Did he have anatomical knowledge?

[Wickerman]

Lawende sees a couple standing talking at the entrance to Mitre Sq at the Church passage entrance. This was at 1.35am. Now he doesn't see them enter the sq at that time.

It is assumed that this was Eddowes with her killer. This is a fair assumption as no one else was seen in the area, and no one else came forward to identify themselves as being either one of that couple.

It's a fair assumption Trevor, but it is only an assumption, not a fact.
And as you well know, both Mcwilliams and Swanson conceded to allow for an alternate assumption that Lawende may not have seen the killer & victim at all.

When you have two competing assumptions, the right approach is to detail out two applicable theories - one tied to each assumption, not bulldoze through with your preferred theory against all odds.

The old accepted theory has been that the killer removed the organs. That theory does not now stand up to close scrutiny

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Which might be true IF... the proposed scrutiny was adequately done, in this case somewhat predictably the scrutiny itself falls victim to a closer scrutiny.

[Wickerman]

... There was no consensus. Dr. Thomas Bond, one of the police medical consultants, categorically denied that anatomical knowledge was required at all. Granted, he was the only doctor to voice such an absolute opinion, but even among the doctors who thought the killer possessed some anatomical knowledge, there was no consensus as to how much anatomical knowledge. They certainly did not all think he had a surgeon's knowledge. That would be a minority opinion.

That is true, there was no consensus, however the Kelly murder leaves us at a disadvantage because we do not possess professional opinion on the method used to remove any organs.
All we have is the global statement by Dr. Bond., who incidentally has an established record of contesting the opinions of his peers.

Once the organs are removed (how skillful, and by what methods?), the killer then proceeds to slice away the flesh - how does a professional slice flesh?
The act of slicing at the body can be viewed as barbaric, not the kind of thing a well educated surgeon would involve himself in, ergo, the killer must be an uneducated maniac.
So, as inclined as some are to take Dr. Bond's opinion as the final word, we are in no position to determine what that opinion was based on. And, as mentioned before, Dr. Bond has a habit of contradicting other professionals in the field.

[Trevor Marriott]

It's a fair assumption Trevor, but it is only an assumption, not a fact.
And as you well know, both Mcwilliams and Swanson conceded to allow for an alternate assumption that Lawende may not have seen the killer & victim at all.

When you have two competing assumptions, the right approach is to detail out two applicable theories - one tied to each assumption, not bulldoze through with your preferred theory against all odds.




Which might be true IF... the proposed scrutiny was adequately done, in this case somewhat predictably the scrutiny itself falls victim to a closer scrutiny.

Which ever one you look at it doesn't detract that at least 7 mins minimum would have been required to remove those organs and then by someone skilled enough to do so, anyone not so skilled much longer I would suggest.

Where do you get those 7 minutes from ? and where do you get enough light for someone to see how to do all of this? These times are calculated from Dr Browns experiment, and again I say he must have had concerns to institute this experiment.

As you know I have done the same experiments with medical experts who all say it could not be done within the time scale as we know it

The only way you get enough time is if Watkins was lying about his timed entry in to the square at 1.30am and he missed seeing the body.

If you have an alternate time frame then feel free to post it

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Aldebaran]

Which ever one you look at it doesn't detract that at least 7 mins minimum would have been required to remove those organs and then by someone skilled enough to do so, anyone not so skilled much longer I would suggest.

Where do you get those 7 minutes from ? and where do you get enough light for someone to see how to do all of this? These times are calculated from Dr Browns experiment, and again I say he must have had concerns to institute this experiment.

As you know I have done the same experiments with medical experts who all say it could not be done within the time scale as we know it

The only way you get enough time is if Watkins was lying about his timed entry in to the square at 1.30am and he missed seeing the body.

If you have an alternate time frame then feel free to post it

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

This may seem a stupid question but has anyone ever calculated the phase of the moon on the night in question? I don't remember, but if you give me the dates of the murders [or the ones you question as to how much light there was] I'll tell you what phase. Although I concede that a full moon [or nearly full] would perhaps not even have afforded sufficient light. As to Eddowes on Sunday, September 30, 1888--there was a waning crescent moon with 31.8% illumination.

[Wickerman]

There is no need for a separate time frame, Watkins provides the time window - 1:30-1:44, that does not change.
14 minutes is the absolute maximum, less time taken by the killer & victim to enter the square after Watkins leaves.

What we do not know is whether the 1:30 circuit of the square truly happened, or was Watkins sharing a sneaky cuppa with his buddy the nightwatchman, so Watkins gave the Inquest what he should have been doing, not what he really was doing.
We simply do not know.

I prefer to take him at his word, in my view any dishonesty on the part of Watkins is not required to make a theory fit. We can synthesize a theory without criticizing Watkins.

- Watkins may or may not have passed through the square at 1:30.
- Lawende may or may not have seen Eddowes with her killer.
- The lighting in that corner may or may not have been adequate (Sequeira being the only professional to voice an opinion on the matter said it was sufficient).
- The killer may or may not have had sufficient skill to conduct the mutilations in a tight time-frame.

Given the extent of what we do not know, is there any real benefit to contesting the accepted interpretation?
Other than a self-serving purpose...

[Trevor Marriott]

This may seem a stupid question but has anyone ever calculated the phase of the moon on the night in question? I don't remember, but if you give me the dates of the murders [or the ones you question as to how much light there was] I'll tell you what phase. Although I concede that a full moon [or nearly full] would perhaps not even have afforded sufficient light. As to Eddowes on Sunday, September 30, 1888--there was a waning crescent moon with 31.8% illumination.

Organ removal by moonlight you have got to be kidding are you suggesting a moonbeam shone down into the open abdomen of Eddowes to give sufficient light for the organs to be removed ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Wickerman;384987]There is no need for a separate time frame, Watkins provides the time window - 1:30-1:44, that does not change.
14 minutes is the absolute maximum, less time taken by the killer & victim to enter the square after Watkins leaves.

What we do not know is whether the 1:30 circuit of the square truly happened, or was Watkins sharing a sneaky cuppa with his buddy the nightwatchman, so Watkins gave the Inquest what he should have been doing, not what he really was doing.
We simply do not know.

I prefer to take him at his word, in my view any dishonesty on the part of Watkins is not required to make a theory fit. We can synthesize a theory without criticizing Watkins.

- Watkins may or may not have passed through the square at 1:30.
- Lawende may or may not have seen Eddowes with her killer.
- The lighting in that corner may or may not have been adequate (Sequeira being the only professional to voice an opinion on the matter said it was sufficient).
- The killer may or may not have had sufficient skill to conduct the mutilations in a tight time-frame.

Given the extent of what we do not know, is there any real benefit to contesting the accepted interpretation?
Other than a self-serving purpose...[/QUOTE

If you call seeking the truth self serving then so be it

In your loaded explanation to suggest a 14 minute window you seem to have by accident or design forgot about one important witness who I suggest throws a spanner in your 14 min window that being PC Harvey who comes down church passage into the perimeter at 1.40 and sees nor hears nothing..

So looking at your explanation either the killer had killed and mutilated between the time Watkins left and Harvey arrived or he remained still and quiet until Harvey left and then continued the mutilations, leaving before Watkins came back.

So either doesn't stand up to well does it in support of your theory?

As to sequeira his statement is ambiguous he is not specific in what he refers to

The murder spot was described as being the darkest part of the square

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Aldebaran]

Organ removal by moonlight you have got to be kidding are you suggesting a moonbeam shone down into the open abdomen of Eddowes to give sufficient light for the organs to be removed ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No. sir. I was suggesting that, being there was only a waning crescent moon on that night, the moon would not have been of much help, if any, [if the night was cloudy] when it came to light to see by. What other artificial type of illumination was at hand, you know better than I.

[Joshua Rogan]

Hi Aldebaran,

This link contains details of weather, sunrise/sunset times and lunar phases for each murder;

http://www.casebook.org/victorian_london/weather.html

I believe there were two gas lamps in Mitre Square itself, although one was said not to be in good repair at the time;

[Wickerman]

If you call seeking the truth self serving then so be it

Letting the evidence speak for itself generally leads to the truth.

In your loaded explanation to suggest a 14 minute window you seem to have by accident or design forgot about one important witness who I suggest throws a spanner in your 14 min window that being PC Harvey who comes down church passage into the perimeter at 1.40 and sees nor hears nothing..

Ok, so what do we have on that point.....two comments.

"At 20 to 2 on Sunday morning I went down Duke Street and down Church Passage as far as Mitre Square..."

"I was at the end of Church Passage about 18 or 19 minutes to 2."

So, somewhere between 1:40-1:42, while Watkins appeared at 1:44.
However, Harvey makes no mention of carrying a watch, in fact he implies that his timing was based on him passing the post-office clock...

"I passed the Post Office clock between 1 and 2 minutes to the half hour."

So is his 1:40-1:42 merely an estimate? - very likely.

The minimum time window then is 1:30 (Watkins) to 1:40 (Harvey).
In all likelyhood the killer was already gone by the time Harvey came to the end of Church Passage.

As to sequeira his statement is ambiguous he is not specific in what he refers to

The murder spot was described as being the darkest part of the square

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Sequeira seems specific enough, he saw what was done and where it was done, and the lighting was "sufficient" in his opinion.

"Darkest" part of the square only means the rest of the square was lighter, it doesn't tell us how dark it was in that corner.

[Fisherman]

Richard Patterson: Hi Fisherman,

Good to speak to you again. I see you detect links between the Torso murders and the Jack the Ripper murders. If you are right, that they were done by the same hand, it could not possibly have been Thompson. To argue whether the Torso murders were or were not Ripper murders is something I can not do, simply because I know so little about them and nothing about the 1873 torso.

Then you should look into it, Richard. It is thoroughly absorbing and extremely rewarding - at least, that is, if you read the signs the way I do. I trust you have seen the debate on the abdominal walls that were taken away in panes from Chapman, Kelly - and Liz Jackson in the torso series? That is a glaring similarity, and it is strengthened by how three torso victims had a section of their colons removed, together with Kate Eddowes who suffered the exact same fate.
I cannot for the life of me see how these matters could not point to a shared identity.
The 1873 torso victim, however, did not have her abdominal wall removed in panes, and there is nothing to tell us that she lost a section of her colon. Instead, there is something else that represents a direct line between her and Mary Kelly, something that not only ties these victims together but also explains which inspiration lay behind the deeds - and how the killer could have learnt about anatomy.

To be honest, not being a pathologist, all I can say is that I see similarities between the Virchow method and the murders.

I can see them too - but I cannot rule out that they may be a red herring. Or not - maybe the killer I have in mind did know about the Virchow method, it is not impossible at all. I believe he spent time listening to lessons in anatomy, and so he could well have been informed about it. There is no knowing, and equally, there is no excluding it.

To me, what remains the chief one is the habit of organ removal from the victims. In modern autopsies this is routine, but before Virchow organs were not routinely removed and examined.

Actually they were - but in another context altogether from the one Virchow worked in.

It just strike me as too strong a coincidence that at the same time that this new idea of autopsy, as taught by Virchow, came about, the killer in the East End was doing the same thing, but perhaps you see stronger connections between the Torso murders and the Ripper murders than I do about my suspect, Virchow, and the Ripper murders.
So I am not prepared to argue the point here with you, simply because you must undoubtedly feel you know something that I do not. Take care and thanks for your criticisms and thoughts.

Virchow was - although he was an authority on matters medical - not a man who was known to the average Eastender. I think we may agree on that.

Virchow would, however been well known to students of medicine and surgery.

So to fit the Virchow bill, your killer needs to have experience from the field of medicine and surgery. And Thompson did, which makes him a valid suspect in this respect.

But I am saying that the killer was NOT a medical man or a surgeon, nor did he at any time have gotten that training. His insights into anatomy seemingly instead came from being accustomed to cutting up animals, something that was acknowledged by the expertise back then. Dr Galloway, who examined the 1873 torso said that he was a more skilled cutter than any surgeon, and assumed that this owed to a far more widespread experience of opening up joints and cutting away limbs that way. It was the kind of experience somebody working in the butchers or hunters trade would have.

Anyway, Richard, if I am correct, and this man was NOT read up on Virchow, then my guess is that he would have gained his insights from another source, readily available to the working class Eastender, providing deep insights about anatomy. And indeed, the 1873 torso case and the Kelly case both exhibit evidence pointing to this solution.

Any idea what I´m after?

[Fisherman]

Fisherman. I just want to add, that if I did not favour Thompson, I would very easily accept that Charles Lechmere was Jack the Ripper. It is really an amazing discovery and your resilience and research has been staggering. I do want to congratulate you for bringing into the light what seems so obvious after the fact. You have brilliant suspect there.

Many thanks for that, Richard - if every poster out here was as openminded as you are, I would be a less grumpy old man...

[Fisherman]

Hiya Christer, hope you are well.

Fair enough, but do we have medical opinion on whether he removed any organs "with care"?

The fact a similar murder (or murders) may occur over time has little bearing if we have no medical opinion on the skill, or lack of skill involved - that is the real important point in my opinion, not the fact some idiot ripped organs from a corpse.

Hi, Jon! Where did the "with care" quotation come from? I don´t think I wrote it.

However, I COULD have. I actually think the Ripper DID remove the organs with care. There is no statement about the organs being shredded by Mary Kelly´s side, instead they seem to have been removed and laid beside her with...care!
And look at the colon piece by Eddowes´ side - laid out "by design" in a straight line parallel to her body!

There is a lot speaking for anything but an idiot ripping organs from a corspe in the Rippers case.

[Fisherman]

The act of slicing at the body can be viewed as barbaric, not the kind of thing a well educated surgeon would involve himself in, ergo, the killer must be an uneducated maniac.

... or it can be regarded as a pedagogical lesson about how the leg is built by skin, flesh, muscle and bone. Right?

[Wickerman]

Hi, Jon! Where did the "with care" quotation come from? I don´t think I wrote it.

However, I COULD have. I actually think the Ripper DID remove the organs with care. There is no statement about the organs being shredded by Mary Kelly´s side, istead they seem to have been removed and laid beside her with...care!
And look at the colon piece by Eddowes´ side - laid out "by design" in a straight line parallel to her body!

There is a lot speaking for anything but an idiot ripping organs from a corspe in the Rippers case.

Hi Christer, sorry I was alluding to the medical opinion of Dr. Brown...
"...and the left kidney carefully taken out and removed".

Modern crimes are typically offered by way of evidence, as if the mutilation was the same as done by the Whitechapel Murderer. Which I think is somewhat misleading because we have nothing from the modern doctors to say whether these mutilations are carefully done or random acts of savagery.