From Mitre Square to Goulston Street - Some thoughts.

[Wickerman]

But the two handkerchiefs on the list were described as just that handkerchiefs not pieces of rag used as handkerchiefs have you never heard of a neckerchief?

A neckerchief is usually tied around the neck, this piece of cloth was not tied as a neckerchief would be.

Of course they were described as handkerchiefs, thats a default term for any reasonably size square piece of cloth. Even your 'sanitary towels' would have been described as handkerchiefs if they were large enough. Those "12 pieces of white rag" were probably not square like handkerchiefs are.
Can you imagine a police constable writing down 'sanitary towels' (or whatever they called them), to be read out in a court of law?
Victorian sentiments would not permit that.
If a piece of rag has no obvious purpose, dictated more likely by both it's size & shape, then it is a piece of rag. If it's a descent size, and square, it's a handkerchief.

If she had been wearing a bib type apron and if the killer did cut it and take away a piece, the rest of that type of apron would have been clearly visible when the body stripped.

Not before the body was stripped, and if all that was left attached to the body was this bib, then it is arguable what the constable would have described it as.
As far as I know there was no-one present at the mortuary for the Inspector to ask if she wore an apron. Who could he have asked?
So, in the absence of any other information he described it as a handkerchief.

[Trevor Marriott]

Dr. Brown:

“By the Coroner: Before we removed the body Dr. Phillips was sent for, as I wished him to see the wounds, he having been engaged in a case of a similar kind previously. He saw the body at the mortuary.”

[Coroner] How long would it take to make the wounds? - It might be done in five minutes. It might take him longer; but that is the least time it could be done in.
[Coroner] Can you, as a professional man, ascribe any reason for the taking away of the parts you have mentioned? - I cannot give any reason whatever.

This was the inquest testimony after the post mortem when the organs were first found missing

So, Phillips was called in specifically because of his experience in the Chapman case and he could check for similarities between the two murders. I’d assume that these would have included wounds and whether there were any organs missing? I seem to recall you previously doubting that any kind of pre-post mortem examination would have occurred?

Thats right none were carried out Brown wanted to establish from Phillips if it was the work of the same Killler of Chapman


“Phillips assist in the preliminary examination of the body (later determined to be that of Catherine Eddowes) which was underway when he arrived.

London Times, Oct. 1, 1888”

Then you may remember this Trevor:

“To obtain 21st-century medical opinions, I first asked two different forensic pathologists Dr`s Calder and Biggs, and also medical expert Phillip Harrison all experienced experts in their own fields, along with Mr Edmund Neale a consultant gynaecologist. Dr Biggs and Edmond Neale both concur with Dr Brown on the “at least” 5 minutes window. After studying the postmortem reports on both Eddowes and Chapman, Dr Calder, and Phillip Harrison believed it was not possible within that time frame. In both the removals of the uterus and the kidney Mr Neal says that in his opinion it would not be the skill, but the level of anatomical knowledge that would determine the time needed at the crime scene to effect these removals. Mr Neal also believes that if the killer did remove the organs then he must have had sufficient anatomical knowledge, otherwise, he would not have had the time to search for the organs, and work out how to remove them within that “at least five-minute window”

So we have:

Biggs (Forensic Pathologist) - agreed with Brown’s assessment.

Neale (Consultant Gynaecologist) - agreed with Brown’s assessment.

Calder (Forensic Pathologist) - disagreed with Brown’s assessment.

Harrison (Medical Expert [bit vague?]) - disagreed with Brown’s assessment.


Plus…


Prosecutor (a surgeon I believe) - disagreed with Brown’s assessment.

Nick Warren (a surgeon) - called the killer ‘a trophy hunter.’ He removed organs.

So this clearly isn’t a black and white issue Trevor. There’s a divergence of opinion to be considered.

Yes, but none of those experts only gave opinions none of them carried out an experiment to see how long it would take any of them and in haste and given the crime scene conditions there are documented pitfalls which in any experiment may go wrong and thereby effect the timings

And did Dr. Brown just rely on his own estimation of how long it would have taken? Apparently not:

“In proof of the anatomical and surgical skill of the assassin, Dr. Brown added that for the purpose of practically testing the time required for what had been done to this unfortunate woman, an expert practitioner had actually performed this operation, and found that it took three minutes and a half.”

East London Observer, October 6th:

Yes, under mortuary conditions not in the dark and that expert still managed to damage part of the bladder if I remember right in haste which the killer of Eddowes avoided doing, but the article doesn't say if the experiment was geared to removing both organs.

And not forgetting Dr Phillips estimation of at least 15 mins just to remove a uterus

If the Star reporter was at Mitre Square and I would suggest the press would have got wind of the murder bearing in mind they would still have been poking around Berner Street and they spoke to Brown and Sequeira at the crime scene then the 3-5 mins cannot be discounted

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fleetwood Mac]

The simple logic is that the three minutes is the time it took to carry out the murder and mutilations nothing more

In order to assess the value of Dr Sequeria's conclusion, we need to know the logic in how he arrived at that conclusion.

Take Dr Brown: he gave his reason for at least five minutes, 'having time to nick the lower eye-lids'.

There is always the possibility that Dr Brown looked at the wounds one by one, gave each of them a time estimate, and put it all together.

But, that's not what it looks like to me.

It looks like Dr Brown believed the WM undertook the body mutilations and organ removal, i.e. in Dr Brown's view the primary objective, and as an incidental after-thought then nicked the eye-lids because 'he had time'.

It doesn't appear to be an assessment based upon his medical expertise of how long it would take to inflict of all of the wounds and excise organs. It looks like he couldn't make sense of it all and merely came up with: "well, he was there for the body mutilations and the organs, why would he nick the eye-lids? because he had the time to do it".

In that event, his time estimate has no value given that is not based on his medical expertise but rather a crude delve into the psychology of a serial killer.

But the explanation I have given is plausible Eddowes had multiple cuts to her face

What's it based on?

As much as we struggle to understand it, serial killers derive a lot of pleasure from mutilating a victim and they experiment during the crime series. Empirical studies tell us that.

[Trevor Marriott]

Your original point was this:

“Dr Sequira could only have been referring to the murder and the mutilations when he mentions three minutes!!!!!!!!!!!!”

I made the point that Eddowes possessions were mentioned in that Press report. I wanted to know when the Press became aware of the list of possessions. It would seem likely that this would have been after the post mortem. If this was the case then Sequeira would have been aware of the missing body parts when he spoke to The Star and mentioned the 3 minutes because the possessions were mentioned.

But you know that couldn't be right because no one could have done all of that in three minutes.

But the doctors could have spoken to the press at the crime scene which would have sounded more logical having regards to simply murder and mutilation which would have taken no more than 3 mins

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

And on the subject of the ‘3 minutes’ ‘5 minutes’ score, it’s well worth pointing out that the killer could have had considerably longer to have done what he did. So we shouldn’t get too fixated on those two estimations.

[Fleetwood Mac]

The police were of the opinion that the message was anti-Jewish, that the murderer wrote it, and that it was an attempt to stir up anti-Jewish sentiment.

That was sufficient reward.

At this juncture, I reckon you'd benefit from reading the empirical studies undertaken with regard to these types of murders, PI.

What you're imagining is not in line with those studies.

These types of killers share similar traits.

Hatred of a group of people is not one of them.

They are in it for ephemeral pleasure, abuse and neglect is a common feature, ownership/control/possession is very much bound up with that pleasure.

While there is clearly something else that has malfunctioned in their brains: the motive is pleasure, the root of the malfunctioning is abuse in the formative years more often than not.

In that context, it could just as easily have been someone from what was viewed as a more 'respectable' class in society, and the idea that he was running 'round displaying obvious signs of 'madness' was a Victorian, ill-conceived view. In the event this person was put in an asylum, then it will have been because they caught him as opposed to being because he was showing obvious signs of 'madness'.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Dr. Brown:

“By the Coroner: Before we removed the body Dr. Phillips was sent for, as I wished him to see the wounds, he having been engaged in a case of a similar kind previously. He saw the body at the mortuary.”

[Coroner] How long would it take to make the wounds? - It might be done in five minutes. It might take him longer; but that is the least time it could be done in.
[Coroner] Can you, as a professional man, ascribe any reason for the taking away of the parts you have mentioned? - I cannot give any reason whatever.

So, Phillips was called in specifically because of his experience in the Chapman case and he could check for similarities between the two murders. I’d assume that these would have included wounds and whether there were any organs missing? I seem to recall you previously doubting that any kind of pre-post mortem examination would have occurred?


“Phillips assist in the preliminary examination of the body (later determined to be that of Catherine Eddowes) which was underway when he arrived.

London Times, Oct. 1, 1888”



Then you may remember this Trevor:

“To obtain 21st-century medical opinions, I first asked two different forensic pathologists Dr`s Calder and Biggs, and also medical expert Phillip Harrison all experienced experts in their own fields, along with Mr Edmund Neale a consultant gynaecologist. Dr Biggs and Edmond Neale both concur with Dr Brown on the “at least” 5 minutes window. After studying the postmortem reports on both Eddowes and Chapman, Dr Calder, and Phillip Harrison believed it was not possible within that time frame. In both the removals of the uterus and the kidney Mr Neal says that in his opinion it would not be the skill, but the level of anatomical knowledge that would determine the time needed at the crime scene to effect these removals. Mr Neal also believes that if the killer did remove the organs then he must have had sufficient anatomical knowledge, otherwise, he would not have had the time to search for the organs, and work out how to remove them within that “at least five-minute window”


So we have:


Biggs (Forensic Pathologist) - agreed with Brown’s assessment.

Neale (Consultant Gynaecologist) - agreed with Brown’s assessment.

Calder (Forensic Pathologist) - disagreed with Brown’s assessment.

Harrison (Medical Expert [bit vague?]) - disagreed with Brown’s assessment.


Plus…


Prosecutor (a surgeon I believe) - disagreed with Brown’s assessment.

Nick Warren (a surgeon) - called the killer ‘a trophy hunter.’ He removed organs.


So this clearly isn’t a black and white issue Trevor. There’s a divergence of opinion to be considered.




And did Dr. Brown just rely on his own estimation of how long it would have taken? Apparently not:


“In proof of the anatomical and surgical skill of the assassin, Dr. Brown added that for the purpose of practically testing the time required for what had been done to this unfortunate woman, an expert practitioner had actually performed this operation, and found that it took three minutes and a half.”

East London Observer, October 6th:

[Herlock Sholmes]

The list produced by Collard was made at the time the body was stripped at the mortuary before the post mortem if you look how it was compiled starting at the top and itemising each piece of clothing as it came off the body which is the same procedure used today.


www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Your original point was this:

“Dr Sequira could only have been referring to the murder and the mutilations when he mentions three minutes!!!!!!!!!!!!”

I made the point that Eddowes possessions were mentioned in that Press report. I wanted to know when the Press became aware of the list of possessions. It would seem likely that this would have been after the post mortem. If this was the case then Sequeira would have been aware of the missing body parts when he spoke to The Star and mentioned the 3 minutes because the possessions were mentioned.

[Trevor Marriott]

When we look at the many viewpoints and recorded comments of Philips across the known parameters of this case, it may be fair to state that he often had little idea of what he was talking about.
A man so set in his ways, narrow minded and tunnel visioned in his approach.

If we leave Philips out of ALL the murders, it helps to explain so much more and his antagonist involvement warrants scrutiny rather than praise.

RD

But Dr Brown called for Dr Phillips to attend the crime scene to offer his professional opinion having regards to the fact that Phillips was involved with Chapman's murder why would Brown summon him if he didn't know what he was talking about?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[The Rookie Detective]

When we look at the many viewpoints and recorded comments of Philips across the known parameters of this case, it may be fair to state that he often had little idea of what he was talking about.
A man so set in his ways, narrow minded and tunnel visioned in his approach.

If we leave Philips out of ALL the murders, it helps to explain so much more and his antagonist involvement warrants scrutiny rather than praise.

RD

[Trevor Marriott]

In the post that you were responding to my wording was misleading Trevor. When I mentioned the doctor seeing that the parts were missing I didn’t mean that they saw this at the scene. What I was trying to say was that when Sequeira was asked it was after he’d found out that the organs were missing so he would have included their removal in his estimation of how long the killer would have required.

I did ask 2 questions. I’ll repeat them in case you missed them:

1) were Eddowes possessions reported before the post mortem? And 2) why was Sequeira being asked if the killer was an ‘expert’ if they were only talking about wounds? You don’t need to be an expert to wound and kill someone

The list produced by Collard was made at the time the body was stripped at the mortuary before the post mortem if you look how it was compiled starting at the top and itemising each piece of clothing as it came off the body which is the same procedure used today.

I don't know why Sequeria was asked that question but his reply of 3 mins and Dr Browns at least 5 mins are both miles apart from Dr Phillips who stated it would have taken him upwards of 15 mins to do all that was done to Chapman and she was only missing a uterus !!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I am going to correct you again because there is not one scrap of evidence to show the doctors found body parts missing in Mitre Square when they first exmanined the body

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

In the post that you were responding to my wording was misleading Trevor. When I mentioned the doctor seeing that the parts were missing I didn’t mean that they saw this at the scene. What I was trying to say was that when Sequeira was asked it was after he’d found out that the organs were missing so he would have included their removal in his estimation of how long the killer would have required.

I did ask 2 questions. I’ll repeat them in case you missed them:

1) were Eddowes possessions reported before the post mortem? And 2) why was Sequeira being asked if the killer was an ‘expert’ if they were only talking about wounds? You don’t need to be an expert to wound and kill someone

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

I agree. The coroner asked that question of both Phillips and Sgt Baugham (Badham). The task of the doctor at the crime scene was to declare life extinct, estimate a ToD, and note any external evidence. The autopsy came later. There is inquest testimony to show that there was a break in the chain of custody in the cases of both Nichols and Chapman.

I asked my daughter if the doctors would have noticed organs missing at the crime scene. Her reply was that they would have observed the cuts, but the flesh rebounds to cover what is below. This is why retractors are used. That, and the blood, would inhibit the observation of the fact that the uterus and kidney were missing. Stomach flaps being missing would be noticeable.

There is a great deal of difference between theoretical imagining, and actual experience, as is shown by this quote from Prosector:
For the benefit of anyone that hasn't had both hands inside a human abdomen before, simply getting at either the kidney or the uterus is incredibly difficult. You might know roughly where they are but the problem is you have a mass of slippery, writhing intestines in the way and as much as you try to push them aside, the more they flop back into the middle and down into the pelvis which is where you need to be if you wish to get at the uterus.

What you have to do is a manoeuvre known to surgeons, anatomists and pathologists as mobilisation of the small bowel. This involves making a slit in the root of the mesentery which lies behind the bowels and this then enables you to lift the small intestines out of the abdomen and gives you a clearer field. Jack did this in the case of Chapman and Eddowes (hence the bowels being draped over the right shoulders). Dividing the root of the mesentery single handed is very difficult since you are operating one handed and blind. Usually an assistant wound be using both hands to retract the guts so that the operator can get a clearer view of it.

Cheers, George

Hi George
Your post simply confirms the fact that it would have been impossible for the killer to have removed these organs given the state of the body and the fact that the abdomen was mutilated and the lack of light required.

Sadly some will never accept this because to do so would somewhat water down the myth that has been JTR and turn the murders into just murders and no organ removals, and probably without the belief that the killer removed organs, this JTR murder mystery would not be the topic of conversation that it still is 132 years later

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

I think you would find any small square piece of rag, approx, 12 inch square, would be quite suitable to be used as a handkerchief, and identified as one.

But the two handkerchiefs on the list were described as just that handkerchiefs not pieces of rag used as handkerchiefs have you never heard of a neckerchief?

If she had been wearing a bib type apron and if the killer did cut it and take away a piece, the rest of that type of apron would have been clearly visible when the body stripped.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

As to the nicking of the eyelids there is no reasonable explanation for the killer to have done this, we see no signs of that in any of the other victims

A more plausible explanation could be that the eyelids were not nicked by designs but were caused by the killer when attempting to cut the throat of Eddowes and the flashing of the blade across her face while she was struggling trying to avoid the knife.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk[/FONT][/SIZE]

Good grief Trevor, that's a stretch.

Actually, a plausible reason for the killer nicking the eyelids is his way of sending a message to authorities, that he read the newspaper claims that the retina of the eye captures the last thing the victim saw.
He didn't damage the eye, he could have pushed the tip of his blade into the eyeball, but he didn't. Unless he did but it was not picked up in the post mortem - they never noticed the cut eyeballs?
I think the killer just acknowledged the claim, there's no other reason for doing it, because it was obviously done with some degree of care.