Evidence left behind

[Michael W Richards]

Well you thought process has always been illogical

Didnt one witness describe a man seen with a victim as having the appearance of a sailor, how would anyone be able to observe a sailor and be able to say what type of boat he was from?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Anyone could be wearing a sailors cap and/or scarf Trevor, the "appearance of" is the key there. What I meant was that a sailor would have to possess some semi-surgical grade knife and anatomy skills to have killed Annie, if he is accustomed to cutting up some other species that might be enough. But I don't think that kind of skills set would be found on most sailors. Its narrowing the potential field too much I think. Butcher, med student, hunter...that's the sort, and they were plentiful.

[Trevor Marriott]

Anyone could be wearing a sailors cap and/or scarf Trevor, the "appearance of" is the key there. What I meant was that a sailor would have to possess some semi-surgical grade knife and anatomy skills to have killed Annie, if he is accustomed to cutting up some other species that might be enough. But I don't think that kind of skills set would be found on most sailors. Its narrowing the potential field too much I think. Butcher, med student, hunter...that's the sort, and they were plentiful.

No skill needed to kill ! Cutting a victims throat in Victorian times was the usual method used by the majority of killers of male and female in Victorian times.

In the case of some of the victims there would have to have been two skill factors

1. The knowledge needed of the human anatomy to be able to know where the organs were located
2. The skill then needed to be able to remove them with anatomical knowledge.

How many persons would possess both sets of skills in 1888 certainly not butchers or hunters !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Michael W Richards]

No skill needed to kill ! Cutting a victims throat in Victorian times was the usual method used by the majority of killers of male and female in Victorian times.

In the case of some of the victims there would have to have been two skill factors

1. The knowledge needed of the human anatomy to be able to know where the organs were located
2. The skill then needed to be able to remove them with anatomical knowledge.

How many persons would possess both sets of skills in 1888 certainly not butchers or hunters !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

If a butcher slaughtered pigs then he would have a very good understanding of human anatomy as a result, same for someone who hunted boars for example. Annie Chapmans murder initiated a search for suspects that is unlike any other of these investigations...they looked for trained people. Med Students, Med practitioners, ...it was the only period when they did this, and as a direct result of the interpretation of Annies murderers skill set determined by qualified medical examination of Annies remains.

And hers is also the only biological specimen taken with skill, and the cuts made to access it were necessary. "No meaningless cuts". Say that last quote for any other Canonically designated Ripper murder. Well, maybe for Stride....the one cut was all that was needed to kill her.

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Michael W Richards;n723780]

If a butcher slaughtered pigs then he would have a very good understanding of human anatomy as a result, same for someone who hunted boars for example. Annie Chapmans murder initiated a search for suspects that is unlike any other of these investigations...they looked for trained people. Med Students, Med practitioners, ...it was the only period when they did this, and as a direct result of the interpretation of Annies murderers skill set determined by qualified medical examination of Annies remains.

So a butcher would know exactly where to look in a human body, and be able to find a uterus and a kidney, and be able to remove them in almost total darkness in 3-4 mins? When it took Dr Browns medical expert in female anatomy 3 mins just to remove a uterus, and he also damaged the bladder something that the "killer" didnt do. I think you and anyone else who postulates the butcher theory needs to have a rethink.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Joshua Rogan]

I believe that in a few cases its far more likely that the killer was led to the spot he commits the crime, and therefore I see him as careless in that regard. He doesn't try and control the location, or the situation, and that shows either misplaced confidence or ignorance on his part. He gets away with it for one reason....he knows those streets and alleys very well.

I'm not sure I understand the logic here.... If he was familiar enough with the locality to be certain of making his escape, then surely he was familiar enough to assess whether the location was safe enough for his purposes, whether he chose it himself or was led there by the victim?

[Lipsky]

I'm not sure I understand the logic here.... If he was familiar enough with the locality to be certain of making his escape, then surely he was familiar enough to assess whether the location was safe enough for his purposes, whether he chose it himself or was led there by the victim?

Three of the C5 locations were most certainly picked by the killer (Double event, MJK).
But I suppose the others too were at least places he became acquainted with.... very unlikely he would operate in terra incognita

[Errata]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;n723783]

If a butcher slaughtered pigs then he would have a very good understanding of human anatomy as a result, same for someone who hunted boars for example. Annie Chapmans murder initiated a search for suspects that is unlike any other of these investigations...they looked for trained people. Med Students, Med practitioners, ...it was the only period when they did this, and as a direct result of the interpretation of Annies murderers skill set determined by qualified medical examination of Annies remains.

So a butcher would know exactly where to look in a human body, and be able to find a uterus and a kidney, and be able to remove them in almost total darkness in 3-4 mins? When it took Dr Browns medical expert in female anatomy 3 mins just to remove a uterus, and he also damaged the bladder something that the "killer" didnt do. I think you and anyone else who postulates the butcher theory needs to have a rethink.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

A meat animals uterus looks nothing like a human one. So if a butcher is looking for something that resembles a pig uterus, he’s going to be looking a damned long time, and will probably end up taking part of the large intestine. Which Really only means that he wasn’t identifying it by sight, and had the ability to reason that an unfamiliar organ in the place that he thought a horned uterus was supposed to be would in fact be the uterus. Which is not a small thing under pressure.

[Leanne]

Three of the C5 locations were most certainly picked by the killer (Double event, MJK).
But I suppose the others too were at least places he became acquainted with.... very unlikely he would operate in terra incognita

He probably observed the victims enough to know exactly where they worked and where they commonly took customers.

[Leanne]

it is also reported that he unintentionally left behind a false wig at the scene of the crime of Elizabeth Stride.

Link us to this report please.

[Spider]

Three of the C5 locations were most certainly picked by the killer (Double event, MJK).
But I suppose the others too were at least places he became acquainted with.... very unlikely he would operate in terra incognita

The Buck’s Row location of the murder of Mary Ann Nichols, given that the location appears rather random and exposed, gives the impression that it was possibly a rushed and spur of the moment killing. That he had time to carry out mutilations, he must have had nerves of steel, though considering this being the first of the canonical murders maybe he hadn’t thought through the location aspect of his intended spree and later refined this. Contemporary drawings tend to show Nichols body basically lying on the pavement, and the location of the body being given as ‘in a gateway entrance to Brown's stableyard’. There is no way really of determining now how far into the gateway entrance the killing took place, so maybe portrayals are inaccurate, and there was enough cover along with the poor lighting?
Probably neither Killer nor Victim choice of location, just chance and convenience.
In the case of Annie Chapman I would suggest it is highly likely that the location, rear of 29 Hanbury Street was chosen by Annie and was probably a regular preference.
In the case of Elizabeth Stride, despite there apparently being no ‘recorded’ use by prostitutes of Dutfield’s Yard (why would there be?), it is not hard to imagine that it’s a fair location for that purpose. Though often a busy location it is ideally suited with respect to seclusion and darkness particularly in the farther recesses and was probably used on occasion for drunken liaisons between couples leaving the club, and maybe prostitutes soliciting departing club leavers?
Whether the location was Killer or Victim preference I’m undecided, probably just a chance meeting and favourable to both parties?
For Catherine Eddowes and the Mitre Square location, given that the murder of Stride had not long since occurred, and that Eddowes having just been released from custody, the encounter as are the others, has to be by unfortunate (for Eddowes) chance. The location in this instance I believe would have been chosen by Eddowes and her familiarity with area, probably using Mitre Square previously.
I find it highly unlikely that the location for the liaison with Mary Jane Kelly ie; her own home, was picked by the killer. This would have been her decision to take him there and could suggest that there was some familiarity with him, possibly a previous encounter.
Most of these ‘Ladies of the Night’ would use regular tried and tested and familiar locations where they knew that there was little chance of being disturbed.
I personally don’t think that the killer ‘picked’ any of the locations, they were either the Victim’s preference or quite simply convenient.

[Michael W Richards]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;n723783]

If a butcher slaughtered pigs then he would have a very good understanding of human anatomy as a result, same for someone who hunted boars for example. Annie Chapmans murder initiated a search for suspects that is unlike any other of these investigations...they looked for trained people. Med Students, Med practitioners, ...it was the only period when they did this, and as a direct result of the interpretation of Annies murderers skill set determined by qualified medical examination of Annies remains.

So a butcher would know exactly where to look in a human body, and be able to find a uterus and a kidney, and be able to remove them in almost total darkness in 3-4 mins? When it took Dr Browns medical expert in female anatomy 3 mins just to remove a uterus, and he also damaged the bladder something that the "killer" didnt do. I think you and anyone else who postulates the butcher theory needs to have a rethink.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Partial bladder taken from Berner Street. I don't promote the butcher theory Trevor, though I do think I know the butcher that killed Polly and Annie.

[APerno]

Where does it state that there was no collateral damage done to the bladder?

There is only one mention of the uterus' removal at the inquest (and that was made by the coroner during summation and not by Dr. Phillips) and there are no details to argue how precise the cuts were, furthermore Wikipedia claims that only part of the uterus was removed. I wonder why.

I have read where others claim that the killer cut both the bladder and the vagina when trying to remove the uterus.

Can anyone point me in correct direction where the autopsy is described in detail?

[JeffHamm]

Where does it state that there was no collateral damage done to the bladder?

There is only one mention of the uterus' removal at the inquest (and that was made by the coroner during summation and not by Dr. Phillips) and there are no details to argue how precise the cuts were, furthermore Wikipedia claims that only part of the uterus was removed. I wonder why.

I have read where others claim that the killer cut both the bladder and the vagina when trying to remove the uterus.

Can anyone point me in correct direction where the autopsy is described in detail?

I don't have details in front of me, but I believe in Annie Chapman's case the uterus is described as essentially being removed in full, with damage to the bladder in the process. In Katherine Eddowes' case, the uterus is described as 3/4 removed, and while no damage to the bladder there was damage to the bowel and intestines. The former case appears to have occurred when there would be some light of dawn, while the latter was middle of the night in a darker location; so lighting conditions available could account for the differences without even considering other details with respect to potential time pressures, risk of discovery (though I find it hard to believe either location could be considered lower risk to a meaningful degree).

While Dr. Phillips' opinion was that anatomical knowledge was shown by Annie Chapman's killer, he also believed that such knowledge would be within the realm of a butcher/slaughterman's knowledge base, though that doesn't preclude more specific knowledge of human anatomy it does widen the range of skill sets necessary to consider as reasonable. Meaning, while a medical professional would fall within that set, so would butchers, etc. The police did investigate the butcher's, slaughterman, in the area, as well as medical students and so forth, clearly indicating they were investigating that entire space of skill sets.

- Jeff

[Joshua Rogan]

Where does it state that there was no collateral damage done to the bladder?

There is only one mention of the uterus' removal at the inquest (and that was made by the coroner during summation and not by Dr. Phillips) and there are no details to argue how precise the cuts were, furthermore Wikipedia claims that only part of the uterus was removed. I wonder why.

I have read where others claim that the killer cut both the bladder and the vagina when trying to remove the uterus.

Can anyone point me in correct direction where the autopsy is described in detail?

There may be some confusion between Hanbury Street and Mitre Square cases;

Chapman's uterus was removed entirely (presumably intact), however her bladder was damaged in doing so, also her (I think) descending colon was cut through in one place (presumed accidentally due to haste).

Victim's section contains the following;

"the uterus and its appendages with the upper portion of the vagina and the posterior two thirds of the bladder, had been entirely removed. No trace of these parts could be found and the incisions were cleanly cut, avoiding the rectum, and dividing the vagina low enough to avoid injury to the cervix uteri."

Eddowes' uterus was only partially removed (cervix was left in the body) but her bladder was undamaged. Her colon was cut in two places and the section between those cuts removed (presumed to have been done intentionally).

Details can be found in Dr Brown's post mortem report, also in victim's section;

"The lining membrane over the uterus was cut through. The womb was cut through horizontally, leaving a stump of three quarters of an inch. The rest of the womb had been taken away with some of the ligaments. The vagina and cervix of the womb was uninjured.

The bladder was healthy and uninjured, and contained three or four ounces of water."

[JeffHamm]

We shouldn't forget that Dr. Bond was asked to review the cases, and working from the autopsy notes (presumably more complete than what we have), he was of the opinion that JtR did not even have the anatomical knowledge of a butcher or slaughterman, and he did not think any particular skill was shown. He points out, of course, that he only had the notes to work from other than for Mary Kelly, which he had direct experience with. His interpretation, therefore, could very well be swayed by any opinion he formed from that case.

That being said, it is clear that the opinions of the medical professionals directly involved were far from unanimous on the issue of skill and/or anatomical knowledge. It is probably unwise of us to draw any firmer conclusion than they were willing to do on the whole. Unfortunately, that doesn't narrow things for us, but such is the evidence we have to work with after all these years.

- Jeff