The cut around the umbilicus

[Monty]

Gareth,

You make an excellent observation as ever.

Possibly it was something he studied, tried, found it didnt work for him and reverted back?

Of course this is assuming Kelly was a victim of Eddowes killer....speaking of assumption.

Trevor, your assumption that the 'small minority' (which seems to be sizeable) here has a limited knowledge or are not experts, draws attention to your own limitations and, dare I say, arrogance.

You will gain more credability with your theories if were to persuede logically (again thats another weakness of yours) rather than belittle who you assume are unknowing sheep.

Shame indeed.

Monty

[perrymason]

Sam
The way you see it and the way it is from an experts view are miles apart . No disrespect but i think that you and the remaning small group who subscribe to the original theory should really re examine everyhting surrounding the new theory. You dont become a medical experts by reading the Lancet every month. Practical experience is what is required

I also wonder how many of this minority group have studied the new medical evidence.? At a rough guess I would say none. Its a shame that these regular posters want to dismiss outright new evidenec without even bothering to look at it. "Shame on you "

"New" medical evidence? Previously undiscovered notes from the physicians who examined the victims? Unknown photos appearing? "New" physical evidence based on exhumation .. ...

Your "New" term refers to recent opinions being offered decades after the women were buried.

Unless you do actually possess some previously unknown medical data regarding the victims written by the contemporary sources?

My feeling is.....not. But by all means, prove me wrong.

And before you chastise another poster for having an opinion on the medical evidence while not being a physician themselves, ....perhaps you should mind your own self as a self professed professional writer instead, since youve just posted a paragraph with 3 spelling mistakes and at least 1 grammatical error.

Cheers Trevor

[Sam Flynn]

The way you see it and the way it is from an experts view are miles apart .

I don't think that every medical expert would disagree with me, Trevor - and I say so in all humility.

You dont become a medical experts by reading the Lancet every month. Practical experience is what is required.

Well, I have at least some experience of dissection - albeit not of the human abdomen. I could do you a mean preparation of a rat, rabbit or dogfish abdomen, though, if pushed

[The Grave Maurice]

Geez, if you had to be an expert in any of the relevant fields before you could comment on the various aspects of this case, these boards would be very quiet.

[Mascara & Paranoia]

Again I repeat the killer of Chapman would not have needed to remove the intestines to extract the uterus.

True. But taking them out of the torso would be a little more time convenient than trying to liberate an organ with them still tucked hapazardly inside. I think it's safe to say that he was ripping his victims open for some kind of self-satisfaction, not to play surgeon and emulate an operation.

The other thing we dont know is that if the organs were removed at the mortuarys bu another how much addittional cutting did that person do in order to extract the organs. If that happened it now puts a different light on everything

Are you serious?

I also wonder how many of this minority group have studied the new medical evidence.? At a rough guess I would say none.

What new medical 'evidence' (and evidence of what)? And do you have medical expertise and/or experience yourself? Genuine question.

[Suzi]

Just put in mind of a quote I heard yesterday 'The more knowledge I acquire the more uncertainties I have'