Finding Jack the Ripper

[lynn cates]

How to get started?

Hello David. Mais et si on part avant que l'on commence? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

cutting remarks

Hello Henry.

"Bagster Philips' estimate of not less than a quarter of an hour for Chapman, even without a struggle, must be a gross over-estimate. Throat cut, no facial mutilations, guts sliced open, bits cut out. A quarter of an hour for that? Maybe so, especially if Jack stopped to smoke a pipe between pulling out the intestine and the uterus... Sit and watch the clock pass 15 minutes, then think how many Chapmans you could have ripped open in that time. I'd say at least a couple."

But I wonder whether Phillips were not taking into consideration the skilled hand that he at least THOUGHT he saw in Annie's cuts? Making a clean cut would take more time than a thrust and draw, I should think.

Compare that to the 5 minute estimate for Kate. And she had many more mutilations than Annie.

Cheers.
LC

[Hunter]

Hi Henry,

I've discussed this 'expert' issue with Trevor several times on the boards in the past as one who has field dressed deer in all kinds of conditions (including very low light). You're point is spot on. A motivated killer with enough basic anatomical knowledge for the acts perpetrated could do it very quickly.

I do believe this killer had obtained some knowledge because- beside the other organs- the uterus was targeted on three occasions, but it could have been easily acquired by anyone so motivated to perpetuate such atrocities for whatever reason.

One can find an 'expert' to agree with any opinion; just spend a day in court. Ironically, one of the show's own 'experts', criminal psychologist Thomas Mueller, offered a valid counter argument to the other opinions. He suggested that the murderer had simply fantasized about it to such an extent that is was rehearsed in his mind over and over. Thus, he was able to do what he did. Simple thesis, but a plausible one.

[DVV]

Hi Henry

As my wife has ruefully noted, there's virtually no procedure involving the female body that ever takes me longer than 10 minutes.

"C'est toujours les meilleurs qui partent les premiers".

[Henry Flower]

You're right Jon - the only alternative to asking a qualified surgeon how long a lust murderer might take to cut a woman's guts up would be to pull 'a dosser' off the street and ask him to guess.

Listen, I wasn't referring to the police in 1888; I was referring to the documentary "Finding Jack the Ripper" specifically, in which Trevor Marriott interviews Dr Ian Calder, a pathologist, who states that 9 minutes would not have been long enough for the injuries to Eddowes. He justifies this with all sorts of reasons that might indeed pose problems to a surgeon - slipperiness, etc - and states how difficult it is to find the kidney. Yes, maybe difficult to find if you're specifically looking for it in the dark. But the odds of cutting open a body and in the course of your mutilations simply coming across it and removing it? I'd say the odds are reasonable. There are a limited number of organs, after all, and we know he wasn't fussy: uterus, kidney, heart... whatever took his fancy. And again, the removal of a uterus without damaging the bladder is stressed as a sign of expertise, while all the other damage to organs and the damaged bladder in another murder are ignored. You see my point?

This is an early 21st century documentary we're talking about, not the investigative options open to the Whitechapel police in 1888.

I think a butcher, someone used to gutting things under the pressure of the clock, would actually have a better idea than any surgeon of how long the process might have taken. Or - even better than a butcher - for the past thirty years at least we've had experts who've interviewed hundreds of serial murderers concerning every aspect of their activities. Why ask a surgeon, then? We have hundreds of other cases with which to compare the Whitechapel murders, but one rarely sees this done in a Ripper documentary. Or alternatively, take a dummy and a knife, re-enact what was done to Eddowes, (as a tense, hurrying killer might do it, not a 70 year old surgeon), and time it. 9 minutes enough? I'll bet it would be.

My point was that eminent pathologists and surgeons are dragged in to suspect-documentaries to bolster theories with the authority of their positions and honours and expertise; but their expertise is not necessarily more relevant to the Ripper case than that of a butcher, or of another lust-killer.

But if you want to bring in the Victorian authorities, fine.

Bagster Philips' estimate of not less than a quarter of an hour for Chapman, even without a struggle, must be a gross over-estimate. Throat cut, no facial mutilations, guts sliced open, bits cut out. A quarter of an hour for that? Maybe so, especially if Jack stopped to smoke a pipe between pulling out the intestine and the uterus... Sit and watch the clock pass 15 minutes, then think how many Chapmans you could have ripped open in that time. I'd say at least a couple.

As my wife has ruefully noted, there's virtually no procedure involving the female body that ever takes me longer than 10 minutes.

[Wickerman]

Wickerman, I was referring to the questions posed in a specific documentary,

Yes I understood that Henry, but you were drawing a parallel with the Ripper murders, or at least thats how I read it.

In short, if we're dealing with a slash and grab merchant, the opinion of an esteemed surgeon as to how long the knife was at work is irrelevant. He doesn't have any more expertise in such an activity than you or I.

Yes, after all our hypothesizing & conjecture we really have no clue whether he was a surgeon under pressure or a "Bill Sikes" under the influence...

It would be like asking Picasso how long he estimated it might take to cover a partition wall with satin emulsion.

But they could hardly pull a dosser off the street and ask him "how long would it take you to do this?"
Even with all the inadequacies, the police had to deal with professionals where opinions were concerned.

Regards, Jon S.

[Henry Flower]

Wickerman, I was referring to the questions posed in a specific documentary, and my point is that I cannot understand how making these slashes and cuts could take more than a few minutes. When surgeons are asked they tend to claim that it would take considerably longer, and no doubt a surgeon would take considerably longer - (I hope so, anyway!)

In short, if we're dealing with a slash and grab merchant, the opinion of an esteemed surgeon as to how long the knife was at work is irrelevant. He doesn't have any more expertise in such an activity than you or I. It would be like asking Picasso how long he estimated it might take to cover a partition wall with satin emulsion.

[Wickerman]

Hi all, I found the documentary fascinating too, but while the input of experts is valuable, I think there's a sense in which it might be misleading: it is second nature for a surgeon to remove an organ as carefully as possible, in well-lit conditions. Ask him or her whether they could perform such extensive procedures in ten minutes in the dark and they say, inevitably, 'no way!' But the question is always leading: could you locate and extract a kidney/uterus/heart in the dark in a matter of minutes? Try asking a different question: could a lust-murderer with a very sharp knife open up an abdomen, cut through anything in his way, and remove whatever organs randomly took his fancy, while accidentally slicing open intestine in one instance or leaving a third of the uterus in-situ on another occasion?

Hi Henry.
Such an answer was offered (Gordon-Brown & Phillips, I think), but no-one was questioning whether a murderer could make those incisions, of course he could. The question was more concerned with "time", how long would it take such an unskilled person?

Regards, Jon S.

[Barnaby]

Hi all, I found the documentary fascinating too, but while the input of experts is valuable, I think there's a sense in which it might be misleading: it is second nature for a surgeon to remove an organ as carefully as possible, in well-lit conditions. Ask him or her whether they could perform such extensive procedures in ten minutes in the dark and they say, inevitably, 'no way!' But the question is always leading: could you locate and extract a kidney/uterus/heart in the dark in a matter of minutes? Try asking a different question: could a lust-murderer with a very sharp knife open up an abdomen, cut through anything in his way, and remove whatever organs randomly took his fancy, while accidentally slicing open intestine in one instance or leaving a third of the uterus in-situ on another occasion?

I think the answer then is more likely a cautious yes than a definite no. The questions are always leading: they always imply that a specific organ is sought and found. And a surgeon will answer, inevitably, as a surgeon.

Also, the clean extraction is always highlighted: the failed decapitations, ruptured intestines and bisected uterus are rarely given equal weight.

Still, an enjoyable watch

I agree with this completely. In this series of murders, women were nearly decapitated and mutilated, with intestines strewn about at the crime scenes, and the alternative hypothesis for the missing organs is that they were removed sometime later during the autopsy? In an extremely high profile case? I just find this highly unlikely.

[Steven Russell]

Excellent post, Henry. I too believe the Ripper was a slash and grab merchant.

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Henry Flower]

Hi all, I found the documentary fascinating too, but while the input of experts is valuable, I think there's a sense in which it might be misleading: it is second nature for a surgeon to remove an organ as carefully as possible, in well-lit conditions. Ask him or her whether they could perform such extensive procedures in ten minutes in the dark and they say, inevitably, 'no way!' But the question is always leading: could you locate and extract a kidney/uterus/heart in the dark in a matter of minutes? Try asking a different question: could a lust-murderer with a very sharp knife open up an abdomen, cut through anything in his way, and remove whatever organs randomly took his fancy, while accidentally slicing open intestine in one instance or leaving a third of the uterus in-situ on another occasion?

I think the answer then is more likely a cautious yes than a definite no. The questions are always leading: they always imply that a specific organ is sought and found. And a surgeon will answer, inevitably, as a surgeon.

Also, the clean extraction is always highlighted: the failed decapitations, ruptured intestines and bisected uterus are rarely given equal weight.

Still, an enjoyable watch

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

Do you currently have one or two documentaries out?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. Which of the Ripper victims do you like Le Grand for, or was he the torso killer?

Hi Tom

Only one out at the moment but another is on the drawing board.

As for Le Grand I do not beleive he was involved in any Ripper murder and at the risk of incurring the wrath of Debra. I dont believe that the murder referred to as the Torso murder was in fact a murder.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Trevor,

Do you currently have one or two documentaries out?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. Which of the Ripper victims do you like Le Grand for, or was he the torso killer?

[mariab]

That sample is in a very bad hand--hard to decipher. Looks almost like the Maybrick diarist.

I'll look it up after having slept – haven't slept for 2 nights and going through a lot currently, on different fronts.

[lynn cates]

a hearty amen

Hello Trevor. Amen to that.

Cheers.
LC