Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim?

[Trevor Marriott]

It takes no longer to hack out a uterus now than it would have done in 1888.

Your term "hacking" no one else has used that term, I think you are a little biased towards to the old accepted theory.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Can you point out where Dr Brown says this please?

His inquest testimony

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Joshua Rogan]

Dont forget Dr Browns expert tried in haste to remove a uterus, under what conditions we know not, and that took him three minutes and in doing so he damaged the bladder, something the person who removed the uterus from Eddowes managed to avoid doing.

Can you point out where Dr Brown says this please?

[Sam Flynn]

It takes no longer to hack out a uterus now than it would have done in 1888.

[Trevor Marriott]

3 minutes is a verrrrry long time to cut out what is ostensibly a piece of meat. Once located - which should be fairly easy to do - and held with one hand, I would be extremely surprised if it took more than a few seconds to cut through the vagina/cervix with the other.

Sam
We have gone over this many times. You are entitled to your opinion

However, we can only work with what we have from 1888.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

Look at what you wrote " I suspect you could have a kidney out in a few minutes, even in darkness"

Few minutes 2,3,4 ? then add to that the time to remove the uterus, 3.4 min.

3 minutes is a verrrrry long time to cut out what is ostensibly a piece of meat. Once located - which should be fairly easy to do - and held with one hand, I would be extremely surprised if it took more than a few seconds to cut through the vagina/cervix with the other.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor. Perhaps a frenzied maniac with a very sharp knife (and the will) could probably remove an organ much quicker than a trained surgeon conducting a skilled, controlled procedure.

Psychotic, violent, depraved, fearless, physically strong, anatomically curious, knew how to use a knife. With that combination I suspect you could have a kidney out in a few minutes, even in darkness.

Hi

The cut and slash theory is nothing new, and Eddowes was killed in a frenzied attack, with that in mind the killer would have then had to effectively switch that frenzy off to be able to calm down to then remove the organs as was described.

Anatomically curious is a bit different to having anatomical knowledge I would suggest. There are three anatomical skills, the first is being able to know what you are looking for, and to be able to then locate what you are looking for, given the lack of light at the crime scene and the condition of the abdomen after it being ripped open and stabbed. Thirdly there is the skill that would be needed to remove them.

Dont forget Dr Browns expert tried in haste to remove a uterus, under what conditions we know not, and that took him three minutes and in doing so he damaged the bladder, something the person who removed the uterus from Eddowes managed to avoid doing.

For the killer to have been able to remove the organs from Eddowes based on the above I would suggest he would have to have had as much if not more medical expertise than Dr Browns expert, having regard to the actual known time the killer had with the victim

Look at what you wrote " I suspect you could have a kidney out in a few minutes, even in darkness"

Few minutes 2,3,4 ? then add to that the time to remove the uterus, 3.4 min. then add to that the time to walk down into the square, then add to that the time to kill and mutilate, then add to that the time to rifle the victims pockets, and playing devils advocate to please some, the time to cut the apron. Did the killer really have enough time to do all of that ?

Might I suggest you take time to read the chapter on Eddowes murder which is in my book Jack the Ripper-The real truth" in which I have set out in great detail a time line regarding Eddowes murder in Mitre Square.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Jack-Ripper-Truth-Trevor-Marriott/dp/1728912997/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1543046190&sr=1-1

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[J6123]

Hi

However if the organs were taken as trophies at the crime scenes the we first have to ask did the killer have time to take them?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor. Perhaps a frenzied maniac with a very sharp knife (and the will) could probably remove an organ much quicker than a trained surgeon conducting a skilled, controlled procedure.

Psychotic, violent, depraved, fearless, physically strong, anatomically curious, knew how to use a knife. With that combination I suspect you could have a kidney out in a few minutes, even in darkness.

[Wickerman]

From what Phillips said (as recorded in some of the dailies incidentally), there's nothing like "obviously the work of an expert", "one sweep of a knife", etc. That smacks clearly of purple prose with more than a hint of sensationalism, which doesn't strike me as the good doctor's style. Besides, as I've intimated, the Lancet doesn't even suggest that these were his words in any case.

I certainly agree that the Lancet only provided paraphrase. In fact it begins with, "he stated that.....", and then proceeds to describe the gory details.
So the Lancet are not using any verbatim words from Phillips that we know of. Which brings us to the next problem, where you say:
"...there's nothing like "obviously the work of an expert", "one sweep of a knife", etc."
This is likely more paraphrase, and I think we both agree Phillips was not so dramatic in his statements.
Also, there's nothing like it because the entire paragraph (or more) was edited out, so we can't say what Phillips alluded to in the missing portions of his testimony.

[Sam Flynn]

The press coverage of the Chapman inquest appears to have a break in the testimony following women & children being removed in preparation of the release of the horrific details.

The Lancet could have used testimony given by Phillips at that point.
No newspaper choose to publish those details offered by Phillips, but a Lancet reporter may have been present.
Or, one of the dailies may have passed their verbatim record over to the Lancet for them to publish?

From what Phillips said (as recorded in some of the dailies incidentally), there's nothing like "obviously the work of an expert", "one sweep of a knife", etc. That smacks clearly of purple prose with more than a hint of sensationalism, which doesn't strike me as the good doctor's style. Besides, as I've intimated, the Lancet doesn't even suggest that these were his words in any case.

[Wickerman]

Phillips did not say that. The quote is not from Dr Phillips, but is an "opinion piece" written by an editorial writer for the Lancet, link below:

https://www.casebook.org/press_repor...cet880929.html

Gareth.

The press coverage of the Chapman inquest appears to have a break in the testimony following women & children being removed in preparation of the release of the horrific details.

The BMJ made reference to this omission but only paraphrased the details:
The reposts published in the daily press are incomplete. It is there desirable to state that the parts removed were a certain portion of the abdominal wall, including the navel; two thirds of the bladder (posterior and upper portions); the upper third of the vagina and its connection with the uterus; and the whole of the uterus.

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/british_medical_journal/bmj880922.html

The Lancet could have used testimony given by Phillips at that point.
No newspaper choose to publish those details offered by Phillips, but a Lancet reporter may have been present.
Or, one of the dailies may have passed their verbatim record over to the Lancet for them to publish?

[Sam Flynn]

In the Inquest Sam he does say in response to the coroners question... "Was there any anatomical knowledge displayed? -Phillips: I think there was. There were indications of it...."

Quite, but the specific passage you quoted is definitely the work of an editorial writer for the Lancet, not George Bagster Phillips. It has been misconstrued for far too long as a direct quote from Dr Phillips, which it wasn't, and which - in fairness - it never pretended to be.

[Michael W Richards]

It could just as easily have come from newspaper reports or clubroom gossip. It's noteworthy that the editorial also references what Wynne Baxter said and did at the inquest, so it's obviously not based on an interview with either Baxter or Phillips, just on a report (or reports) of the proceedings.

The Lancet editorial certainly doesn't claim to have been based an interview with either man, so the time-honoured tradition of turning those words into a direct Phillips quote is entirely without foundation.
The author certainly zhoozhed it up - "one sweep of the knife", indeed!

In the Inquest Sam he does say in response to the coroners question... "Was there any anatomical knowledge displayed? -Phillips: I think there was. There were indications of it. My own impression is that that anatomical knowledge was only less displayed or indicated in consequence of haste. The person evidently was hindered from making a more complete dissection in consequence of the haste.
[Coroner] Was the whole of the body there? - No; the absent portions being from the abdomen.
[Coroner] Are those portions such as would require anatomical knowledge to extract? - I think the mode in which they were extracted did show some anatomical knowledge.

The quote I used was a portion of what exists in the Victims files under Chapman and it is not attributed, so I assume that the Lancet was the source?

[Abby Normal]

When I look at Napper Caz I see almost a reflection to what I believe Jack to be. Just a personal thought.

more like mullin or chase, maybe Chikitilo.

for the ripper think more like dahmer, gein, william suff.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Michael, I really would urge you to look up the case of Robert Napper, and particularly his murders of Rachel Nickell in 1992 [outdoors, overkill, stabbed forty-nine times] and Samantha Bisset in 1993 [indoors, stabbed in the neck and chest, mutilated, body parts taken away as trophies]. You may think one 'does not equate' with the other, but Napper evidently didn't give a rat's arse what others might think. And ask yourself what 'purpose' he had for any of it. At least you have his identity and he is still alive so you'd have a better shot at your own question than trying to fathom the mind of the man who killed Kelly and took her apart.

I doubt very much that Napper had read about Martha Tabram and Mary Kelly, considered the differences in the handiwork and decided to do something similar himself. And it's a dead cert that whoever killed Tabram and Kelly did not see into the future and decide to beat Napper to it.

So how can we easily dismiss the possibility that a man with a mind similar to Napper's was active in London a century before him, and could therefore have been responsible for both ?

Love,

Caz
X

When I look at Napper Caz I see almost a reflection to what I believe Jack to be. Just a personal thought.