From Mitre Square to Goulston Street - Some thoughts.

[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.

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.

[Wickerman]

The Ripper extracted a kidney in almost pitch-black darkness, yet some on this thread thought it was far too dark for him to write a message on a wall in chalk.

It might be something to ponder.

There was a survey map drawn for the inquest by Foster, someone, likely the coroner, made a note that there was a lamp just north of the address in Goulston st.
So, it would appear someone thought the author made use of the light to write the graffiti.
It's not clear why a lamp was noted at that spot, so I'm guessing this was the reason.
It also goes to show that some things were discussed that were never written down by either the court recorder or the press.



The 'A' is where the apron was found.

[Wickerman]

Oh come on there is a big difference between a handkerchief and a bib apron

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

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.

[Wickerman]

I wonder why Wickerman did not think of that.

Because it would complicate the exchange, I don't think any of the letters are genuine, I mean truly from the killer.

[GBinOz]

then if that be the case how can you explain the coroner asking if they could have fallen out in transit. If they were found missing before the body was removed they could not have fallen out in transit, and if you still persist please tell where the doctor found the uterus with the fallopian tubes missing at the crime scene

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

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

[Trevor Marriott]

I can't find reference to this 3 minutes outside of The Star, a newspaper with dubious credentials. Either way, we'd need to know the logic underpinning that 3 minutes opinion.

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

There is a reasonable explanation. Serial killers experiment. It is well documented by those who have studied serial killers.

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

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Dictionary definition of the word ‘excised’:

“having been cut out surgically.”

then if that be the case how can you explain the coroner asking if they could have fallen out in transit. If they were found missing before the body was removed they could not have fallen out in transit, and if you still persist please tell where the doctor found the uterus with the fallopian tubes missing at the crime scene

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fleetwood Mac]

Are you agreeing or disagreeing with Anderson?

I think Anderson was talking right out of his crevice and much of that was to do with his background. The type of person fully bought into the 'Anglo-Saxon master race' imagined by Victorian high society, of which he was a part; when in fact they just made up the whole 'Anglo-Saxon' thing as a means of distinguishing themselves from everyone else.

'Wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I do not see how you can know that.

I cannot 'know that'. That much is true.

But, read about studies from those people who have made it their business to understand serial killers after they have been apprehended.

They will tell you that such people follow a pattern. That pattern doesn't involve hatred of a group of people. The motive is ephemeral pleasure.