Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jack's Escape from Mitre Square

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
    Hi Trevor,



    I think you've misread/misremembered Dr. Phillips' statement. His 15 minutes were not for the removal of the uterus, but to perform all the injuries he described. And the 60 minutes was him saying if he "had done it in a deliberate way such as would fall to the duties of a surgeon, ..." (though I think there he's just being a bit dramatic as I'm sure he's not implying that strangulation and throat cutting/attempts at decapitation are things a surgeon would do, rather, talking about performing surgery, opening up the gut cativity, surgically performing a hysterectomy, and so forth). Also, in A-Z they provide a composite of details from The Times and the Lancet with regards to Dr. Phillips testimony, and it's important to remember what the evidence actually is as Dr. Phillips indicated that JtR must have anatomical knowledge and skill in order "...to secure the pelvic organs with one sweep of the knife." It was this one sweep of the knife to remove the uterus (which is what he's talking about at that point in his testimony) that allowed him to estimate the length of the knife as at least 6". So yes, the consensus among medical professions (and between you and I) is that JtR in all likelihood had anatomical knowledge. And the medical professions state that sufficient anatomical knowledge would be gained by cutting up animals, it did not show specific medical knowledge. And surgeons don't remove organs with "one sweep of the knife" but a slaughterman might because they aren't trying to treat anything but simply remove things. So from Dr. Phillips testimony we can see that the act of removing the uterus would take about 2 seconds (once he got to that point of course) because it's not an operation - it's just cutting out bits. And in the dark, doing one sweep of the knife with Eddowes, and working very fast, led to .... damaging the bowel, only getting 2/3rds of it, and other errors. And don't forget, he damaged Annie Chapman's bladder in his one sweep technique as well, and he had light by that time.

    And slaughterman would be well aquaited with how kidney's are located, and how to get them out quickly because, again, their skill set is not about performing surgery, but how to remove the viscera and organs.

    I've got no idea why JtR would want to take bits home with him of any sort, but he did. And he removed them quickly, showed skill with a knife, appears to have knowledge of where to find various organs, and knowledge of how to remove, if not operate upon, viscera.

    But, those are my estimations of time.

    Are you going to tell me the minimum time you think JtR required to perform the murder and mutilations in Mitre Square? Or are you suggesting it would have taken him an hour?

    - Jeff
    There is no definitive answer to your question, because you could have 3 different people all doing the same thing and all three may take a different time.

    and I totally disagree that a slaughterman would have sufficient anatomical knowledge to effect a removal of a kidney and a uterus from a human in the allotted time.

    If organ harvesting was the motive then why didnt the killer find a victim who had their own room, why did he make the task more difficult by picking up a victim in the street and trying to remove organs in almost total darkness.

    All these victims are attributed to one killer, but other than Chapman, we see no other signs of organs removal or attempted organ removals.

    And if he had taken a uterus which was complete with Fallopian tubes attached, why would he want to take another from Eddowes doent make sense. plus the organs from both Chapman and eddowes were removed in two different ways, thereby suggesting that it was not the same person.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Comment


    • After washing the left hand carefully, a bruise the size of a sixpence, recent and red, was discovered on the back of the left hand between the thumb and first finger .... Back of the hand not proof at all she was defending herself from be strangled .....There was on each side of cheek a cut which peeled up the skin, forming a triangular flap about an inch and a half. On the left cheek there were two abrasions of the epithelium under the left ear.....The preceding sentience imply the killer could have quite easily have held her chin while making those cuts hence the abrasions. And blood from the neck will flow out regardless whether she was killed there or dumped there afterwards . So the physical evidence would be the same , just more speculation . ... Coroner: Before we removed the body Dr. Phillips was sent for, as I wished him to see the wounds,'' There was a bruise on the back of the left hand, and one on the right shin, but this had nothing to do with the crime.''.(ellipses in text, where a question from the corner to be more specific about the location was asked). And, if you've grabbed someone by the throat to strangle them, under the ear is where bruising/abrasions will occur.. This statement is not in the official inquest notes or post mortem so unsubstantiated, cant comment . so ill stick buy my post 490... 100% .p.s ,sorry about the shouting ill endeavor to tone it done a touch.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

        and I totally disagree that a slaughterman would have sufficient anatomical knowledge to effect a removal of a kidney and a uterus from a human in the allotted time.
        There's a video above where a hunter - not even a slaughterman - does pretty much that in less than a minute.
        If organ harvesting was the motive then why didnt the killer find a victim who had their own room, why did he make the task more difficult by picking up a victim in the street and trying to remove organs in almost total darkness.
        If organ harvesting was the motive, and he had better working conditions than existed at Mitre Square, why did he make such a balls-up of removing the uterus and only take one kidney? I'm sure that it's not only in the antiques trade that it's more desirable to have a pair.
        All these victims are attributed to one killer, but other than Chapman, we see no other signs of organs removal or attempted organ removals.
        What are you talking about? Eddowes and Kelly certainly had organs removed and, if he'd had time, the same might have happened to Nichols - perhaps it did, and the less-than-stellar Dr Llewellyn missed it.
        And if he had taken a uterus which was complete with Fallopian tubes attached, why would he want to take another from Eddowes doent make sense
        Because that was his "thing", perhaps? Besides, if we're talking about an organ-harvester, why wouldn't he take another, whether simply to add to his collection or to sell?
        plus the organs from both Chapman and eddowes were removed in two different ways, thereby suggesting that it was not the same person.
        Or the same person who, lacking a fixed technique, was improvising.
        Kind regards, Sam Flynn

        "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
          There's a video above where a hunter - not even a slaughterman - does pretty much that in less than a minute
          Not on a human being, and not in almost total darkness

          .If organ harvesting was the motive, and he had better working conditions than existed at Mitre Square, why did he make such a balls-up of removing the uterus and only take one kidney? I'm sure that it's not only in the antiques trade that it's more desirable to have a pair.

          I am not suggesting organ harvesting but other have done

          What are you talking about? Eddowes and Kelly certainly had organs removed and, if he'd had time, the same might have happened to Nichols - perhaps it did, and the less-than-stellar Dr Llewellyn missed it.

          Ah the good old time .Kelly had her organs ripped out with no anatomical knowledge shown at all. And none were taken away, when the killer could have taken away almost every body part !!!!!!!!!!!!!
          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

          Comment


          • None were taken Trevor? The odds are, he took Kelly's heart...perhaps that sated his sick requirements?

            Look you're wittering on endlessly about how it can't be done...face it mate...no arguments...some bastard did it...simples...

            Comment


            • Trevor,

              Deer are mammals like us, and their innards aren't differently arranged than ours. And there was sufficient light according to Sequeira.

              Whether the object was organ harvesting or not is immaterial. The removal of organs at the scene or elsewhere is the relevant point.

              There was no greater or lesser knowledge/skill required in Kelly's case than in any of the others. Furthermore, there is some evidence that the heart was taken away. Further-furthermore, taking away almost every body part would have been impractical and, besides, perhaps the heart was enough.
              Kind regards, Sam Flynn

              "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Cogidubnus View Post
                None were taken Trevor? The odds are, he took Kelly's heart...perhaps that sated his sick requirements?

                Look you're wittering on endlessly about how it can't be done...face it mate...no arguments...some bastard did it...simples...
                HI Cog
                trevor thinks someone killed and mutilated them but a dr or medical person took the organs at a later time.
                "Is all that we see or seem
                but a dream within a dream?"

                -Edgar Allan Poe


                "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                -Frederick G. Abberline

                Comment


                • I suppose that's at least a small improvement over the one someone treated us to some years ago, where stray dogs took the missing parts...

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Cogidubnus View Post
                    None were taken Trevor? The odds are, he took Kelly's heart...perhaps that sated his sick requirements?

                    Look you're wittering on endlessly about how it can't be done...face it mate...no arguments...some bastard did it...simples...
                    Yes somebody did kill these women but whoever it was he didnt take away their organs !!!!!!!!

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                      Yes somebody did kill these women but whoever it was he didnt take away their organs !!!!!!!!
                      So someone went to all the trouble of making a long cut down Eddowes' abdomen, retracting the flesh, extruding the intestines, cutting out a section of colon... and didn't go on to remove anything else?

                      Absurd.
                      Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                      "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                      Comment


                      • Reckon Frederick Foster's sketch of the corpse in Mitre Square is ample evidence that the organs were taken there.
                        My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by DJA View Post
                          Reckon Frederick Foster's sketch of the corpse in Mitre Square is ample evidence that the organs were taken there.
                          Well if it was so obvious how come the doctors never noticed that fact ? bearing in mind they were aware of the chapman murder which was identical, Do you think that they would have at least took a look.

                          But maybe the light was not good enough, which then reflects on how much light the killer had to be able to remove these organs with anatomical knowledge in a time consistent with a medical expert of the day !

                          The sketch proves nothing other than the abdomen was ripped open, which we already know, and in fact I would suggest that the sketch is not accurate.

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                          Comment


                          • So no witnesses heard the attack take place or so much as a pin drop but now you want us to believe that a cart rolled into Mitre Square unheard to dump the body?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                              So someone went to all the trouble of making a long cut down Eddowes' abdomen, retracting the flesh, extruding the intestines, cutting out a section of colon... and didn't go on to remove anything else?

                              Absurd.
                              There were several knife wounds to the abdomen not just one, she was stabbed through her outer clothing several times, so the opening of the abdomen was not premeditated in order to extract organs.

                              The flesh was not retracted there is no evidence of that. The victim was killed in a frenzied attack are we expected to believe that the killer suddenly switched himself off out of that frenzy, and was calm enough to surgically remove these organs ? Didnt happen ! No matter how you dress it up

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                              Comment


                              • Also, if her body had been murdered and mutilated elsewhere before she was dumped, surely there would have been hardly any bloodshed at the scene?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X