Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Police Patrols Timings

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

  • #31
    [Coroner] 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.

    And -
    [Coroner] Have you any opinion as to what position the woman was in when the wounds were inflicted? - In my opinion the woman must have been lying down. The way in which the kidney was cut out showed that it was done by somebody who knew what he was about.

    Maybe I am missing something, but it seems to me that at Kate's inquest Dr Brown believed that the person who murdered Kate also took out the Kidney.
    Regards Darryl

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
      [Coroner] 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.

      And -
      [Coroner] Have you any opinion as to what position the woman was in when the wounds were inflicted? - In my opinion the woman must have been lying down. The way in which the kidney was cut out showed that it was done by somebody who knew what he was about.

      Maybe I am missing something, but it seems to me that at Kate's inquest Dr Brown believed that the person who murdered Kate also took out the Kidney.
      Regards Darryl
      It doesnt automatically follow that it was the killer with the anatomical knowledge. The doctors had no choice when doing the post mortem to assume that the organs had been taken away by the killer, but there is an alternative explantion for how the organs were taken and not by the killer

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

      Comment


      • #33
        Allow me to ask a simple question. If organ removal was at the mortuary (for selling, presumably), why weren't all organs taken ? Or if the answer to that is some are more valuable, why weren't those ones always removed ?

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
          Hello Dick.

          What is believed by most is that the victims, being prostitutes, would have a better knowledge of any constable's beat on their patch. The prostitute will choose to take their customer to a dark corner just after the beat constable had left, giving them maximum time for the 'transaction'. Jack did not need to know the beat times.

          I'm not so sure about needing extra ordinary sight at night, most of what the killer did was possible by touch alone, but we shouldn't believe he operated in total darkness either. Even in Mitre Sq, his darkest location, the corner was not totally dark.
          The Ripper did not just act at night, he acted on nights that were darker than average.

          I agree that the prostitutes would know the best places to be uninterrupted, but the Ripper also showed an ability to slip away undetected in the Nichols, Stride, and Eddowes killings. That could mean better than average knowledge of the area, better than average senses, luck, or a combination of the three.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Fiver View Post

            The Ripper did not just act at night, he acted on nights that were darker than average.

            I agree that the prostitutes would know the best places to be uninterrupted, but the Ripper also showed an ability to slip away undetected in the Nichols, Stride, and Eddowes killings. That could mean better than average knowledge of the area, better than average senses, luck, or a combination of the three.
            Interesting, thanks. I had the idea he only operated on rainy nights for some reason.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Dickere View Post
              Allow me to ask a simple question. If organ removal was at the mortuary (for selling, presumably), why weren't all organs taken ? Or if the answer to that is some are more valuable, why weren't those ones always removed ?
              Female organs were in greater demand

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                Female organs were in greater demand.
                Feel free to provide evidence that female organs were in greater demand.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Hi Trevor,

                  Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                  Hi Jeff

                  If the uterus had been found missing he would have said so, and then the coroner would not have asked if they dropped out in transit to the mortuary, because he would said he found them missing when he examined the body at the crime scene.

                  Yes, I can see how a counter-argument could be built from that. Of course, the coroner wasn't at the scene, and Dr. Brown confirmed nothing could have dropped out, so he answered the question asked. Whether or not he would have added the detail that the uterus was noted as missing at the crime scene is conjecture, though I accept that it does seem reasonable to presume he would have. But not mentioning it doesn't mean he didn't do it and note it. He may have felt that his post-mortem evidence, being the official examination, combined with his testimony of assurance that nothing "fell off the cart", was more than enough to establish that the organs were taken by the killer.

                  As I say, I'm not stating as a fact that the doctors did check and determine uterus was definitely known to be missing at the scene of Eddowes' murder. I'm suggesting those actions are reasonable given the prior murders, Chapman's especially.

                  Dr Brown gives a detailed report of how he found the body at the crime scene, Having found the abdomen ripped open would you not have thought that he would checked to see if the uterus was missing and if he found it was, it would have been in his testiimony, but nowhere is there any mention throughout his testimony of them being found missing at the crime scene,

                  And nowhere is there any mention the organs were present - you cannot demonstrate the organs were at the crime scene. You can only speculate they were, and so, I can counter speculation with speculation. And speculating that the doctor's did more than stand around twiddling their thumbs but actually did an examination of the body at the crime scene doesn't seem to be a huge leap of faith. Speculating that the organs were present, later stolen, and none were the wiser seems more of a stretch to me.

                  I can be sure because Dr Brown`s testimony on oath tells us that he did not carry out a full examination at the crime scene otherwise he would have recorded that fact and would have discovered the uterus missing after all it would not have been difficult because the intestines that are located near to the uterus were already out of the abdomen.

                  Nobody is claiming he did a full examination, but as you say, the intestines were removed, etc, so it wouldn't take much to note that the uterus was missing, or at least to note there was enough damage to suggest it might be. His testimony based upon his full and detailed post-mortem would present to the inquest the official examination. The crime scene examination would not be necessary to present the medical evidence. Crime scenes were not examined the way they are today after all.

                  Dont be sorry I should be saying that to you because your attempt at showing the organs qwere missing at the crime scene has yet again sunk without trace

                  Its not speculation it is a fact, which is borne out by no medical evidence to show the organs were found missing from the body at the crime scene that is something you have to accept but it seems you dont want to and are still prepared tp prop up the old acceptes theory

                  Sigh, no Trevor, you are speculating the organs were present, unless of course you can produce an official record that shows they were actually present. But there are no more records of them being present than there are for my speculation that the doctors at the crime scene examined the body and noted the uterus was missing.

                  The difference between us is that I clearly recognize I'm speculating, and make it clear in my posts that is what I'm doing (though oddly, your replies always sound like you think I'm presenting things in definite terms, which I would be wrong to do). I know you have no intention to discontinue propping up your theory, but I still think, if we're both going to speculate, that my speculation that doctors known to be at the scene might have actually checked on the state of the body somehow feels more plausible to me than your speculation they did not examine the body and that at least two thieves, neither of which is even known to exist, stole organs from two successive murders (three if we count Kelly's missing heart). But clearly, our opinions differ on that.
                  - Jeff

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                    Feel free to provide evidence that female organs were in greater demand.
                    female Historian Elizabeth Hurren has published several books on Victorian Body dealers and the illicit trade in body parts especiallu female body parts, a short extract from one of her books

                    "Female body parts were highly prized and fetched a high price on the black market This led to a rise in female body dealers"

                    "
                    The dealing in bodies and body parts involved a complex supply chain starting with undertakers, mortuary attendants, infirmary porters, and nurses who would all alert a body dealer of a death, and then they would be paid by the body dealer for that information, or in the case of a mortuary attendant allowing access to a mortuary to simply remove body parts from a dead body, as body parts were more lucrative acquisitions than a whole body"

                    "The hospitals where the bodies and body parts were subsequently sold to were required to keep records of the transactions for the benefit of the authorities, but very few transactions were recorded"


                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                      The Ripper did not just act at night, he acted on nights that were darker than average.

                      I agree that the prostitutes would know the best places to be uninterrupted, but the Ripper also showed an ability to slip away undetected in the Nichols, Stride, and Eddowes killings. That could mean better than average knowledge of the area, better than average senses, luck, or a combination of the three.
                      Hi Fiver,

                      The killer may only have needed to know the main thoroughfares, such as the Whitechapel Road, Commercial Rd, Commercial Street, Brick Lane, Aldgate or Bishopsgate, where he might expect to encounter a street walker, and if the woman was willing to go off with him, she would do the rest, leading him by the shortest route to where she knew they could be uninterrupted for as long as it took to do what either of them intended. No more difficult for a murderer than for a punter to retrace his steps after the deed and find himself back on the main road where he started.

                      I wonder if night vision might have been better in those days, when they were used to street lighting that left a lot to be desired. I suspect we would struggle more today if we ventured out at midnight in a power cut for example. There are no street lights where our friends live, just a few streets from us, and we need a torch when we leave their place late at night, even when the skies are clear and full of stars.

                      Love,

                      Caz
                      X
                      "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                        Feel free to provide evidence that female organs were in greater demand.
                        I would also ask Trev to provide evidence that female organs taken from dirt poor, middle-aged murder victims were in particular demand.

                        Love,

                        Caz
                        X
                        "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by caz View Post

                          I would also ask Trev to provide evidence that female organs taken from dirt poor, middle-aged murder victims were in particular demand.

                          Love,

                          Caz
                          X
                          For medical research purposes in 1888 a female organ in particular is simply a female organ, it is immaterial as to who it came from.

                          The quality of the organ would be determined at its final destination and not at the time it was either removed, or acquired by a body dealer.

                          If the organ was removed at the mortuary as I postulate the antecedents of the victim may not have been known at the time of removal.

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                          Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 06-10-2021, 01:20 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                            Female organs were in greater demand

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                            Yes so why weren't all their organs removed ? You'd take all you could, not just an odd one or two.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Dickere View Post

                              Yes so why weren't all their organs removed ? You'd take all you could, not just an odd one or two.
                              See post #39

                              There is only one uterus to be found in a female which is not found in a male so that makes it unique and in great demand for medical research. The rest of the organs are found in both males and females and in not so demand.

                              I would suggest the same scenario would apply to the torsos where all the heads were found missing. The brain has been a mystery to reserchers and still is today.But I do not think any of these were murder victims.

                              Again single body parts were in more demand than the actual bodies. It made it easier to simply take what was needed and dispose of what was not.

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                I think there is a pretty good chance JtR had at least a rough idea on patrol timings, especially if he was a local. He could even have been scoping out the areas first if he falls into the category of an organised serial killer, which in my eyes he does.
                                Best Regards,

                                Tristan

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X