Who did kill Nichols and Kelly ?

[Trevor Marriott]

Sam Flynn: Ah, there's maybe a grammatical nuance you're missing here, Fish. "Plenty" and "sufficient" are almost synonymous; however, "plentiful" (your choice of words) implies "loads" of light... which is not quite the same thing. Certainly, Sequeira didn't imply there was "loads" of light in what he himself acknowledged to be the darkest corner of the square.

Okay, I didn´t know that. So "plenty" can mean two things, apparently. For the record, I do not think there was much light - but light enough. And certainly, light is what Sequeira points to as a necessity - and he says there was enough of the commodity.

I was going by Sequeira reported in the Times, where the word "sufficient light" is used, albeit in a précis style of report. the Morning Advertiser appears to be more verbatim, as you suggest, but we can't be entirely sure that the journalist didn't substitute "sufficient" for "plenty" (or vice versa, to be fair). Either way, it was nowhere stated that the light was "plentiful", which has significantly different implications.

I accept that, Gareth. Thanks for pointing it out! It tallies perfectly with other reports, for example the Daily News, where the event is portrayed as a question asked by the coroner whether there was light enough, and Sequeira answers "Quite".
In my view, it suggests a situation where there was doubt about whether what the killer did could have been done with the availabe light, but where Sequeira (who claimed to be well aquainted with the lighting conditions of Mitre Square) took it upon himself to establish that the killer worked by the aid of light, and that this light was around in sufficient amounts. If he thiught the killer worked by touch only, the issue of the amount of light available would have been a non-issue.

Why dont you consider some of the points which would have been against the killer being able to remove these organs in 5 mins from Eddowes

1. Time, 5 mins not enough time to commit the murder and mutilations and
then remove the two organs as described. Brown states it would have
taken the killer at least 5 minutes to just carry out the murder and the
mutilations. His expert took 5 mins to remove one organ.

2. Light available to be able to see inside the abdomen to try to locate the
organs. You cant find and take hold of a kidney just by touch alone, as I
have said before it sits flush in the renal fat and sits at the back of the abdominal cavity and out of
all the body organs is the most difficult to find and remove.

3. The difficulty in finding the organs without any light

4. More difficulty with regards to having to contend with a blood filled
abdomen, which would have been as a result in her being stabbed first and
foremost.

5. Trying to remove the organs with precision using a long bladed knife
working in a small confined space. (Old accepted theory)

6. Even if the killer were able to locate the organs, more difficulty in trying to
take hold of them in such a way as to remove them with precision as
described, surgical gloves had not been invented then.

7. Anyone who was medically trained would know that a uterus can be extracted
without the need to take out the intestines

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Joshua Rogan]

Does anyone have info on what light levels would have been available in slaughter yards, where men worked at night (with long knives and no surgical gloves)?

[John G]

What does "carefully" mean in this context? That the membrane was opened up and the kidney retracted through it? Because the same thing happened to Kelly. What other care could be observed? What other care is on record?

Dr Calder and Philip Harrison clearly interpret "carefully" as skilfully. I think that has to be correct. Firstly, because the kidney could have been removed in the way you describe without exercising any degree of care, i.e. it could have simply been plucked or ripped out. Secondly, because Dr Brown concluded that the perpetrator was a medical student, who had knowledge of human anatomy: http://www.casebook.org/ripper_media/rps.collins.html

On the other hand Dr Bond, who examined Kelly's remains, didn't think even the remotest degree of skill had been exercised.

[DJA]

Why dont you consider some of the points which would have been against the killer being able to remove these organs in 5 mins from Eddowes

2. Light available to be able to see inside the abdomen to try to locate the
organs. You cant find and take hold of a kidney just by touch alone, as I
have said before it sits flush in the renal fat and sits at the back of the abdominal cavity and out of
all the body organs is the most difficult to find and remove.

3. The difficulty in finding the organs without any light

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

How about a Pathologist who was renowned for his sense of touch.

[Trevor Marriott]

How about a Pathologist who was renowned for his sense of touch.

Do you know of one in 1888 ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[DJA]

Henry Gawen Sutton.

[Fisherman]

Dr Calder and Philip Harrison clearly interpret "carefully" as skilfully. I think that has to be correct. Firstly, because the kidney could have been removed in the way you describe without exercising any degree of care, i.e. it could have simply been plucked or ripped out. Secondly, because Dr Brown concluded that the perpetrator was a medical student, who had knowledge of human anatomy: http://www.casebook.org/ripper_media/rps.collins.html

On the other hand Dr Bond, who examined Kelly's remains, didn't think even the remotest degree of skill had been exercised.

Then clearly Bond was not impressed with taking the kidneys out from the front - and there goes the argument. Kelly´s innards were not damaged as far as we know, and they were not torn out as far as we know. They were excised by means of knife - which does not take a surgeon.

[Trevor Marriott]

Taking the kidneys out from the front is the exact thing that awarded Eddowes´ killer a degree of medical knowledge. Kelly´s killer did that too. Ergo, he was as skilled as Eddowes´ killer in that respect - and arguably also the same man.

There was no degree of skill shown with regards to the removal of the body parts from Kelly.

As to the removal of the kidney from Eddowes and the degree of difficulty I have highlighted. I refer to Edmund Neale consulatnt gynecolgist from my book Jack the Ripper The Secret Police Files

"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"

Now I have been saying all along that murder and mutilation was the motive for these murders and that the killer did not take away the organs. Dr Bond also concurs with me on the motive issue in his report dated Nov 10th- after the Kelly post mortem

"The mutilations in each case excepting the Berner’s Street one were all of the same character and showed clearly that in all the murders, the object was mutilation. In each case the mutilation was inflicted by a person who had no scientific nor anatomical knowledge"

Dr Bond also mentions nothing about the heart being missing from Kelly despite him being directly involved in that investigation and events so fresh in his mind still, such an important point to overlook if true?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[DJA]

Then clearly Bond was not impressed with taking the kidneys out from the front

Should have been,however Jack was a bit before his time in certain areas.

[Trevor Marriott]

Then clearly Bond was not impressed with taking the kidneys out from the front - and there goes the argument. Kelly´s innards were not damaged as far as we know, and they were not torn out as far as we know. They were excised by means of knife - which does not take a surgeon.

Thats conjecture on your part

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Should have been,however Jack was a bit before his time in certain areas.

Are you suggesting that the killer was a Victorian super surgeon?

If the killer was ever a doctor or surgeon, there would be no need for him to take organs, because of his status he could have acquired them legally as per the Anatomy Act.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[DJA]

Then clearly Bond was not impressed with taking the kidneys out from the front - and there goes the argument. Kelly´s innards were not damaged as far as we know, and they were not torn out as far as we know. They were excised by means of knife - which does not take a surgeon.

Right lung?

[DJA]

Are you suggesting that the killer was a Victorian super surgeon?

If the killer was ever a doctor or surgeon, there would be no need for him to take organs, because of his status he could have acquired them legally as per the Anatomy Act.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yep.
Nope.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yep.
Nope.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Right lung?

Yes, that one was torn out, that is correct. But it came out from under the ribs, where it would have been very difficult to get at the attachments.
The abdominal organs - different story.

In fact, what the lung tells us is that when an organ WAS torn out, it was reported.