respond to what 'he' did, and not to speak for others. Rarely will you hear a 'we', the witness is expected to speak only for himself (or herself)."

Good explanation.

Cheers.
LC

[Fleetwood Mac]

Why is this topic so easy to type, but so hard to read?

I do believe we're dealing with a slash and grab, of sorts.

It looks to be the work of a man told to find a puzzle piece in a pumpkin.

(and I'm sorry for all)

Except, as Wickerman states, the OP came up with 2 or 3 instances of knowledge obtained only through familiarity.

As of yet, no one has been able to counter these arguments/instances.

I personally am convinced. What I'm not convinced about is the idea that he could have read this in a book and reproduced it in the dark.

[lynn cates]

two points

Hello Mac.

"What I'm not convinced about is the idea that he could have read this in a book and reproduced it in the dark."

1. It was not entirely dark, according to Dr. Sequiera.

2. It was not reproduced very well.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

...What I'm not convinced about is the idea that he could have read this in a book and reproduced it in the dark.

Me neither, this is hands-on experience at work.

He is somewhere along the line between the surgeon, at the high end, and the medical student, at the low end.

[Michael W Richards]

Issac Kozebrodski, according to his statement less than 1 hour after the murder, left the yard alone at Louis's insistence to go for help before Eagle or Louis left themselves. And the time he said he leaves for help is before 12:45am.

Louis says he left with Isaac[s], as the press reported it, and most assume he meant Issac his apprentice. But it looks to me like Issac K was a third party searching for the police, when we have been told there was only 2.

Cheers

[Hunter]

This has nothing to do with the subject of this thread. There are plenty of Stride threads about.

[Michael W Richards]

This has nothing to do with the subject of this thread. There are plenty of Stride threads about.

It was provided to address some erroneous information posted in # 573. But neither were thread premise specific...point taken.

Regards

[elleryqueen74]

Hi All,

This is my first visit to this forum in a long time and decided to take the long journey through reading this thread first up.

I have to thank Prosector for his very fine input into this subject. He has only reaffirmed my belief that the Ripper was no slash and grab artist. I will be more honest than some here and say that even though I do know the approximate region of the kidneys on the human body I very highly doubt I would be able to remove one in a short amount of time in the dark.

I must also say Trevor Marriot brings up some most fascinating points regarding the removal of the organs from Chapman and Eddowes. I never really thought until this point that someone (other than the killer) might of removed the organs at the mortuary at a later stage before the autopsies where performed. This would also explain why there were differing opinions from the doctors regarding skill/knowledge etc because there were 2 different people who had accessed the women's bodies before the autopsies, one with little to knowledge who was the murderer and then one later who had some skill or knowledge who raided the bodies for the organs before the doctors performed the autopsies.

The other good point I think that Trevor brought up that changed my view of things was the flaps of skin cut in Eddowes face. Again until reading his explanation and seeing the sketch of the knife embedded in the victims face, I did not connect the two but it seems to make more sense those injuries were inflicted that way than the killer wasting time to make 2 triangular cuts for no apparent reason.

Looking forward to reading and learning more here on Casebook.

[RockySullivan]

Dr Baxter said chapmans killer "must have been someone accustomed with the post -mortem room"...did the ripper work in the morgue at London hospital? Or could he have worked In a funeral home? I doubt he'd have much experience opening up bodies in the funeral home right? Does anyone think jack worked with cadavers? Are there any professions that cut organs out of dead bodies? It's impossible to imagine an average joe or even a butcher could cut out the sex organs that fast with such calm & cool