The profession of Jack the Ripper.

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi Rosella

Thx for your post.

Yes - I was also thinking about the hunting line.

Memoirs I've read of the time (including McNaghten and Smith) both talk about their passion for hunting.... and of course McNaghten talks about hunting jackels.

I also think there is something in this conflict between the two police forces. I can see how someone from City of London Police (or Railway Police) would have enjoyed seeing Metropolitan Police be embarrassed and ridiculed in public.

Also interesting in the Catherine Eddowes inquest how the Coroner or Jury foreman was critical of Metropolitan police practices.

I understand COL police were seen as more professional

Craig

Hi Craig

In regard to your statement, "I can see how someone from City of London Police (or Railway Police) would have enjoyed seeing Metropolitan Police be embarrassed and ridiculed in public." --

Police experts Neil Bell or Donald Rumbelow could probably better answer that contention more fully than I could. I should think though that the City of London Police and the Railway Police of 1888 would have felt very territorial and inferior to the Metropolitan Police, even if they would have avowed the very opposite, upholding the traditions of their respective police forces. In truth, however, and taking a hard look at the situation, the Met was truly massive compared to the City Police, whose jurisdiction was, as you no doubt know, just that small area enclosed by the original walls of the City of London, and the Railway Police were just concerned with the rail lines that ran into London. By contrast, the Met had the responsibility for the whole of the extraordinary sprawl of metropolitan London -- with a population in 1888 of some eight million to guard (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...don#Population), their area of jurisdiction was truly a monster compared the relatively tiny area that the City and Railway Police administered. So, I should think that, yes, there was bad feeling between the different police forces and even perhaps, slyly, some "secret pleasure" enjoyed by the City Police, especially, that their giant counterpart, the Met, ultimately proved unable to catch the Ripper.

Best regards

Chris

[ChrisGeorge]

Sorry, aaaaargh, the population of metropolitan London in 1888 was around five million not as I typed, eight million, which is the metropolitan London population total in our own time. Again, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...don#Population. Clearly, my fingers type faster than my mind!

Best regards

Chris

[John G]

Would anatomical knowledge without prior experience performing a surgery be sufficient to find and remove the organs in the way they were removed? (this is a genuine question, I still haven't made up my mind about this).

I remember the first time I saw a friend of mine rolling a joint, I said to him... "now I know how to roll a joint", to which he replied "you know how it's done, but you still don't know how to do it", the point being you're not necessarily ready to perform a complex task just by watching someone do it - it's not a very elegant example, but still a valid one, I think!

I'm going to quote an article on casebook:

In the opinion of most of the surgeons who examined the bodies, most believed that the killer had to have some degree of anatomical knowledge to do what he did. In one case he removed a kidney from the front rather than from the side, and did not damage any of the surrounding organs while doing so. In another case he removed the sexual organs with one clean stroke of the knife. Given the time circumstances of the crimes (outside, often in near total darkness, keeping one eye out for the approach of others, and under extremely tight time constraints), the Ripper almost certainly would have had some experience in using his knife.

http://www.casebook.org/intro.html

All the best!

According to an expert consulted by Trevor Marriott, " To remove the appendages, the uterus, the fallopian tubes and ovaries in one frenzied attack and one slice of the blade would be almost impossible. It is a very difficult and quite skilled undertaking to remove these organs carefully by today's methods, especially as the comment is that they were cleanly cut and the cut missed the rectum." Marriott, 2013)

And yet, Dr Phillips would have us believe that Chapman's killer was able to achieve such a remarkable feat, in poor lighting conditions, whilst under severe time pressure, whilst using a Victorian knife and Victorian surgical techniques!

Of course, the different killers argument relies largely on the proposition that Eddowes was eviscerated by a killer using less skill. And yet, apparently her murderer removed the kidney, without damaging surrounding tissues, in the dark, whilst using a Victorian knife!

According to Dr Calder, a consultant pathologist, "...to carry out this task in the dark would be almost impossible without producing damage to other organs." (Marriott, 2013).

It seems to me, therefore, that either the victims' organs were not removed at the scene of crime, a proposition for which there's no evidence, or the conclusions of the Victorian Medical "experts", regarding level of skill exhibited by the killer, cannot be remotely relied upon.

[Albert]

Hi,
I'm sorry if this has been raised before but do we know for certain that Jack worked in complete darkness - could he have had a bulls-eye lantern maybe?

[John G]

Hi,
I'm sorry if this has been raised before but do we know for certain that Jack worked in complete darkness - could he have had a bulls-eye lantern maybe?

Hi Albert,

I suppose that's a possibility, however, from the perpetrator's perspective it would clearly increase the risk of discovery. Moreover, my understanding is that the bull's-eye lanterns were not particularly bright, and certainly not as illuminating as a modern operating theatre!

I tend to get the impression that some of the post mortems were less than thorough, at least by modern standards, which has important implications for the different killers argument (which is largely predicted on the assumption that different murder scenes implied different levels of skill exercised by the perpetrator, therefore different killers).

Of course, Dr Llewellyn initially failed to realise that Nichols had been eviscerated and in respect of Chapman, Dr Phillips wasn't even expecting to give a detailed report at the inquest:

Coroner:"The object of the inquiry is not only to ascertain the cause of death, but the means by which it occurred. Any mutilation, which took place afterwards, may suggest the character of the man who did it."

Dr Phillips: "You don't wish for details. I think if it were possible to escape the details it would be advisable."

And I wonder if Dr Bond instinctively realised this. Otherwise, how could he have concluded that the killer didn't even even posses the skill of a butcher, or common horse slaughterer, when Dr Phillips' evidence seems to imply that Chapman's killer was the most gifted surgeon in recorded medical history?

[Albert]

Thanks, John G, I didn't know the bulls-eye lanterns were quite dim, however even a small amount of light may have been enough to see what he was doing. From what I understand Mitre Square would have been the darkest place for Jack to have 'worked'.
Regards
Albert

[John G]

Thanks, John G, I didn't know the bulls-eye lanterns were quite dim, however even a small amount of light may have been enough to see what he was doing. From what I understand Mitre Square would have been the darkest place for Jack to have 'worked'.
Regards
Albert

Hi Albert,

I believe Particia Cornwell did some research and the results were quite poor. I've also found a You Tube clip posted by Monty!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_mOEPlbbAvo

However, to my mind, even if the light quality was equivalent to, say, that of a modern torch you would still have less light available than from a modern operating theatre or on a bright summer's day. So the essential problem remains: how could a perpetrator remove organs, demonstrating an exceptional level of skill, in far from ideal lighting conditions, whilst using a Victorian knife and applying Victorian surgical techniques?

[Albert]

Thanks for the clip, John G, that is dim!! The problem remains, as you say.
Cheers
Albert

[Pierre]

http://www.casebook.org/victorian_london/weather.html[/URL]

Hi Albert,

I believe Particia Cornwell did some research and the results were quite poor. I've also found a You Tube clip posted by Monty!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_mOEPlbbAvo

However, to my mind, even if the light quality was equivalent to, say, that of a modern torch you would still have less light available than from a modern operating theatre or on a bright summer's day. So the essential problem remains: how could a perpetrator remove organs, demonstrating an exceptional level of skill, in far from ideal lighting conditions, whilst using a Victorian knife and applying Victorian surgical techniques?

If the light wasnīt bright, maybe he was?

He obviously avoided light:

http://www.casebook.org/victorian_london/weather.html

Regards, Pierre

[Albert]

Sorry, Pierre, you've lost me there, he killed at night/early morning, but he must have been able to see something so how is this avoiding light?
Cheers
Albert

[Pierre]

Sorry, Pierre, you've lost me there, he killed at night/early morning, but he must have been able to see something so how is this avoiding light?
Cheers
Albert

Look at the lunar phases. As you can see, he avoided the full moon.

Regards, Pierre

[John G]

Look at the lunar phases. As you can see, he avoided the full moon.

Regards, Pierre

Well, as full moons only occur about once a month I doubt this was anything more than coincidental-unless he happened to be either an astronomer or a werewolf, of course!

[Pierre]

Well, as full moons only occur about once a month I doubt this was anything more than coincidental-unless he happened to be either an astronomer or a werewolf, of course!

I donīt think it was a coincidence. He never killed in a week where there was a full moon. Never on a night when there was even an actual half moon (with at least 50 % illumination).

He always chose the new moon or the last quarter.

The most illuminated night was the night of the murder on Polly Nichols. That murder was also done right in the street.

I am merely stating the obvious.

Regards, Pierre

[Albert]

Hi Pierre, thanks. I take your point but this doesn't help to explain how Jack was able to see well enough to carry out the extractions. John G has pointed out that a bulls-eye lantern would not have provided enough light for this work.
Regards
Albert

[Damaso Marte]

Perhaps people back then were simply better conditioned to see and operate in the darkness?