Who did kill Nichols and Kelly ?

[Sam Flynn]

He apparently saw/felt the neck well enough to cut it. He apparently saw/felt the uterus well enough to cut it out.
One of the doctors, I don´t remember who, said there was sufficient light. I can´t fault him.

The ambient light in Mitre Square - which was hardly ideal, by any stretch of the imagination - would not have been enough to penetrate Eddowes' abdominal cavity sufficient to illuminate the back wall of the abdomen, where the kidney is located. There was a single, medial abdominal incision, remember, which - unless the killer were wearing a miners' helmet and using retractors - would have further cast the vicinity of the left kidney into deep shadow.

If the killer were relying largely on touch, however, the amount of light would have been irrelevant.

[Elamarna]

Which of course is strange in itself considering that Eddowes also according to the experts demonstrated knowledge in cutting around the belly button. And additionally knowledge of the position of the kidney.

The view of skill seems to be based on Phillips description of the cuts.


Steve

Sorry John that does not read the way I meant.

I meant that the only reason I can see for any knowledge in the Chapman case is Phillips view on the skill shown.

Eddowes is in my opinion the only one where there is any sort of argument for knowledge. And even there I am far from convinced.


That is better when comparing MJK to the others


Steve

[Joshua Rogan]

As to organ removal with regard to Kelly, the killer had the opportunity of taking most of the body parts away with him having gone to great lengths to hack them out of the body. but no, nothing was taken away, not even the heart.

Dr Hebbert says in 'A System of Legal Medecine';

"In this case, to be sure, all the organs except the heart were found scattered about the room"

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor here we go again:

"As to organ removal with regard to Kelly, the killer had the opportunity of taking most of the body parts away with him having gone to great lengths to hack them out of the body. but no, nothing was taken away, not even the heart"


The data such as it is does not support your view that the above is a fact.

Indeed all we have from the time of the murder suggests the heart was taken.

This is my major objection with you. Giving opinions and claiming they are facts.

Steve

Well I think that there is sufficient sources and data to support that view, and those sources and data far outweigh the sources and data to suggest otherwise.

And what category does the inference that has been drawn over the years, and which it would seen you rely heavily on from the ambiguous Dr Bonds statement fall into, because thats all the missing heart theory is based upon.

As to objections, my objection with you is that you seem to want to challenge everything new that challenges the fact that the old accepted theories are flawed. Yet you produce nothing to show that the old accepted theories are not flawed and should be readily accepted.

Maybe you should spend time looking for your elusive sources and data to corroborate the old accepted theories, because if you are naieve enough to think that everything from 1888 is correct by what we have been led to believe, then you really do need a reality check.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Dr Hebbert says in 'A System of Legal Medecine';

"In this case, to be sure, all the organs except the heart were found scattered about the room"

Dr Hebbert was not present after the initial examination and when the room was revisited by the other doctors and police. So what he writes is hearsay in any event.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

Dr Hebbert was not present after the initial examination and when the room was revisited by the other doctors and police. So what he writes is hearsay in any event.

The heart does not feature in Dr Bond's inventory of "placed" body parts, whereas every other organ (including the lowly spleen) is listed. He does, however, say that the heart was "absent". Taken together, those facts would seem to support the view that Kelly's heart was indeed not found at the scene of the crime.

[Joshua Rogan]

The ambient light in Mitre Square - which was hardly ideal, by any stretch of the imagination - would not have been enough to penetrate Eddowes' abdominal cavity sufficient to illuminate the back wall of the abdomen, where the kidney is located. There was a single, medial abdominal incision, remember, which - unless the killer were wearing a miners' helmet and using retractors - would have further cast the vicinity of the left kidney into deep shadow.

If the killer were relying largely on touch, however, the amount of light would have been irrelevant.

Not quite a single incision....there was also a cut along the top of each thigh, which would have made it possible to fold the abdominal wall out to give the killer more access. The said, I agree that the killer would have removed the kidney primarily by feel.

[Sam Flynn]

Not quite a single incision....there was also a cut along the top of each thigh, which would have made it possible to fold the abdominal wall out to give the killer more access.

Those incisions may have afforded easier access to the lower abdominal organs, but wouldn't have been much help in accessing, or "seeing", organs further up the abdomen. Incidentally, it's likely that the killer would have been hunched over the abdomen during his excavations, further blocking out any ambient light. Whatever his degree of anatomical knowledge, therefore, he couldn't have placed too much reliance on his visual senses when removing the kidney. With that in mind, its "being covered by a membrane" is neither here nor there, except insofar as the membrane would have offered a (rather flimsy) physical barrier to progress.

[Joshua Rogan]

Agree. Removing a kidney from the front - once you've got the intestines out of the way - doesn't really involve intricate surgery. Just locate it by feel, one nick in the membrane and slide the fingers around the kidney through that nick, then pop it out and cut it free. In a time before vacuum packed meat and refrigeration, I think the requisite knowledge could have been gained just by watching a butcher at work.

I did wonder if the killer had a miner's lamp, but haven't found a head mounted one from before the turn of the century. Before that they seem to have been hand held. Bullseye lanterns could be worn on the belt or chest, though, so could be an alternative.

[Joshua Rogan]

Dr Hebbert was not present after the initial examination and when the room was revisited by the other doctors and police. So what he writes is hearsay in any event.

But if he was at the 'reassembly' autopsy the next day, he'd be in a pretty good position to know.

[Elamarna]

Well I think that there is sufficient sources and data to support that view, and those sources and data far outweigh the sources and data to suggest otherwise.

Please give evidence to support this view, you know the number of documents which go one way or another.

And what category does the inference that has been drawn over the years, and which it would seen you rely heavily on from the ambiguous Dr Bonds statement fall into, because thats all the missing heart theory is based upon.

No, your heart present theory is based on Reid, very flimsy, the fact you do not accept this does indeed demonstrate your bias and failure as a researcher.

As to objections, my objection with you is that you seem to want to challenge everything new that challenges the fact that the old accepted theories are flawed. Yet you produce nothing to show that the old accepted theories are not flawed and should be readily accepted.

Not true As can be seen from my posts.
I just will not accept people peddling nonsense without responding. be that to new or old ideas..

Just because YOU claim a theory is flawed, it does not mean it is.
time and again on such issues you ignore the sources, cherry picking what suites you.

All this demonstrates is an truly unshakeable belief in ones own pronouncements.

At least I can admit when I am wrong, unlike some.


Being wrong and saying so is not a weakness.

Maybe you should spend time looking for your elusive sources and data to corroborate the old accepted theories, because if you are naieve enough to think that everything from 1888 is correct by what we have been led to believe, then you really do need a reality check.

Been here before, you asked me questions and you did not even bother to say thank you for the response, which accepted some of the old theories and rejected others.

The constant belittling of those who do not accept the"NEW" ideas just demonstrates how weak some of those are.


steve

[Wickerman]

Then why not take the same organ/organs from all the victims if just one killer ?

Did you ever consider why Peter Sutcliffe did not conduct his murders in an identical fashion?
Sequential murders are never "carbon copies" Trevor, that assumption is a fallacy.

The Ripper removed the uterus in three of his murders. Only the killer knows why he left it at the scene with Kelly, or didn't manage to remove it at all with Nichols.

[Joshua Rogan]

Are there any examples of a violent serial killer where every victim was killed in exactly the same way?

[Sam Flynn]

The Ripper removed the uterus in three of his murders. Only the killer knows why he left it at the scene with Kelly, or didn't manage to remove it at all with Nichols.

Or why he took the entire uterus, its attachments and most of the bladder in the case of Chapman, but only the upper portion of the uterus in Eddowes' case, leaving the cervix and bladder intact.

Part of the answer must surely be that the killer was working under severe time-pressure. An "organ harvester" working at his own pace and in better conditions would not have made such botched attempts.

[Trevor Marriott]

Did you ever consider why Peter Sutcliffe did not conduct his murders in an identical fashion?
Sequential murders are never "carbon copies" Trevor, that assumption is a fallacy.

The Ripper removed the uterus in three of his murders. Only the killer knows why he left it at the scene with Kelly, or didn't manage to remove it at all with Nichols.

In the case of Chapman and Eddowes the killer is supposed to have removed the uterus from both. If it is to believed that 5 mins was enough time for the killer to kill mutilate and remove a uterus and a kidney from Eddowes, then if the killer was taking organs, he had enough time to take organs from Nicholls, yet none were taken, and no evidence from the body that any attempt was even made to do so. same with Stride and Tabram.

As I said if the killer was taking organs then he could have taken one or more organs from Kelly, yet he didn't, so when we only have two victims that organs were found to be missing at the post mortems, two victims where the bodies were left unattended for long periods of time, and two victims which show different methods of the removal of the same organ we must sound the warning bells.

Take the cotton wool out of your ears !!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk