Did Lawende see Kate Eddowes?

[Trevor Marriott]

I take your point that a couple of minutes could make a world of difference in this scenario.

Perhaps this is simply personal preference when discussing an issue.

Take Joseph Lawende, he claimed 1.30am according to his watch and the club clock. There is another thread 'Margin for Error,' which attempts to explain why there is no issue with creating a range of time and in no way is that pulling the time one way (the convenient way). I agree that there is no issue with creating a range of time, the objection is the result of how that range is then utilised.

Well, we have 1.30am, let's apply a margin for error of two minutes. Where does that take us? We are told 1.30am, it could be 1.28am, it could be 1.32am. What are we left with? Two times that are a problem (1.32am and 1.30am) and one time that is more convenient (1.28am).

What is the conclusion:

1) We now have a range of time and therefore the stated time is not a barrier because the range makes it work.

2) We now have a range of time, two of them (1.32am and 1.30am) do not support the theory and one of them (1.28am) does. Therefore, on balance, the stated time remains a problem.

I'll go with 2, although I wouldn't necessarily in the event there was corroboration to support the notion that the time was in fact earlier than that stated by Joseph (there is no corroboration in this instance). I go with 2 not because I think the time must have been accurate to the minute, but because we've created a range that does not point towards the earlier time in the range given there are two other times in the range.

In the end, no matter how it's dressed up, a range of 1.28am to 1.32am has been created and the more favourable end of the range (1.28am) is being used to support the theory; while the stated time (1.30am) and the much more inconvenient end of the time range (1.32am) are being ignored.

When I said personal preference when discussing an issue, I suppose what I'm saying is this: we're told 1.30am, it could quite easily have been 1.28am or 1.32am, we have no corroboration or evidence for any time other than 1.30am; therefore I'm not going to say 1.32am which would support my theory, nor am I going to say 1.28am which would not support my theory, I'm going to go with the stated time and discuss from that point as opposed to move it any way.

I reckon that is a more reasonable approach than suggesting 'margin for error' or applying the broad sweep 'the times are estimates', both of which irretrievably involve using one end of a time range to support a theory.

It's worth saying that the times are merely one piece of the information left to us also. I reckon the balance of information suggests that Catherine was already in the square by the time the two Josephs passed Church Passage.

But, a part of that involves an assumption that it was unlikely that Catherine was soliciting in Duke Street, rather she was on Aldgate High Street. I appreciate that Duke Street is not far from Aldgate High Street and she may have wandered off the beaten track a little bit to find a client. I find it the less likely of the two options, however, although I'm still looking around the internet for anything that suggests Duke Street was in fact a known place for street workers to look for clients.

These timings as described are not totally accurate and I can see why it is so important to push the times back to an earlier time of exit from the club I refer to Joseph Levys account "I was with the last witness at the Imperial Club on Saturday night, Sept. 29. We got up to leave at half-past one on Sunday morning, and came out three or four minutes later" and we no minutes are crucial in determining whether or not the killer had the time to do all that he is alleged to have done

Lawendes official statement " We left to go out at 1,3am and we left 5 mins later"

So I would suggest 1.35am be as important as those postulating 1.30-1.32am

and at the risk of being accused of repeating myself I will reiterate the fact that if that couple were the killer and eddowes then we have no evidence to show what time they entered the square so for those who suggest based on those inaccurate timings that there is no conclusive proof that the killer had the time to murder mutilate and remove organs are mistaken

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fleetwood Mac]

So I would suggest 1.35am be as important as those postulating 1.30-1.32am

Aye, we were talking about the time at which the Josephs rose to leave as opposed to when they walked past Church Passage. In their own words, 1.30am.

1.35am walking past Church Passage is good enough for me. Just about agreed upon by the two Josephs, a watch and a clock looked at a few minutes previously, and a very short walk from the Imperial Club to Church Passage; meaning not a great deal of time to lose a few minutes. Not a bad basis to go with the witness' 1.35am time.

I suppose we could suggest that they were wrong and they walked past the passage at 1.32am but in that event we could suggest they were wrong and walked past the passage at 1.38am. Choosing one of the wrong options above the other, is not reasonable.

based on those inaccurate timings

Not necessarily. The idea that all of the times were inaccurate has become received wisdom. I think it should be taken on an individual basis rather than simply claim: "all of the times are inaccurate". Joseph Lawende in particular, might not have been very far from the mark when you consider the context.

that there is no conclusive proof that the killer had the time to murder mutilate and remove organs are mistaken

[url]www.trevormarriott

We said earlier that we're feeding on scraps of information and so you're not going to find much proof for anything outside of the bits and pieces of statements left to us.

The only reasonable thing to do is to not stray far from the evidence when putting something together. Somewhere along the line, everyone is making a leap of faith due to a dearth of information, but the more substantial arguments are those that are well reasoned and stay closest to the evidence.

When you say: "there is no conclusive proof", that applies to everybody's point of view. You're left with that which seems most likely based on the (limited) evidence.

[Sunny Delight]

These timings as described are not totally accurate and I can see why it is so important to push the times back to an earlier time of exit from the club I refer to Joseph Levys account "I was with the last witness at the Imperial Club on Saturday night, Sept. 29. We got up to leave at half-past one on Sunday morning, and came out three or four minutes later" and we no minutes are crucial in determining whether or not the killer had the time to do all that he is alleged to have done

Lawendes official statement " We left to go out at 1,3am and we left 5 mins later"

So I would suggest 1.35am be as important as those postulating 1.30-1.32am

and at the risk of being accused of repeating myself I will reiterate the fact that if that couple were the killer and eddowes then we have no evidence to show what time they entered the square so for those who suggest based on those inaccurate timings that there is no conclusive proof that the killer had the time to murder mutilate and remove organs are mistaken

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Except that the organs were taken btaken murderer and he mutilated Eddowes as well. A witness identified Catherine Eddowes as the woman he had seen based on her clothing. So what are you talking about?

[Trevor Marriott]

Except that the organs were taken btaken murderer and he mutilated Eddowes as well. A witness identified Catherine Eddowes as the woman he had seen based on her clothing. So what are you talking about?

How do you know the killer removed the organs? the later the couple left the spot where they were seen talking the less time the killer had to do all that he is alleged to have done and of course we do not have that information, but whatever the time the killer would have had sufficient time to murder and mutilate which would have taken less than 2 mins tops.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sunny Delight]

How do you know the killer removed the organs? the later the couple left the spot where they were seen talking the less time the killer had to do all that he is alleged to have done and of course we do not have that information, but whatever the time the killer would have had sufficient time to murder and mutilate which would have taken less than 2 mins tops.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

We know the uterus and kidney were removed and taken seemingly as trophies. If the killer didn't take them then who did? It sure wasn't the tooth fairy. If we are to believe the couple seen by Lawende and co was Eddowes and her killer then the tightest estimates are probably the correct ones. There is not too much reason to doubt Lawende. There was enough time but only just.

[Trevor Marriott]

We know the uterus and kidney were removed and taken seemingly as trophies. If the killer didn't take them then who did? It sure wasn't the tooth fairy. If we are to believe the couple seen by Lawende and co was Eddowes and her killer then the tightest estimates are probably the correct ones. There is not too much reason to doubt Lawende. There was enough time but only just.

In the dark from a blood filled abdomen in a hurry with no light to aid the removals and no retractors to hold the abdomen open to facilitate any removals if you believe all of that then you must start to believe in the tooth fairy

They were removed at the mortuary during the 12 hours the body was left before the post-mortem.

How can you or anyone else determine how much time the killer had with Eddowes when there is no definitive time to show when they entered the square?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

We know the uterus and kidney were removed and taken seemingly as trophies.

We also know that Chapman's uterus was missing and Kelly's kidneys and uterus were excised by the murderer.

If we are to believe the couple seen by Lawende and co was Eddowes and her killer then the tightest estimates are probably the correct ones.

It is going to be tight anyway, because Watkins could hardly have left the square before 1.32 and if the couple had entered the square via Mitre Street at 1.33, they would likely have met Watkins, whilst if they entered via Church Passage then there would have been two couples at the beginning of Church Passage at about the same time, in which case the rough sailor and the woman wearing a bonnet would likely both have seen the murderer.

There is not too much reason to doubt Lawende. There was enough time but only just.

If Lawende had said he saw the couple at 1.40 then we would certainly have reason to doubt that he saw Chapman, and I wonder whether those who doubt the reliability of the timings would then be arguing that his timing could have been five minutes fast and that consequently the woman could have been Chapman!

[Fleetwood Mac]

In the dark from a blood filled abdomen in a hurry with no light to aid the removals and no retractors to hold the abdomen open to facilitate any removals if you believe all of that then you must start to believe in the tooth fairy

I reckon 'in the dark' could do with being qualified.

Dr Sequeira didn't believe the light was a problem, and that was based on his knowledge of the square as opposed to the point/time when people were stood around with lamps.

And, human beings do have night vision, obviously not that of a cat but the only time a human being would not be able to see in the dark is when there is total darkness, maybe deep in a cave or somewhere like that. Our eyes naturally adjust to darkness providing there is some sort of light and invariably there is some sort of light.

Furthermore, we're not talking of being able to see down the street here: we're talking pretty much right in front of you.

The idea that the WM wouldn't have been able to see right in front of him, in the darkest part of a square, is overestimated.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Trevor,

These timings as described are not totally accurate and I can see why it is so important to push the times back to an earlier time of exit from the club I refer to Joseph Levys account "I was with the last witness at the Imperial Club on Saturday night, Sept. 29. We got up to leave at half-past one on Sunday morning, and came out three or four minutes later" and we no minutes are crucial in determining whether or not the killer had the time to do all that he is alleged to have done

Lawendes official statement " We left to go out at 1,3am and we left 5 mins later"

So I would suggest 1.35am be as important as those postulating 1.30-1.32am

and at the risk of being accused of repeating myself I will reiterate the fact that if that couple were the killer and eddowes then we have no evidence to show what time they entered the square so for those who suggest based on those inaccurate timings that there is no conclusive proof that the killer had the time to murder mutilate and remove organs are mistaken

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I know we've discussed this a few times, and I'm not expecting either of us to change our views, but I would like to point out that the recreations that I've done on the Mitre Square events are based upon Lawende's stated time of 1:35 (I didn't go with Levey's, which I have argued we have to also consider as important as Lawende's 1:35, which I see you agree with above, because I was testing the most constraining of conditions based upon the stated information). Anyway, as the recreations show, that leaves more than the longest estimate required for the murder and mutilations and organ harvesting given by any of the doctor's at the scene (the 5 minute window). Of course, doctors of 1888 didn't have the experience with mutilation serial killers that we now (unfortunately) have, but again, the purpose of the recreations was to see if the contemporary statements could simply not be made to work. And, they could; the latest time (Lawende's) combined with the longest required time (5 minutes) still left something like 25 seconds of wiggle room. Go with Sequeria's 3 minutes for the crime and we're well within range, and go with Levey's 3 minute wait and again, easy peasy with minutes to spare, use both and he could have done both Stride and Eddowes at the same time!

As for the notion of "if they left later ...", that's got the cart before the horse. If the Church Passage Couple (CPC) is not Eddowes and JtR, then they never entered the square, that's pretty clear, so when they move on is immaterial and from where Eddowes and JtR entered the square becomes the real question. Probably not Church Passage, but perhaps from the Orange Market (sheltering from the rain under the covering, perhaps, and at the far end hence not seen by Watkins), or by following PC Waitkins at a distance up Mitre Square. Take your pick.

If, however, the CPC was indeed Eddowes and JtR, then we know they have to have entered with sufficient time for what was done to get done. And so, if there was enough time provided they leave their spot no later than time X, then the evidence tells us they must have left no later than time X. You can't say "but if they left at X+3 minutes, then what happened couldn't have happened" given we know it did happen, unless you can prove otherwise. And you can't use time available as your proof, because then becomes a circular argument.

You need to demonstrate that the organs were not taken from the crime scene, not simply suggest that "well, if I don't give them enough time despite there being enough time available, I can now argue that what happened couldn't have happened". Problem is, there was enough time for what happened to have happened. And what happened, therefore, tells us the limits as to when they had to enter the square.

It would be like me arguing, well, if PC Watkin's just skipped his previous patrol of Mitre Square and went past it, and the CPC is not Eddowes and JtR, that means that Eddowes and JtR could be in the square an additional 12-14 minutes, making ample amount of time for the murder, mutilations, etc. If I were to suggest that, I'm sure you would say I was just making it up and was blinkered in my approach (and you would be right, because I just made that up now to drive the point home that when faced with the fact that there was enough time without such unsupported notions then it requires evidence to the contrary before you can use "not enough time" as an argument because there was enough time - simply saying that "well, if they didn't use all the time available, in that case there wouldn't be enough time ..." doesn't cut it - that's getting to both make up the evidence and then the explanation that goes with it.

Look, I fully agree with you on the point that the evidence is not definitive! I don't even begrudge you the idea of exploring alternative ideas to Jack taking the organs. But I don't think it does you any favours when given there was enough time available to fall back on "ok, sure, there was enough time, but I don't think they used it all because I think JtR didn't take the organs, and if he didn't use the time that was available that would prove my case, so I don't think he used all the time!"

Don't get me wrong, I agree nothing in the JtR series is definitive, but at the same time we can't play too fast and loose with what we have either. It starts looking like the theory is no longer tied to information, and that rarely leads to a correct solution.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

You need to demonstrate that the organs were not taken from the crime scene, not simply suggest that "well, if I don't give them enough time despite there being enough time available, I can now argue that what happened couldn't have happened". Problem is, there was enough time for what happened to have happened. And what happened, therefore, tells us the limits as to when they had to enter the square.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

We have recently participated in a thread that emphasised, using articles by experts in that area, that the skills of the Victorian doctors in producing ToD estimates was inferior to the modern methods. Trevor has put forward a video showing modern day experts, who have done thousands of autopsies, saying that removing Eddowes uterus, without damaging the bladder, and her kidney, plus the other mutilations could not be done in under 12 minutes under the conditions.

In 1888 the first appendectomy was yet to be performed and the average doctor had little to no autopsy experience. I have never witnessed a hysterectomy, but my daughter has participated in dozens of abdominal hysterectomies. She tells me that she has seen highly experienced surgeons, with full theatre lights, retractors and assistants, nick the bowel in this hour long procedure. Can it be suggested that the ripper achieved this procedure without damaging the bladder, kneeling in the dark, and neatly removed the kidney, and inflicted all the other injuries in 3-5 minutes.

There is an excellent thread by a former member, Prosector, who is a surgeon and a teacher here:

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/motive-method-and-madness/7907-did-he-have-anatomical-knowledge

It is a long thread, but there is much to be learned in the first three pages.

Trevor's thread is here:

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/motive-method-and-madness/7907-did-he-have-anatomical-knowledge

The medical part starts at around 19 minutes.

Best regards, George

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,



I know we've discussed this a few times, and I'm not expecting either of us to change our views, but I would like to point out that the recreations that I've done on the Mitre Square events are based upon Lawende's stated time of 1:35 (I didn't go with Levey's, which I have argued we have to also consider as important as Lawende's 1:35, which I see you agree with above, because I was testing the most constraining of conditions based upon the stated information). Anyway, as the recreations show, that leaves more than the longest estimate required for the murder and mutilations and organ harvesting given by any of the doctor's at the scene (the 5 minute window). Of course, doctors of 1888 didn't have the experience with mutilation serial killers that we now (unfortunately) have, but again, the purpose of the recreations was to see if the contemporary statements could simply not be made to work. And, they could; the latest time (Lawende's) combined with the longest required time (5 minutes) still left something like 25 seconds of wiggle room. Go with Sequeria's 3 minutes for the crime and we're well within range, and go with Levey's 3 minute wait and again, easy peasy with minutes to spare, use both and he could have done both Stride and Eddowes at the same time!

As for the notion of "if they left later ...", that's got the cart before the horse. If the Church Passage Couple (CPC) is not Eddowes and JtR, then they never entered the square, that's pretty clear, so when they move on is immaterial and from where Eddowes and JtR entered the square becomes the real question. Probably not Church Passage, but perhaps from the Orange Market (sheltering from the rain under the covering, perhaps, and at the far end hence not seen by Watkins), or by following PC Waitkins at a distance up Mitre Square. Take your pick.

If, however, the CPC was indeed Eddowes and JtR, then we know they have to have entered with sufficient time for what was done to get done. And so, if there was enough time provided they leave their spot no later than time X, then the evidence tells us they must have left no later than time X. You can't say "but if they left at X+3 minutes, then what happened couldn't have happened" given we know it did happen, unless you can prove otherwise. And you can't use time available as your proof, because then becomes a circular argument.

You need to demonstrate that the organs were not taken from the crime scene, not simply suggest that "well, if I don't give them enough time despite there being enough time available, I can now argue that what happened couldn't have happened". Problem is, there was enough time for what happened to have happened. And what happened, therefore, tells us the limits as to when they had to enter the square.

It would be like me arguing, well, if PC Watkin's just skipped his previous patrol of Mitre Square and went past it, and the CPC is not Eddowes and JtR, that means that Eddowes and JtR could be in the square an additional 12-14 minutes, making ample amount of time for the murder, mutilations, etc. If I were to suggest that, I'm sure you would say I was just making it up and was blinkered in my approach (and you would be right, because I just made that up now to drive the point home that when faced with the fact that there was enough time without such unsupported notions then it requires evidence to the contrary before you can use "not enough time" as an argument because there was enough time - simply saying that "well, if they didn't use all the time available, in that case there wouldn't be enough time ..." doesn't cut it - that's getting to both make up the evidence and then the explanation that goes with it.

Look, I fully agree with you on the point that the evidence is not definitive! I don't even begrudge you the idea of exploring alternative ideas to Jack taking the organs. But I don't think it does you any favours when given there was enough time available to fall back on "ok, sure, there was enough time, but I don't think they used it all because I think JtR didn't take the organs, and if he didn't use the time that was available that would prove my case, so I don't think he used all the time!"

Don't get me wrong, I agree nothing in the JtR series is definitive, but at the same time we can't play too fast and loose with what we have either. It starts looking like the theory is no longer tied to information, and that rarely leads to a correct solution.

- Jeff

Jeff
I am sorry to have to keep repeating this but you keep saying there is enough evidence to show the killer had sufficient time to murder mutilate and then remove the organs, if that be the case but it isn't because I have to ask you how long do you think it would have taken the killer the time to walk down Church passage into the square and to murder, mutilate and then remove these organs, because timings are crucial to these various stages of discussing this issue. This is a question that based on the evidence a definitive answer cannot be forthcoming because the times you seem to be working with are simply guesses on your part.

Whatever time you come up with is reliant on your guestimated timings. I accept that the couple were seen standing talking at 1.35 am I have seen no definitive evidence to suggest it was earlier, but all the permutations that have been put forward for timings thereafter are guesswork because we do not know what time the couple left the spot where they were stood talking, the later the time they moved into the square the less time the killer had to do all that you and others believed he did. I would concede that whatever time the couple entered the square there was sufficient time for the killer to murder and mutilate but to remove organs at high speed and with anatomical knowledge in almost total darkness is a step to far for me.

Sadly we have to go with the evidence as has been documented from back then, introducing personal views, opinions and alternative explanations is nothing more than conjecture.

Dr Sequira
. Where the murder was committed was probably the darkest part of the square, but there was sufficient light to enable the miscreant to perpetrate the deed. I think that the murderer had no design on any particular organ of the body. He was not possessed of any great anatomical skill.”

Yet Dr Brown would later say

“I believe the perpetrator of the act must have had considerable knowledge of the position of the organs in the abdominal cavity and the way of removing them. It required a great deal of medical knowledge to have removed the kidney and to know where it was placed

Coroner: Would you consider that the person who inflicted the wounds possessed anatomical skill?
Dr. Brown: He must have had a good deal of knowledge as to the position of the abdominal organs, and the way to remove them.

Coroner: Would the removal of the kidney, for example, require special knowledge?
Dr. Brown: It would require a good deal of knowledge as to its position, because it is apt to be overlooked, being covered by a membrane.

So we can rule out a slash and grab by the killer

Coroner: How long would it take to make the wounds?
Dr. Brown: It might be done in five minutes. It might take him longer; but that is the least time it could be done in.
Note the question is about the wounds not the removal of the organs

There are two more interesting quotes, one from Dr Brown, and a second from Dr Sequeira. Brown was asked a specific question by the reporter“How long would it have taken him (the killer) to mutilate the body as you found it” Brown replied “At least five minutes” Sequeira when asked the same question and states “three minutes”. This question and answers from both doctors are somewhat ambiguous because the term “As you found it” I would suggest refers to the crime scene, and has no bearing on the removal of the organs

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

Hi Trevor,

Jeff
I am sorry to have to keep repeating this but you keep saying there is enough evidence to show the killer had sufficient time to murder mutilate and then remove the organs, if that be the case but it isn't because I have to ask you how long do you think it would have taken the killer the time to walk down Church passage into the square and to murder, mutilate and then remove these organs, because timings are crucial to these various stages of discussing this issue. This is a question that based on the evidence a definitive answer cannot be forthcoming because the times you seem to be working with are simply guesses on your part.

This reminds me of a question I put to you years ago, that you refused to answer.

We both agree that JtR had the time to murder, cut up her face, put her intestines out, and perrform all those mutilations that we know ere done on Eddowes. All of that has to have been done at the crime scene. We know that.

All that is in contention are two additional things. Cut out the uterus (incompletely, as he left some of it behind), and and remove a kidney.

I will ask this question again. How much time do you believe those two additional steps require? Your argument is that he could do everything else, but not those two bits. How much time would he require to do those (and only those) two extra steps?

Whatever time you come up with is reliant on your guestimated timings.

At no point have I put my own estimates in. I've only used the times stated by the people present, and I've used the longest stated time in my recreations. I've seen modern forensic pathologists state that as little as 2 minutes total would be required. But I didn't go for the shortest time I could find, but the longest stated by those present. So if you wish to question the timings, then you are questioning the timing that you put forward as indicating it was not possible. What I have shown is that, even as stated, it is possible - meaning, the times all actually "fit", there is no need for postulating "post-crime scene organ theft" - it is simply not necessary given the statements we have to work with.
If you wish to argue the statements made are wrong, you need to prove that, but there are modern medical experts who agree the estimates are wrong, but not in the direction you need them to be wrong - they say less, not more, time was required. Others, of course, say more. Which just goes to show, even medical opinions can be cherry picked. What we have is a situation where it is clear that there is no reason to conclude there must be a problem unless evidence shows otherwise. You need to show evidence, not simply "what if's".

I accept that the couple were seen standing talking at 1.35 am I have seen no definitive evidence to suggest it was earlier,

Levey says 3-4 minutes.
Why is Lawende's 5 minutes considered "acceptable" but Levey's 3-4 minutes not? Shouldn't you say "I accept the couple were seen talking until sometime between 1:33 and 1:35 ..."?

but all the permutations that have been put forward for timings thereafter are guesswork because we do not know what time the couple left the spot where they were stood talking, the later the time they moved into the square the less time the killer had to do all that you and others believed he did.

Now you're back on the whole point I made earlier, so I'm just going to say "see earlier post"

I would concede that whatever time the couple entered the square there was sufficient time for the killer to murder and mutilate but to remove organs at high speed and with anatomical knowledge in almost total darkness is a step to far for me.

And now back to my first question above:
How much time do you think "organ removal" would add over and above everything else? At what point would the "time available" have to become for you to go "Ahhh, well, if there were that much time, then sure, he could have done it"

You've always refused to answer that question, saying you don't know, but if you don't know, then I ask you again, how then do you know there wasn't enough time in the first place?

Sadly we have to go with the evidence as has been documented from back then, introducing personal views, opinions and alternative explanations is nothing more than conjecture.

Which is exactly the information the recreation is based upon, and it shows that none of the stated information ends up indicating it couldn't have been done; organ removal and all.

Dr Sequira
. Where the murder was committed was probably the darkest part of the square, but there was sufficient light to enable the miscreant to perpetrate the deed. I think that the murderer had no design on any particular organ of the body. He was not possessed of any great anatomical skill.”

Yet Dr Brown would later say

“I believe the perpetrator of the act must have had considerable knowledge of the position of the organs in the abdominal cavity and the way of removing them. It required a great deal of medical knowledge to have removed the kidney and to know where it was placed

Coroner: Would you consider that the person who inflicted the wounds possessed anatomical skill?
Dr. Brown: He must have had a good deal of knowledge as to the position of the abdominal organs, and the way to remove them.

Coroner: Would the removal of the kidney, for example, require special knowledge?
Dr. Brown: It would require a good deal of knowledge as to its position, because it is apt to be overlooked, being covered by a membrane.

So we can rule out a slash and grab by the killer

Coroner: How long would it take to make the wounds?
Dr. Brown: It might be done in five minutes. It might take him longer; but that is the least time it could be done in.
Note the question is about the wounds not the removal of the organs

There are two more interesting quotes, one from Dr Brown, and a second from Dr Sequeira. Brown was asked a specific question by the reporter“How long would it have taken him (the killer) to mutilate the body as you found it” Brown replied “At least five minutes” Sequeira when asked the same question and states “three minutes”. This question and answers from both doctors are somewhat ambiguous because the term “As you found it” I would suggest refers to the crime scene, and has no bearing on the removal of the organs

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Basically, the statements from the day indicate there is no problem to solve. Sure, they could be wrong, but if they are, then demonstrate it. There are medical experts who say less time than either you or I think was required, and there are those who say more. As such, we're obviously at a point where medical experts, even modern ones, cannot agree on the time - therefore don't you think pushing for an unsupported idea that requires the time to be "more than available" might just be a bit .... risky?

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

We have recently participated in a thread that emphasised, using articles by experts in that area, that the skills of the Victorian doctors in producing ToD estimates was inferior to the modern methods. Trevor has put forward a video showing modern day experts, who have done thousands of autopsies, saying that removing Eddowes uterus, without damaging the bladder, and her kidney, plus the other mutilations could not be done in under 12 minutes under the conditions.

In 1888 the first appendectomy was yet to be performed and the average doctor had little to no autopsy experience. I have never witnessed a hysterectomy, but my daughter has participated in dozens of abdominal hysterectomies. She tells me that she has seen highly experienced surgeons, with full theatre lights, retractors and assistants, nick the bowel in this hour long procedure. Can it be suggested that the ripper achieved this procedure without damaging the bladder, kneeling in the dark, and neatly removed the kidney, and inflicted all the other injuries in 3-5 minutes.

There is an excellent thread by a former member, Prosector, who is a surgeon and a teacher here:

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/motive-method-and-madness/7907-did-he-have-anatomical-knowledge

It is a long thread, but there is much to be learned in the first three pages.

Trevor's thread is here:

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/motive-method-and-madness/7907-did-he-have-anatomical-knowledge

The medical part starts at around 19 minutes.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

The thing is, when he removed Kate's uterus he may not have damaged the bladder but he did leave part of it behind; possibily because he learned from his last attempt (Chapman) where he did damage the bladder! I find it hard to believe that a trained medical person, with time at the mortuary, would botch the uterus removal by leaving a portion in the body. That doesn't sound very "trained" to me.

As for the time required, I've seen various presentations where very experienced medical experts give all sorts of time estimations. The shortest being 2 minutes (that's for the whole thing - murder, mutilations, and organ removal), but I think this is the first who has suggested that at least 12 minutes would be required.

But we know there wasn't anywhere near 12 minutes (9 at the outside). If we split the 5.5 minutes minimum available, with the 9sh maximum, and call it 7.5 minutes, does that mean the experts are saying it would take in the vicinity of 5 minutes to perform 2 additional actions (1. cut out some of the uterus while leaving some behind and 2. remove one kidney - after the intestines and everything is out of the way after all). Those two "cuts" take 5 minutes?

Sorry, I'm not buying that bridge. Oh, what was the Aussie phrase you've used when you don't buy my suggestions? I do so want to use it now! ha ha

- Jeff

[Fleetwood Mac]

Note the question is about the wounds not the removal of the organs

It's a fair point/challenge given the question specifically mentioned 'wounds'.

But, I think there are pointers that suggest you're barking up the wrong tree on this one.

1) This was a part of the coroner/Dr Brown exchange:

Would you consider that the person who inflicted the wounds possessed anatomical skill? - He must have had a good deal of knowledge as to the position of the abdominal organs, and the way to remove them.

Here, the coroner specifically mentions wounds, but clearly he is including organ removal as part of the wounds. Dr Brown takes the question to mean that also, given that he specifically mentions organ removal in his response.

2) Dr Brown's post mortem report involved detailing all of the wounds, including organ removal. After detailing all of those wounds, including the organ removal, he goes onto say: it would take at least five minutes.

In his report he stated: I believe the perpetrator of the act must have had considerable knowledge of the position of the organs in the abdominal cavity and the way of removing them. It required a great deal of medical knowledge to have removed the kidney and to know where it was placed. The parts removed would be of no use for any professional purpose. I think the perpetrator of this act had sufficient time, or he would not have nicked the lower eyelids. It would take at least five minutes.

It looks highly probable that when the question of 'wounds' was put to Dr Brown, it included organ removal. Dr Brown understood it to mean that and responded with that in mind. At least 5 minutes for the lot.

Having said that: "at least 5 minutes", is not the same as saying: "in my view, it is likely this was done in 5 minutes". Dr Brown tells us "at least", which means the minimum time possible.

Given that, had the question been: "what is your opinion on how long this took", it is doubtful that Dr Brown would have responded: "5 minutes". A minimum time possible necessitates a maximum time possible and a more likely time somewhere in between.

Based on that, assuming Dr Brown was close to the mark in his views, I'd say there probably wasn't sufficient time for Joseph Lawende's couple to get into the square and the WM to leave prior to PC Watkins arriving. It's rendered improbable when you consider that they had to go into the square almost immediately upon the two Josephs passing, he had to get Catherine into the necessary position immediately, he had to decide to stay put when a policeman walked towards him with a lantern; he had to decide to take no notice when Morris opened his door which told him activity not too far away, and he had to choose to not leave by the closest exit. Even then, had it all worked like clockwork and he made all of those decisions, there still might not have been enough time (based on Dr Brown's view of how long it would have taken).

When you put it all together, it seems unlikely to me. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts (and all that).

[Trevor Marriott]

It's a fair point/challenge given the question specifically mentioned 'wounds'.

But, I think there are pointers that suggest you're barking up the wrong tree on this one.

1) This was a part of the coroner/Dr Brown exchange:

Would you consider that the person who inflicted the wounds possessed anatomical skill? - He must have had a good deal of knowledge as to the position of the abdominal organs, and the way to remove them.

Here, the coroner specifically mentions wounds, but clearly he is including organ removal as part of the wounds. Dr Brown takes the question to mean that also, given that he specifically mentions organ removal in his response.

But the coroner made no reference to organ removal you cannot say what was in the mind of the coroner when he asked that question neither can it be said that Dr Browns mention of the wounds refers to the removal of the organs, In both instances if as you say the coroner is referring to the wounds and the organs removals why did he not say that?

2) Dr Brown's post mortem report involved detailing all of the wounds, including organ removal. After detailing all of those wounds, including the organ removal, he goes onto say: it would take at least five minutes.

Yes he does say that and Dr Sequeira is asked the same question and what is his reply at least 3 mins

Are we seriously asked to belive that the doctors making these statements were both referring to the time it took the killer to murder mutilate and remove the organs?

In his report he stated: I believe the perpetrator of the act must have had considerable knowledge of the position of the organs in the abdominal cavity and the way of removing them. It required a great deal of medical knowledge to have removed the kidney and to know where it was placed. The parts removed would be of no use for any professional purpose. I think the perpetrator of this act had sufficient time, or he would not have nicked the lower eyelids. It would take at least five minutes.

It looks highly probable that when the question of 'wounds' was put to Dr Brown, it included organ removal. Dr Brown understood it to mean that and responded with that in mind. At least 5 minutes for the lot.

Thats conjecture on your part

Having said that: "at least 5 minutes", is not the same as saying: "in my view, it is likely this was done in 5 minutes". Dr Brown tells us "at least", which means the minimum time possible.

So if that be the minimum time how long would it have taken given the conditions of the body and the lack of light?

Based on that, assuming Dr Brown was close to the mark in his views, I'd say there probably wasn't sufficient time for Joseph Lawende's couple to get into the square and the WM to leave prior to PC Watkins arriving. It's rendered improbable when you consider that they had to go into the square almost immediately upon the two Josephs passing, he had to get Catherine into the necessary position immediately, he had to decide to stay put when a policeman walked towards him with a lantern; he had to decide to take no notice when Morris opened his door which told him activity not too far away, and he had to choose to not leave by the closest exit. Even then, had it all worked like clockwork and he made all of those decisions, there still might not have been enough time (based on Dr Brown's view of how long it would have taken).

When you put it all together, it seems unlikely to me. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts (and all that).

To me the whole suggestion that the killer removed the organs is highly unlikely

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk