The profession of Jack the Ripper.

[John G]

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

But with inadequate street lighting conditions would have been far worse than would be the case today. In fact, it was so dark in Dutfield's Yard that Joseph Lave couldn't even see the door to get back into the club.

And, of course, the question isn't whether the eviscerations were possible at all, but whether, in the case of Chapman and Eddowes, they could have been carried out with the level of skill suggested by the medical professionals.

[SirJohnFalstaff]

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

It's quite possible that Chapman was killed after sunrise.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;372586]But with inadequate street lighting conditions would have been far worse than would be the case today.

In fact, it was so dark in Dutfield's Yard that Joseph Lave couldn't even see the door to get back into the club.

No mutilations were done there. In what places could the question of light be relevant? Probably not in Buckīs Row. And definitely not in Millerīs Court. So it might be a relevant question just for Hanbury Street and Mitre Square.

And, of course, the question isn't whether the eviscerations were possible at all, but whether, in the case of Chapman and Eddowes, they could have been carried out with the level of skill suggested by the medical professionals

The key word must be skill.

If the external conditions were no good, the internal conditions must have been sufficient. That is, his own knowledge or skill must have been enough. So how skilled was he? How much skill did he need? On what level did it have to be?

Perhaps he was ambidextrous. Perhaps he was very smart. Perhaps he knew what he was doing.

Like this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HPF9uPllt8

Regards, Pierre

[GUT]

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

This could be a big factor.

[GUT]

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!

If we had many more killings we may be able to draw some conclusion based on moon phases, but with a mere handful random selection give about a 20% chance if him killing on a full moon.

[Hercule Poirot]

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

I don't think our 'ancestors' back then had better night vision than now. This may help in understanding how human night vision works:

Rhodopsin is the key to night vision. it is the chemical that the rods use to absorb photons and perceive light. When a molecule of rhodopsin absorbs a photon, it splits into a retinal and an opsin molecule. These molecules later recombine naturally back into rhodopsin at a fixed rate, and recombinati*on is fairly slow.

So, when you expose your eyes to bright light, all of the rhodopsin breaks down into retinal and opsin. If you then turn out the lights and try to see in the dark, you can't. The cones need a lot of light, so they are useless, and there is no rhodopsin now so the rods are useless, too. Over the course of several minutes, however, the retinal and opsin recombine back into rhodopsin, and you can see again.

A fun fact: The retinal used in the eye is derived from vitamin A. If a person's diet is low in vitamin A, there is not enough retinal in the rods and therefore not enough rhodopsin. People who lack vitamin A often suffer from night blindness -- they cannot see in the dark.

Cheers,
Hercule Poirot.

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;372607]

But with inadequate street lighting conditions would have been far worse than would be the case today.

No mutilations were done there. In what places could the question of light be relevant? Probably not in Buckīs Row. And definitely not in Millerīs Court. So it might be a relevant question just for Hanbury Street and Mitre Square.



The key word must be skill.

If the external conditions were no good, the internal conditions must have been sufficient. That is, his own knowledge or skill must have been enough. So how skilled was he? How much skill did he need? On what level did it have to be?

Perhaps he was ambidextrous. Perhaps he was very smart. Perhaps he knew what he was doing.

Like this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HPF9uPllt8

Regards, Pierre

The point is this: It is questionable as to whether he had any skill at all, for instance, even a butcher would know that you don't need to remove the intestines in order to access the uterus. Therefore, Dr Bond may well have been correct.

[John G]

If we had many more killings we may be able to draw some conclusion based on moon phases, but with a mere handful random selection give about a 20% chance if him killing on a full moon.

Yes, a very good point. The apparent connection with moon phases may be simply coincidental.

[Michael W Richards]

[QUOTE=John G;372613]

The point is this: It is questionable as to whether he had any skill at all, for instance, even a butcher would know that you don't need to remove the intestines in order to access the uterus. Therefore, Dr Bond may well have been correct.

Nor do you have to remove the stomach flaps first, but it did make the whole operation move quickly. Someone experienced might have ideas about how to be not only be effective but also very quick...just like Phillips suggests the skill is shown.

[John G]

[QUOTE=Michael W Richards;372619]

Nor do you have to remove the stomach flaps first, but it did make the whole operation move quickly. Someone experienced might have ideas about how to be not only be effective but also very quick...just like Phillips suggests the skill is shown.

You do not need to remove the intestines in order to remove the uterus because the uterus sits in the lower abdomen. I would therefore have thought that this unnecessary operation would have increased the amount of time the killer had to spend with the body.

Moreover, the original reports show that Chapman's body was discovered with both her legs drawn up. And, as one of Trevor's experts pointed out, "with the legs in those positions it would have been an hindrance to the killer in attempting to remove the organs. The normal position would be to have both legs flat and open to give free and unrestricted access to the abdomen." (Marriott, 2013)

A medically skilled perpetrator would obviously have known this, wheras an unskilled person would not. This clearly adds weight to the argument that Dr Phillips seriously overestimated the level of skill exhibited by Chapman's murderer. And once again, I would point out that he was a Victorian GP working in a poor area of London, and not a modern CSI expert/pathologist.
Medical knowledge has clearly advanced since 1888 and therefore we need to be extremely cautious when relying on contemporary medical testimony, particularly as the extent to which Dr Phillips assessed Chapman's injuries would have been perfunctory compared to that of a modern expert (and, as I noted in my earlier post, he clearly was not expecting to discuss the matter in any detail until promoted by the coroner to do so.)

[Rosella]

How do we know that Chapman's killer didn't have her legs flat and open while he was extracting the uterus and later drew up the legs to make it appear more lewd to the person discovering Annie's body?

[Abby Normal]

[QUOTE=John G;372625]

You do not need to remove the intestines in order to remove the uterus because the uterus sits in the lower abdomen. I would therefore have thought that this unnecessary operation would have increased the amount of time the killer had to spend with the body.

Moreover, the original reports show that Chapman's body was discovered with both her legs drawn up. And, as one of Trevor's experts pointed out, "with the legs in those positions it would have been an hindrance to the killer in attempting to remove the organs. The normal position would be to have both legs flat and open to give free and unrestricted access to the abdomen." (Marriott, 2013)

A medically skilled perpetrator would obviously have known this, wheras an unskilled person would not. This clearly adds weight to the argument that Dr Phillips seriously overestimated the level of skill exhibited by Chapman's murderer. And once again, I would point out that he was a Victorian GP working in a poor area of London, and not a modern CSI expert/pathologist.
Medical knowledge has clearly advanced since 1888 and therefore we need to be extremely cautious when relying on contemporary medical testimony, particularly as the extent to which Dr Phillips assessed Chapman's injuries would have been perfunctory compared to that of a modern expert (and, as I noted in my earlier post, he clearly was not expecting to discuss the matter in any detail until promoted by the coroner to do so.)

and yet he was able to remove her uterus in difficult circumstances and in little time.

I'm not saying he was a world class surgeon, but obviously he knew what he was doing and what he wanted. and since he removed the uterus in his next victim, its clear he was targeting specific internal organs, and how to get them.

we also have to keep in mind, that if he did have some kind of medical experience, if he was performing the same operation in clinical conditions, the wounds would have appeared more clean and "professional".
But he wasn't. and quickness was the key.

at the very least, he was used to cutting up bodies (even perhaps just animals) combined with some hands on experience with human anatomy.

the least likely scenario IMHO is that he had absolutely no experience in either and was just doing smash and grabs, fumbling around for what he could find.

[Pierre]

If we had many more killings we may be able to draw some conclusion based on moon phases, but with a mere handful random selection give about a 20% chance if him killing on a full moon.

Hi,

You canīt apply experimental thinking to one serial killer or deduce from aggregate data to one single man. Especially not as research has shown this particular serial killer to be extremely rare in many aspects.

And the "selection" you mention is not random. That is the point. He made the selection himself. He chose the nights on which he would kill. At least we must hypothesize a rational killer, who was thinking in terms of what he wanted to do as well as how and when he wanted to do it.

So you have to make an idiographic analysis for this serial killer and try to connect many well established facts to one another to understand how he was working.

Actually, of all the sciences at hand, history is the best one to use if you want to get reliable and valid knowledge about him.

You should try to understand the particular, and to describe the unusual, instead of putting him in a frame of structural, nomothetic thinking.

This is one unique serial killer. It is not the economical and social creation of the British Empire.

Best regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

Yes, a very good point. The apparent connection with moon phases may be simply coincidental.

Hi John,

No, it is NOT a good point at all. It is wrong. See my explanations to GUT above.

Best regards, Pierre

[packers stem]

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

If Long or Cadosh were correct,and I'm far from convinced,then Chapman was killed in broad daylight.
It's Eddowes where the lack of light becomes near impossible with no moonlight, overcast and drizzly and the darkest corner of mitre square...
No doubt in my mind of artificial light,or not killed on the spot and I know people will be up in arms about that lol.Finding and removing a kidney with no light at all is too much to be expected to believe