Evidence left behind

[DJA]

Because it was only noted as being absent from the pericardium at the post mortem, and not when the contents of the room was documented.

The post mortem conducted by Bond was done in Mary Kelly's room,and his list of her viscera were part of that.

It seems likely the heart and other organs were sent by carriage to Phillips.

[DJA]

would he have been able to tell the difference between blood and fecal matter in the dark?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Sincerely hope your mother never sent you shopping for black pudding!

[Trevor Marriott]

And we have Levy, of the same party, estimate they waited 3-4 minutes, so 1:33 at the earliest. Lawende's time of 1:30 was checked by his watch, the 5 minutes was his estimate, and Levy's estimate was 3 or 4 minutes. Hence, there is a range to consider in the evidence, starting at 1:33, ending at 1:35. Two minutes is a lot of time in this situation and we can't ignore it.

And there is no justifiable reason why one has to postulate the couple waited a minute for Lawende et co to pass them before heading into the passage. Once Lawende et Co pass the couple, the time available starts.

And the walk from where the couple were to the crime scene would take less than a minute at an average walking pace, and there is no reason to suggest they walked faster or slower than average.

And PC Harvey's estimated time of his patrol of Church Passage was 1:41 or 1:42, again, a range of times we have to work with. (NOTE: If you want to consider the end of all possible time windows as 1:44, when PC Watkins finds the body, then use the bracketed values below, and while I think those far less probable, opinions may vary).

All told, the widest window is from 1:33 to 1:42, so 9 minutes. (1:33 to 1:44; 11 minutes)

The narrowest time window is from 1:35 to 1:41, so 6 minutes. (1:35 to 1:44: 9 minutes)

The shortest estimate I've seen by a medical profession in terms of the time required was 2 minutes (posted on another thread), and the longest has been "5 minutes or more".

With even the 6 minute narrowest time window, there's a minute for the couple to get to the passage (which would take less than a minute), giving 5 minutes and change, covering all but the very longest, but unspecified, estimate of "or more". At the widest time window, of 9 minutes, the "or more" has to almost double the 5 minutes before there's a problem (and even that is overcome if one allows JtR to have not noticed PC Harvey, and so has 9 minutes at the very least, and as much as 11 minutes, but again, I think those are harder to defend, but not to be overlooked entirely).

When we take all of the evidence into account, and look at the ranges of times that the evidence requires us to consider, there is no compelling reason to conclude there wasn't enough time because those are the facts as we have them. Ranges of times are what we have to work with, and the ranges available do not rule anything out, but rather, tell us that JtR was able to do what he did very quickly, and I can't see someone without a lot of skill with using a knife quickly being able to do everything in that time period, even the widest window seems pretty quick. Someone who isn't used to working quickly with a knife would, in all probability, have cut themselves, and given the fecal matter in the Eddowes case, would run the risk of a pretty severe infection. (Which, come to think of it, might suggest searching hospital records for someone admitted to the hospital with severe blood poisoning from a cut, but that is a long shot of course).

And not to forget, of course, all of this is based on the unproven hypothesis that the couple spotted at the end of Church Passage even was Eddowes and JtR. While we have no other viable sightings to work with, there are other possible entrances to Mitre Square through which they may have entered after PC Watkins completed his patrol, but that just widens the widest possible time window, it certainly doesn't narrow anything. Personally, though, given that Lawende and Co didn't leave the club until 1:33-1:35 because they were waiting for the rain to stop, if Eddowes and JtR were sheltering somewhere other than the end of Church Passage, and we know it wasn't in Mitre Square (or Watkins would have seen them the first time round), I can't see them entering much sooner no matter how they get there - but I can't prove they didn't either because I wasn't there.


And if they left Church Passage at 1:33 (Levey's earliest time for passing), and ran, getting there at 1:33:15, we've got nearly 10 minutes 45 seconds. But I've no more proof of that hypothetical description than you do for your use of specific times. We can't just "What if" or "Maybe" the evidence away, and the the evidence gives us a range for the start of the window between 1:33 and 1:35, a range for the end of the window of 1:41-1:42 (or even 1:44 by Watkins), which is 6-9 minutes (or 9-11 minutes).

To say that it was impossible in the time available then you have to argue that it must have required more than 11 minutes because the evidence can sustain up to that amount of time; though I would argue more than 9 minutes is probably a strong case too since 9-11 minutes requires JtR continuing while PC Harvey patrols Church Passage and that seems highly improbable. But, I suppose if the Church Passage couple are not viewed as being Eddowes and JtR, then pm could allow for entrance as soon as Watkin's finished his first patrol (1:30), so our narrowest window becomes 1:30-1:41 (11 minutes) and the widest 1:30-1:42 (12 minutes) and the absolute most being the 14 minutes of Watkins' patrol.



From estimating positions based upon times PC Harvey checked at the PO clock, and his patrol length, his estimation of 1:41 and 1:42, combined with his descriptions of where he was when he heard the whistle (1:44), seems entirely reasonable. And I think, like you, his patrol is most likely what triggered JtR to flee, but that is just a hypothesis based upon a reasonable supposition - but truth is not always a reasonable supposition.



But those timings are not all that the evidence allows for, they only are chosen due to imposing unproven hypotheses upon the time windows the evidence gives us. But given those times for arrival, etc, leaving 4-5 minutes available for the murder, then that would indicate the shorter, rather than longer, estimates of time required for the murder and mutilations are to be preferred because the theory must bow to the evidence, not the evidence bow to the theory.


...
Mr. Crawford - You have spoken of the extraction of the left kidney. Would it require great skill and knowledge to remove it?
Witness (Dr. Brown): - It would require a great deal of knowledge as to its position to remove it. It is easily overlooked. It is covered by a membrane.

Mr. Crawford - Would not such a knowledge be likely to be possessed by one accustomed to cutting up animals?
Witenss - Yes.
...
And Dr. Brown goes on later to estimate "at least 5 minutes", putting him in the longer time range opinion (but that is for all the mutilations; not just the removal of the kidney, but all of them, including the cuts to the eyes, as just before giving his "at least 5 minutes" question he mentioned these specifically when saying he thought the killer had enough time, and when asked for how much time that was, he gives his "at least 5 minutes". So our narrowest time window of 6 minutes gives 1 minute for Eddowes and JtR to get to the crime scene, and still have the 5 minutes Dr. Brown thought was minimally required. Every second that widens that window, just makes it easier - and without doing anything fancy with the evidence, we may even have as much as 9 minutes to work with. So while we don't know, what we do know is that even the harshest narrowing of the time window, the evidence we have still leaves enough time.



Which is similar to Dr. Bond's summary of the C5 reports, including his examination of Kelly, that he believed no anatomical knowledge was evidenced in any of the crimes. While Dr. Phillips believed anatomical knowledge was shown with Eddowes (re: the kidney), Dr. Sequrera (sp?) disagreed on that point; and in Kelly's murder, both kidneys were removed and placed around the body.

Dr. Bond summarizes the placement of all of Kelly's organs at the crime scene, except the heart, which is later at autopsy noted to be absent (something he woudln't know at the crime scene), hence his statement the heart was absent from the body, coupled with the fact it was not detailed in the placement of the organs at the crime scene, leaves only the conclusion it was taken from the scene (and the uterus and both kidneys were left and accounted for - and given the uterii were, and everyone knew were taken from, Chapman and Eddowes, and that a kidney was taken from Eddowes, those would be the organs that inspector Reid would have noted were, in fact, not taken away from Kelly.

So, while I do see your line of reasoning, I'm not convinced it is one that that the evidence we have requires one to accept.

- Jeff

Well I could say the same for your timeline, but you have not taken into account the additional circumstantial evidence, which I suggest goes to support the belief that the killer did not remove the organs,

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

But if it was absent from the pericardium but not absent from the scene then why wasn’t it noted as being elsewhere in the room?

Because it was only noted as being absent from the pericardium at the post mortem, and not when the contents of the room was documented.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

There is even less solid evidence to show the killer took away the organs ! What have you got? the only evidence you have is that the organs were found missing at the post mortem stage nothing else !

I have laid down solid evidence based on the witness timings and the medical evidence at the time, along with modern day medicals experts, which in my opinion having closely examined all the facts shows that there was not sufficient time for the killer to do all that he is supposed to have done. One final time I will go over that evidence

Lawende
He stated that they got ready to leave the club at 1.30am, but they waited until it had stopped raining. He is specific about the time because he also had a watch, and he checked his watch with the clock in the club, which were in sync with each other. He states that it took them about five minutes to finally leave the club making the time by then at least 1.35am. So he then sees the couple, so at 1.35am they had not entered the square. The earliest they could have entered would have been 1.36am 1 min walk to murder scene arriving 1.37am murder takes place

And we have Levy, of the same party, estimate they waited 3-4 minutes, so 1:33 at the earliest. Lawende's time of 1:30 was checked by his watch, the 5 minutes was his estimate, and Levy's estimate was 3 or 4 minutes. Hence, there is a range to consider in the evidence, starting at 1:33, ending at 1:35. Two minutes is a lot of time in this situation and we can't ignore it.

And there is no justifiable reason why one has to postulate the couple waited a minute for Lawende et co to pass them before heading into the passage. Once Lawende et Co pass the couple, the time available starts.

And the walk from where the couple were to the crime scene would take less than a minute at an average walking pace, and there is no reason to suggest they walked faster or slower than average.

And PC Harvey's estimated time of his patrol of Church Passage was 1:41 or 1:42, again, a range of times we have to work with. (NOTE: If you want to consider the end of all possible time windows as 1:44, when PC Watkins finds the body, then use the bracketed values below, and while I think those far less probable, opinions may vary).

All told, the widest window is from 1:33 to 1:42, so 9 minutes. (1:33 to 1:44; 11 minutes)

The narrowest time window is from 1:35 to 1:41, so 6 minutes. (1:35 to 1:44: 9 minutes)

The shortest estimate I've seen by a medical profession in terms of the time required was 2 minutes (posted on another thread), and the longest has been "5 minutes or more".

With even the 6 minute narrowest time window, there's a minute for the couple to get to the passage (which would take less than a minute), giving 5 minutes and change, covering all but the very longest, but unspecified, estimate of "or more". At the widest time window, of 9 minutes, the "or more" has to almost double the 5 minutes before there's a problem (and even that is overcome if one allows JtR to have not noticed PC Harvey, and so has 9 minutes at the very least, and as much as 11 minutes, but again, I think those are harder to defend, but not to be overlooked entirely).

When we take all of the evidence into account, and look at the ranges of times that the evidence requires us to consider, there is no compelling reason to conclude there wasn't enough time because those are the facts as we have them. Ranges of times are what we have to work with, and the ranges available do not rule anything out, but rather, tell us that JtR was able to do what he did very quickly, and I can't see someone without a lot of skill with using a knife quickly being able to do everything in that time period, even the widest window seems pretty quick. Someone who isn't used to working quickly with a knife would, in all probability, have cut themselves, and given the fecal matter in the Eddowes case, would run the risk of a pretty severe infection. (Which, come to think of it, might suggest searching hospital records for someone admitted to the hospital with severe blood poisoning from a cut, but that is a long shot of course).

And not to forget, of course, all of this is based on the unproven hypothesis that the couple spotted at the end of Church Passage even was Eddowes and JtR. While we have no other viable sightings to work with, there are other possible entrances to Mitre Square through which they may have entered after PC Watkins completed his patrol, but that just widens the widest possible time window, it certainly doesn't narrow anything. Personally, though, given that Lawende and Co didn't leave the club until 1:33-1:35 because they were waiting for the rain to stop, if Eddowes and JtR were sheltering somewhere other than the end of Church Passage, and we know it wasn't in Mitre Square (or Watkins would have seen them the first time round), I can't see them entering much sooner no matter how they get there - but I can't prove they didn't either because I wasn't there.

Pc Watkins

He comes back into the square at 1.44am and finds the body, so that gives us an initial crime scene window of 7 mins

If the couple did not enter he square until 1.37am and arrive at the crime scene until 1.38am that window is reduced to 6 mins

And if they left Church Passage at 1:33 (Levey's earliest time for passing), and ran, getting there at 1:33:15, we've got nearly 10 minutes 45 seconds. But I've no more proof of that hypothetical description than you do for your use of specific times. We can't just "What if" or "Maybe" the evidence away, and the the evidence gives us a range for the start of the window between 1:33 and 1:35, a range for the end of the window of 1:41-1:42 (or even 1:44 by Watkins), which is 6-9 minutes (or 9-11 minutes).

To say that it was impossible in the time available then you have to argue that it must have required more than 11 minutes because the evidence can sustain up to that amount of time; though I would argue more than 9 minutes is probably a strong case too since 9-11 minutes requires JtR continuing while PC Harvey patrols Church Passage and that seems highly improbable. But, I suppose if the Church Passage couple are not viewed as being Eddowes and JtR, then pm could allow for entrance as soon as Watkin's finished his first patrol (1:30), so our narrowest window becomes 1:30-1:41 (11 minutes) and the widest 1:30-1:42 (12 minutes) and the absolute most being the 14 minutes of Watkins' patrol.

Pc Harvey
His testimony and timings now reduce that 6/7 minute window. He states he came down the passage at approx 1.41/42 and must have disturbed the killer in the act. These timings were based on the post office clock as he went past and the time it took him to get to Church passage. These may or may not have been accurate. But Watkins is ceratin of the time by his watch.

From estimating positions based upon times PC Harvey checked at the PO clock, and his patrol length, his estimation of 1:41 and 1:42, combined with his descriptions of where he was when he heard the whistle (1:44), seems entirely reasonable. And I think, like you, his patrol is most likely what triggered JtR to flee, but that is just a hypothesis based upon a reasonable supposition - but truth is not always a reasonable supposition.

Working on those timings the window of opportunity is now reduced to 4/5 mins based on either 1.41/42 being correct.

But those timings are not all that the evidence allows for, they only are chosen due to imposing unproven hypotheses upon the time windows the evidence gives us. But given those times for arrival, etc, leaving 4-5 minutes available for the murder, then that would indicate the shorter, rather than longer, estimates of time required for the murder and mutilations are to be preferred because the theory must bow to the evidence, not the evidence bow to the theory.

Conclusions

If the timings are in sync with each other, the killer would have had no more than 4/5 mins max for him to do all that he is supposed to have done.

looking at the supporting evidence Dr Brown believed the killer would have needed at least 5 mins. He wasn't sure so his expert took 3 mins just to remove a uterus, add to that the time needed to locate and remove the kidney, that i would suggest at least another two minutes, that now takes us up to 5 mins minimum time required just for organ removals, and to be able to remove them in that time the killer would have to have been on a par with a medical practitioner who was familiar with the female anatomy. Then add to that time needed to do all the other stuff.

Now I know there are those who will say those times are a reality, but there are those including myself who do not agree, and over the years I have done extensive research, and obtained statements from medical experts, who to be fair as medical experts do, disagree with each other. There are those who I found are very gung ho and state that they could effect the removals in 5 mins, but of course we are talking 1888 not 2019 when medical knowledge and expertise is not what it is today, and I wonder how many of those gung ho medical men would have faired back in 1888.So what modern day experts tell us has to be carefully looked at for those reasons.

Setting aside all of these timings and what the medical people tell us, we should not lose sight of the fact that the only two victims found with organs missing were the two that were taken to two different mortuaries and their bodies left for many house before the doctors came back to do the post mortems, and, the fact that two different methods of extracting were used to remove the organs suggesting two different extractors, and not forgetting that no attempts were made to remove and take away organs from any of the other victims, including those outside of the canonical five

On a final note some observations from a consultant gynecologist Mr Neale. firstly on Chapman organs removal
". However I note that in this case it seems to have been important to remove the female pelvic organs intact (i.e. uterus, cervix, ovaries and fallopian tubes), which could, in conjunction with a nephrectomy suggest removal for experimentation"

"I agree with the suggestion at the time that to have removed a kidney would require a degree of knowledge, but it is interesting that it is the left kidney that was removed rather than the right, which would probably be more difficult to access because of the liver, thereby making the task of removal more difficult to accomplish, and a longer time frame needed"

"With regards to the removal of the organs from Eddowes and the time needed for them to have been removed at the crime scene. In my opinion it would not be the skill that would be needed, but the level of anatomical knowledge, which would determine the time needed at the crime scene to effect these removals. If the killer did remove the organs then he must have had sufficient anatomical knowledge otherwise he would not have had the time to search for the organs, and work out how to remove them within that “at least five minute window” as stated by Dr Brown"

...
Mr. Crawford - You have spoken of the extraction of the left kidney. Would it require great skill and knowledge to remove it?
Witness (Dr. Brown): - It would require a great deal of knowledge as to its position to remove it. It is easily overlooked. It is covered by a membrane.

Mr. Crawford - Would not such a knowledge be likely to be possessed by one accustomed to cutting up animals?
Witenss - Yes.
...
And Dr. Brown goes on later to estimate "at least 5 minutes", putting him in the longer time range opinion (but that is for all the mutilations; not just the removal of the kidney, but all of them, including the cuts to the eyes, as just before giving his "at least 5 minutes" question he mentioned these specifically when saying he thought the killer had enough time, and when asked for how much time that was, he gives his "at least 5 minutes". So our narrowest time window of 6 minutes gives 1 minute for Eddowes and JtR to get to the crime scene, and still have the 5 minutes Dr. Brown thought was minimally required. Every second that widens that window, just makes it easier - and without doing anything fancy with the evidence, we may even have as much as 9 minutes to work with. So while we don't know, what we do know is that even the harshest narrowing of the time window, the evidence we have still leaves enough time.

Mr Neale also opines that the abdomen of Eddowes was opened in a way not conducive with someone with anatomical knowledge

One lone killer, skilled, and knowledgeable in female anatomy is a step to far

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Which is similar to Dr. Bond's summary of the C5 reports, including his examination of Kelly, that he believed no anatomical knowledge was evidenced in any of the crimes. While Dr. Phillips believed anatomical knowledge was shown with Eddowes (re: the kidney), Dr. Sequrera (sp?) disagreed on that point; and in Kelly's murder, both kidneys were removed and placed around the body.

Dr. Bond summarizes the placement of all of Kelly's organs at the crime scene, except the heart, which is later at autopsy noted to be absent (something he woudln't know at the crime scene), hence his statement the heart was absent from the body, coupled with the fact it was not detailed in the placement of the organs at the crime scene, leaves only the conclusion it was taken from the scene (and the uterus and both kidneys were left and accounted for - and given the uterii were, and everyone knew were taken from, Chapman and Eddowes, and that a kidney was taken from Eddowes, those would be the organs that inspector Reid would have noted were, in fact, not taken away from Kelly.

So, while I do see your line of reasoning, I'm not convinced it is one that that the evidence we have requires one to accept.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

The heart was absent from the pericardium, where does he say it was absent from the room, and that the killer took it away with him. Thats a wrong inference drawn by those who want to link Kellys murder to Chapman and Eddowes by reason of organ removal and one lone killer.

To clear up the ambiguity, we have Insp Reid, head of Whitechapel CID, who attended the crime scene, who positively states that no organs were found to be missing from Kelly, and we also have newspaper reports of the day, which also corroborate Insp Reid. So I am more than happy to conclude that the heart was not taken away.

If the killer did not remove the organs from those victims, then it also corroborates the fact that no organs were taken away from Kelly, because it is suggested they were all killed by the same killer.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But if it was absent from the pericardium but not absent from the scene then why wasn’t it noted as being elsewhere in the room?

[Trevor Marriott]

If all of the medical experts, from those at the time of the murders through all of the ones that have examined the case over the years, agreed that the ripper couldn’t possibly have done what he did in the time available then the point would have to be conceded but this isn’t by any means the case. Add to this the fact that there’s not a shred of reasonable evidence that Eddowes was killed elsewhere then we are left with the inescapable conclusion that the ripper killed, mutilated and removed the organs from Eddowes in the time available. No leaps of faith are required. Claims to the opposite require solid evidence and there is none.

There is even less solid evidence to show the killer took away the organs ! What have you got? the only evidence you have is that the organs were found missing at the post mortem stage nothing else !

I have laid down solid evidence based on the witness timings and the medical evidence at the time, along with modern day medicals experts, which in my opinion having closely examined all the facts shows that there was not sufficient time for the killer to do all that he is supposed to have done. One final time I will go over that evidence

Lawende
He stated that they got ready to leave the club at 1.30am, but they waited until it had stopped raining. He is specific about the time because he also had a watch, and he checked his watch with the clock in the club, which were in sync with each other. He states that it took them about five minutes to finally leave the club making the time by then at least 1.35am. So he then sees the couple, so at 1.35am they had not entered the square. The earliest they could have entered would have been 1.36am 1 min walk to murder scene arriving 1.37am murder takes place

Pc Watkins
He comes back into the square at 1.44am and finds the body, so that gives us an initial crime scene window of 7 mins

If the couple did not enter he square until 1.37am and arrive at the crime scene until 1.38am that window is reduced to 6 mins

Pc Harvey
His testimony and timings now reduce that 6/7 minute window. He states he came down the passage at approx 1.41/42 and must have disturbed the killer in the act. These timings were based on the post office clock as he went past and the time it took him to get to Church passage. These may or may not have been accurate. But Watkins is ceratin of the time by his watch.

Working on those timings the window of opportunity is now reduced to 4/5 mins based on either 1.41/42 being correct.

Conclusions
If the timings are in sync with each other, the killer would have had no more than 4/5 mins max for him to do all that he is supposed to have done.

looking at the supporting evidence Dr Brown believed the killer would have needed at least 5 mins. He wasn't sure so his expert took 3 mins just to remove a uterus, add to that the time needed to locate and remove the kidney, that i would suggest at least another two minutes, that now takes us up to 5 mins minimum time required just for organ removals, and to be able to remove them in that time the killer would have to have been on a par with a medical practitioner who was familiar with the female anatomy. Then add to that time needed to do all the other stuff.

Now I know there are those who will say those times are a reality, but there are those including myself who do not agree, and over the years I have done extensive research, and obtained statements from medical experts, who to be fair as medical experts do, disagree with each other. There are those who I found are very gung ho and state that they could effect the removals in 5 mins, but of course we are talking 1888 not 2019 when medical knowledge and expertise is not what it is today, and I wonder how many of those gung ho medical men would have faired back in 1888.So what modern day experts tell us has to be carefully looked at for those reasons.

Setting aside all of these timings and what the medical people tell us, we should not lose sight of the fact that the only two victims found with organs missing were the two that were taken to two different mortuaries and their bodies left for many house before the doctors came back to do the post mortems, and, the fact that two different methods of extracting were used to remove the organs suggesting two different extractors, and not forgetting that no attempts were made to remove and take away organs from any of the other victims, including those outside of the canonical five

On a final note some observations from a consultant gynecologist Mr Neale. firstly on Chapman organs removal
". However I note that in this case it seems to have been important to remove the female pelvic organs intact (i.e. uterus, cervix, ovaries and fallopian tubes), which could, in conjunction with a nephrectomy suggest removal for experimentation"

"I agree with the suggestion at the time that to have removed a kidney would require a degree of knowledge, but it is interesting that it is the left kidney that was removed rather than the right, which would probably be more difficult to access because of the liver, thereby making the task of removal more difficult to accomplish, and a longer time frame needed"

"With regards to the removal of the organs from Eddowes and the time needed for them to have been removed at the crime scene. In my opinion it would not be the skill that would be needed, but the level of anatomical knowledge, which would determine the time needed at the crime scene to effect these removals. If the killer did remove the organs then he must have had sufficient anatomical knowledge otherwise he would not have had the time to search for the organs, and work out how to remove them within that “at least five minute window” as stated by Dr Brown"

Mr Neale also opines that the abdomen of Eddowes was opened in a way not conducive with someone with anatomical knowledge

One lone killer, skilled, and knowledgeable in female anatomy is a step to far

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

I struggle to see the ambiguity?

The heart was absent from the pericardium, where does he say it was absent from the room, and that the killer took it away with him. Thats a wrong inference drawn by those who want to link Kellys murder to Chapman and Eddowes by reason of organ removal and one lone killer.

To clear up the ambiguity, we have Insp Reid, head of Whitechapel CID, who attended the crime scene, who positively states that no organs were found to be missing from Kelly, and we also have newspaper reports of the day, which also corroborate Insp Reid. So I am more than happy to conclude that the heart was not taken away.

If the killer did not remove the organs from those victims, then it also corroborates the fact that no organs were taken away from Kelly, because it is suggested they were all killed by the same killer.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

If all of the medical experts, from those at the time of the murders through all of the ones that have examined the case over the years, agreed that the ripper couldn’t possibly have done what he did in the time available then the point would have to be conceded but this isn’t by any means the case. Add to this the fact that there’s not a shred of reasonable evidence that Eddowes was killed elsewhere then we are left with the inescapable conclusion that the ripper killed, mutilated and removed the organs from Eddowes in the time available. No leaps of faith are required. Claims to the opposite require solid evidence and there is none.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The Pericardium was open below & the Heart absent.

I struggle to see the ambiguity?

[JeffHamm]

Hi,

I don't think Bond's statement that the heart was missing in the Kelly's case can be said to be ambiguous, given there's no other interpretation. The heat was missing. It wasn't just "missing from it's body location", as that would apply to most of Kelly's organs. If it had just been removed but was located at the crime scene, like her liver for example, then it would not have been described as missing, and it's location at the crime scene would have been detailed; as per the other organs.

And that means, organs were taken from Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly. Nichols, no, but that's the first of the C5, and there's a good possibility that JtR fled due to Cross/Lechmere's approach, or that because she was early in the series he hadn't started on the idea of taking organs and that was something he fantasized about after that murder, so on the next opportunity (Chapman), he did just that. Stride, either wasn't a JtR victim (so no issue in that case), or he was interrupted there too (the most common explanation for those who include her). So basically, that means organs were taken in every case where it was possible, starting from the first case when an organ was taken.

And modern medical opinion as to the time required for Eddowes has varried from 2 minutes (the shortest I've seen) to 5 or more (at the longer end). Levy's estimated time of passing the couple is anything from 1:33-1:34, and Lawende puts it at 1:35. PC Harvey's patrol of Church Passage is around 1:41-1:42, giving a window of anywhere from 6-9 minutes, all of which are greater than the 5 minutes (and that's the long end of what's been suggested to be required).

Given that the walk from where the couple were spotted to the crime scene would take well under a minute at a normal walking pace, that still makes the shortest time window long enough to fit the longest crime time estimate. So even if the couple were Eddowes and JtR, there's enough time. And if the couple wasn't JtR and Eddowes, then that just gives more time as they could have arrived at the crime scene while the couple were still standing at the end of Church Passage.

The Eddowes crime is the one we have the most testimony about times, and narrows the events to a small window of opportunity. But that window, as stated, seems just large enough for the events to have happened and for Eddowes' killer to have escaped, which is, after all, what he did.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

That may be why the apron scetion was needed, he exposed fecal matter when he did that. The apron section might have served as hanky and carrying case actually. It is however a fact, dont be disuaded by those who it seems are more GULLible when it comes to solving these matters practically.

Did he have cats eyes to see in the dark ? would he have been able to tell the difference between blood and fecal matter in the dark?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Hmmmmmmmm

I see your angle, but Mary did lose her heart. according to Bond.

Bonds statement is ambiguous. Insp Reid states no organs were taken !!!

And all you have to do is prove that Kate was killed or being killed when Lawende saw the couple, and you have enough time for the extractions in her case. There was time to do all the extractions at the murder scenes if that supposition is correct. In fact its still possible if he did see Kate, just less likely due to the clock, in my own opinion.

i agree that timings in the Eddowes murder are so important, and it is so easy to suggest that the clocks were wrong, and even if that were the case you still have to look at how long it would have taken to walk down the passage, to carry out the murder, and the mutilations, and to rifle her pockets and then remove these organs, and cut the apron piece !!!!!!!

As I stated previous it would have taken a medical expert at least 5 minutes to effect the removals alone without all the other aspects of the murder. Arriving at the murder scene at 1.37am and adding 5 mins to that makes it 1.42am, then add to that all the other aspects, the time isnt there to do all that he is supposed to have done. When Harvey comes down the passage at 1.41/42 and no doubt disturbs him.

If the couple didnt enter the passage until 1.37 then it makes it even more impossible time wise

Im well aware you differ on that point, but all cards on the table, the opinion these extractions took place on the murder spot is backed by contemporray medical and investigative officers, as well as the vast majority of modern students. I realize that numbers dont make it true, as I pointed out to Fisherman in another post, but the opinions of the medical personelle compel one to take that as a foundation principle in Jacks murders.

I am afraid to say that medical experts do not agree, and if there was a lone killer why do we not see attempts made to remove organs from all the other victims ?

[Michael W Richards]

He did - Daily News (and others) 5 Oct;

"A piece of the intestines about two feet long was detached and placed between the left arm and the body, apparently by design"

That may be why the apron scetion was needed, he exposed fecal matter when he did that. The apron section might have served as hanky and carrying case actually. It is however a fact, dont be disuaded by those who it seems are more GULLible when it comes to solving these matters practically.

[Michael W Richards]

Eddowes murder is the key, to solving what happened to the organs, and who, and where they were removed.

Prove that the killer of Eddowes did not have the time, the knowledge, or the expertise to remove a uterus and a kidney in almost total darkness and it proves he did not remove the organs from Chapman. Kelly is a different kettle of fish because no organs were taken, when her killer had the chance to take away many body parts, but took none.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I see your angle, but Mary did lose her heart. according to Bond. And all you have to do is prove that Kate was killed or being killed when Lawende saw the couple, and you have enough time for the extractions in her case. There was time to do all the extractions at the murder scenes if that supposition is correct. In fact its still possible if he did see Kate, just less likely due to the clock, in my own opinion.

Im well aware you differ on that point, but all cards on the table, the opinion these extractions took place on the murder spot is backed by contemporray medical and investigative officers, as well as the vast majority of modern students. I realize that numbers dont make it true, as I pointed out to Fisherman in another post, but the opinions of the medical personelle compel one to take that as a foundation principle in Jacks murders.

Now....if people could only open their eyes and see how many Jack really did murder, we might well have 2 cases within just the Canonical Group that show 1 or 2 different men doing exactly the same thing.