Jack the Ripper-The Secret Police Files

[John G]

Sorry Steve, I do need to press you a little on this. What do you mean by that? Our eyes adapt to low light today don't they? Our pupils expand and contract according to the light available right? So if we are plunged into low light, at first we might not be able to see very much but then our eyes will adjust after a few minutes.

Now Pierre says that there were people working in "complete darkness" in the British Empire and Phil responds by saying that Pierre has "a point worth thinking about" because our eyes are "accustomed" to bright light whereas in the Victorian period their eyes would be "more accustomed" to less light. But surely the working of our eyes is exactly the same today as it was 125 years ago isn't it? Regardless of what one is "accustomed" to, the eyes work in exactly the same way, adjusting to the amount of light available.

But if you are saying that people could actually see better in low light during the Victorian period than we can today, is there any scientific basis for this?

That is the question I was asking Phil although, for some reason, he described my post as "childish".



Sure but you do know I wasn't responding to any of your posts don't you?



Perhaps not in the case of Eddowes but surely almost complete darkness in the case of Nichols, bearing in mind the testimony of Cross and Paul?

Merry Christmas by the way Steve!

Merry Christmas, David. And, in the final words of many a House of Lords/Supreme Court justice, "I have nothing useful to add."

[David Orsam]

Thats ok David, no problem

True, and I am not talking about the ability to see better or not, more the ability to function better in low light,

Let me give an example, working in research i at times had to work in reversed lighting situations, that is the room where you are working is in full darkness during working hours, the only light available is low level red,

For the first few days carrying out tasks is difficult, but with time you perform better, its not eyesight as such, but a learned adaption.

Yes I understand that perfectly; and if the light had been very bright no doubt the same would have been true and if you had been working in conditions of loud music or with explosions going off around, your performance would have improved each time too.

I think an improved performance of a specific task after a few days is rather different to what Pierre and Phil were saying, whereby the point was that people who spent their lives in low light would have a better ability to see in low light (and Phil expressly told me there was a scientific basis to this whereby living in darkness would improve your eyesight contrary to what happens in nature to animals, who tend to go blind).

What I mean is that if Jack the Ripper existed today and did a few practice runs in the night he would then be at the same level of performance as anyone in 1888, regardless of how used they were to low light and how used they were to working in "complete darkness". There never is an improvement in eyesight, just an improvement of psychological ability to function in difficult conditions.

[Elamarna]

Sorry Steve, I do need to press you a little on this. What do you mean by that? Our eyes adapt to low light today don't they? Our pupils expand and contract according to the light available right? So if we are plunged into low light, at first we might not be able to see very much but then our eyes will adjust after a few minutes.

Thats ok David, no problem

True, and I am not talking about the ability to see better or not, more the ability to function better in low light,

Let me give an example, working in research i at times had to work in reversed lighting situations, that is the room where you are working is in full darkness during working hours, the only light available is low level red,

For the first few days carrying out tasks is difficult, but with time you perform better, its not eyesight as such, but a learned adaption.

Now Pierre says that there were people working in "complete darkness" in the British Empire and Phil responds by saying that Pierre has "a point worth thinking about" because our eyes are "accustomed" to bright light whereas in the Victorian period their eyes would be "more accustomed" to less light. But surely the working of our eyes is exactly the same today as it was 125 years ago isn't it? Regardless of what one is "accustomed" to, the eyes work in exactly the same way, adjusting to the amount of light available.

But if you are saying that people could actually see better in low light during the Victorian period than we can today, is there any scientific basis for this?

No i am not, even if it may sound close, I believe for instance that those working constantly in low light, could perform tasks better than those who did not, however it was not just about adaption of eyesight, but a learned adaption to function better in those conditions.

That is the question I was asking Phil although, for some reason, he described my post as "childish".



Sure but you do know I wasn't responding to any of your posts don't you?

Yes I do, but i raised the issue to start which Pierre then took in a somewhat different direction and just wanted to make my view clear.

Perhaps not in the case of Eddowes but surely almost complete darkness in the case of Nichols, bearing in mind the testimony of Cross and Paul?

Fair point, but I was specifically talking about Eddowes and the "expert" comments on such in Trevor's book

Merry Christmas by the way Steve!

same to you


steve

[Elamarna]

I presume that is aimed at me ?

I note that you choose to make no comment on the valid points I raised with regards to my reply to one of your replies to mine, and that is with regards to the medical experts and what they say, and how they conflict.

Was that because you concur with me ?


I think it is very clear from my various replies that I think that there is much conflict, which calls the importance of any of the comments into question.


The relevant passage from my reply was

"I refer to the skill and expertise of modern day experts who say 5 mins would be enough time for them to carry out the murder and removal, but of course we have to except that unless the killer was surgeon of the highest calibre in 1888 on a par with our modern day experts then 5 mins would not be enough time, so there can be no comparisons"

No we do not have to accept that he was a sugeon of the highest standing. Despite what you claim your butcher said he maybe able to do it, unfortunately his comments about time and light were not specific, and the 5 minutes you quote is not and cannot be set in stone.

And Dr Biggs does not think the killer had any such skills does he?

Especially taking into account Dr Browns own medical expert who struggled to remove one organ in 5 minutes let alone 2, and in doing so managed to damage that organ. Now this experiment by Browns expert is the best of the evidence, because is shows the level of skill and expertise Victorian doctors had at that time, as against their modern counterparts who are at time very gung go in their approach to these points raised.


Total irrelevant has I have explained before. 1 experimental test is not valid. Variables undocumented.
Can you provide a scientific report of the said test?
Were the details ever published?
I ask as I do not know.

Again doctors carry out surgery completely differently from how the murder may have worked. So do we know what the brief the expert was working to?
Without this information the experiment is of limited use same as the modern day one.

It is also interesting that you see fit to cherry pick the information. You are doing this over and over again. Accepting any comments which fit your theories and either ignoring or as here rejecting that which does not.
You previously said you used these experts because you did not have the specific knowledge to address the issues
Yet now it seems you have enough knowledge to reject views from said experts.




Reminds me of the gynaecologist who claimed he was so good, he could wallpaper his hall through the letterbox !

I also refer you to the interview Dr Brown gave to the press "before" he carried out the post mortem, and before any organs were found to be missing"

THE STAR NEWSPAPER - OCT 1ST

INTERVIEW WITH Dr BROWN
(Prior to conducting post mortem)

Q "How long would it have taken him ("the killer"- my emphasis) to mutilate the body as you found it?“

A "At least five minutes."

He quotes the same in his official witness testimony !

So there has been no cherry picking it is a fact that if the witness timings are to be believed and I have seen no "data" or "sources" to suggest they should not be then I think it is right to assume that the killer did not have enough time, or light available to him to have removed those organs un-aided, at the crime scene in 5 minutes.




Where to start, again trying to claim because there is no specific mention of organ missing at the scene it somehow proves they were there.

This has been debated with you time and time again and only you appear to interpret the inquest testimony in this way.
On top of which the loaded question given to Dr Biggs when he clear said all could be done at site was truly laughable; so transparent an attempt to get the answer YOU WANTED!

Of course you are Cherry picking. You accept the time of 5mins but reject opinion, based on expertise you do not have, which says the timing was sufficient to inflict all the wounds and mutilations, it's in your book yet you reject it!

What expertise are you using for this analysis?

The 5 minutes is the minimum Brown says.
His view is back specifically by Neale and not disagreed with by Biggs.

Research other than your own bias calculations demonstrate that there was at least a 5 minute window and probably more.

As for sources we have the primary one from Dr sequeira that there was sufficient light. What else do you want?


The fact you have decided that only your view is correct is poor judgement for a researcher demonstrating an incredible level of bias, which means the good work in getting data is completely devalued.


There has to be definitive answer eithee he did or he didnt !



Yes the light was good enough and he had enough time.

So yes he did!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor I am really at a loss with your aproach to this.
Are you really so fixed that you cannot see any position as having value other than your own?


Steve

[David Orsam]

It is possible to adapt a little to low light,

Sorry Steve, I do need to press you a little on this. What do you mean by that? Our eyes adapt to low light today don't they? Our pupils expand and contract according to the light available right? So if we are plunged into low light, at first we might not be able to see very much but then our eyes will adjust after a few minutes.

Now Pierre says that there were people working in "complete darkness" in the British Empire and Phil responds by saying that Pierre has "a point worth thinking about" because our eyes are "accustomed" to bright light whereas in the Victorian period their eyes would be "more accustomed" to less light. But surely the working of our eyes is exactly the same today as it was 125 years ago isn't it? Regardless of what one is "accustomed" to, the eyes work in exactly the same way, adjusting to the amount of light available.

But if you are saying that people could actually see better in low light during the Victorian period than we can today, is there any scientific basis for this?

That is the question I was asking Phil although, for some reason, he described my post as "childish".

my main point was to show that with the use of 5 experts we get different views of what was possible and that is why i like to see more than 1 expert used.

Sure but you do know I wasn't responding to any of your posts don't you?

I would agree that one cannot work in complete darkness, however i don't think that is an accurate description of the conditions

Perhaps not in the case of Eddowes but surely almost complete darkness in the case of Nichols, bearing in mind the testimony of Cross and Paul?

Merry Christmas by the way Steve!

[John G]

yes,

just my point and although I took issue with Pierre over his need for medical historians, he does have a point that when one looks at the comments as a whole, there is nothing which can be regarded as being more authoritative than the rest.

One thing that is clear, with all the expert comment, is that some issues have been pressed while others have been ignored because they do not fit certain theories.


Steve

Hi Steve,

Yes, I would generally agree with this. For instance, some experts haven't had the opportunity to view the bodies, so are therefore dependent on analysing reports that may be ambiguous and even inaccurate, i.e. possibly containing exaggerations, such as the aforementioned comment by Dr Phillips.

By the way, Merry Christmas, Steve.

[John G]

As an aside, I would just like to point out that my favourite suspect, Francis Thompson, trained for six years as a surgeon.

Apologies for the self indulgence, but it is Christmas, after all!

[Trevor Marriott]

One thing that is clear, with all the expert comment, is that some issues have been pressed while others have been ignored because they do not fit certain theories. Steve

I presume that is aimed at me ?

I note that you choose to make no comment on the valid points I raised with regards to my reply to one of your replies to mine, and that is with regards to the medical experts and what they say, and how they conflict.

Was that because you concur with me ?

The relevant passage from my reply was

"I refer to the skill and expertise of modern day experts who say 5 mins would be enough time for them to carry out the murder and removal, but of course we have to except that unless the killer was surgeon of the highest calibre in 1888 on a par with our modern day experts then 5 mins would not be enough time, so there can be no comparisons"

Especially taking into account Dr Browns own medical expert who struggled to remove one organ in 5 minutes let alone 2, and in doing so managed to damage that organ. Now this experiment by Browns expert is the best of the evidence, because is shows the level of skill and expertise Victorian doctors had at that time, as against their modern counterparts who are at time very gung go in their approach to these points raised.

Reminds me of the gynaecologist who claimed he was so good, he could wallpaper his hall through the letterbox !

I also refer you to the interview Dr Brown gave to the press "before" he carried out the post mortem, and before any organs were found to be missing"

THE STAR NEWSPAPER - OCT 1ST

INTERVIEW WITH Dr BROWN
(Prior to conducting post mortem)

Q "How long would it have taken him ("the killer"- my emphasis) to mutilate the body as you found it?“

A "At least five minutes."

He quotes the same in his official witness testimony !

So there has been no cherry picking it is a fact that if the witness timings are to be believed and I have seen no "data" or "sources" to suggest they should not be then I think it is right to assume that the killer did not have enough time, or light available to him to have removed those organs un-aided, at the crime scene in 5 minutes.

There has to be definitive answer eithee he did or he didnt !

Enjoy your christmas day

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

Interestingly Neale concluded that the removal of the kidney required more skill than the removal of the uterus, even going as far as stating, "it would require more medical knowledge to understand the need to severe the mesentery of the in order to identify the kidney and remove it". (The emphasis is mine), (Marriott, 2013).

Moreover, whereas Harrison and Calder seem to have concluded that the organs were skilfully removed because of the lack of damage to adjacent tissues, neither Biggs nor Neale seem to have considered, or at least addressed, this point.

yes,

just my point and although I took issue with Pierre over his need for medical historians, he does have a point that when one looks at the comments as a whole, there is nothing which can be regarded as being more authoritative than the rest.

One thing that is clear, with all the expert comment, is that some issues have been pressed while others have been ignored because they do not fit certain theories.


Steve

[John G]

Yes Harrison does, but he assumes very dark and a certain sized blade.

Biggs does suggest what you post, but also adds in his opinion all was possible, Neale is very strong in supporting the views and timings of those present in 1888, that is that all was done to Eddowes in the Square, in the time available,


The reason i posted in the first place is that this use of experts shows to a great extent the varying views and we should not just accept all one person says.


Steve

Hi Steve,

Interestingly Neale concluded that the removal of the kidney required more skill than the removal of the uterus, even going as far as stating, "it would require more medical knowledge to understand the need to severe the mesentery of the in order to identify the kidney and remove it". (The emphasis is mine), (Marriott, 2013).

Moreover, whereas Harrison and Calder seem to have concluded that the organs were skilfully removed because of the lack of damage to adjacent tissues, neither Biggs nor Neale seem to have considered, or at least addressed, this point.

[Elamarna]

But wouldn't they be people who have better eyesight in normal light?

I mean aren't you just saying that some people have better eyesight then others?

Pierre's point was this:

"There are other people who were used to working in darkness. Sometimes in complete darkness.

And in that era in the British empire, there were other people working in almost total darkness and even in complete darkness sometimes. Do not forget that."
To the extent that he is trying to say that someone can see and perform complex operations in "complete darkness" (especially to the extent that someone might have developed the ability to do so) it's just nonsense isn't it?

[/QUOTE]
It is possible to adapt a little to low light, and yes I am saying some have better than others, my main point was to show that with the use of 5 experts we get different views of what was possible and that is why i like to see more than 1 expert used.

I would agree that one cannot work in complete darkness, however i don't think that is an accurate description of the conditions

steve

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

But wasn't Philip Harrison arguing that it would be virtually impossible to expertly remove the organs within the likely timeframe, and taking into account the relatively poor lighting, i.e. without damaging adjacent tissues?

On the other hand, Dr Biggs seems to be saying that the medical reports are too "vague and ambiguous" to draw any firm conclusions (and, as I've noted before, I consider Dr Phillips "one sweep of the knife" conclusion to be highly dubious.) As he notes in respect of Eddowes: "It is a question as to whether the uterus and kidney were 'surgically' removed, or was it just the case that large chunks of these organs were hacked out by an 'unskilled' person." (Marriott, 2013).

Yes Harrison does, but he assumes very dark and a certain sized blade.

Biggs does suggest what you post, but also adds in his opinion all was possible, Neale is very strong in supporting the views and timings of those present in 1888, that is that all was done to Eddowes in the Square, in the time available,


The reason i posted in the first place is that this use of experts shows to a great extent the varying views and we should not just accept all one person says.


Steve

[Joshua Rogan]

On the contrary, what Sequeira is saying is, "no particular organ", not no intent to remove any organ, which is what you seem to be implying.

All Sequeira is responding to is the theory espoused by Wynne Baxter only 4 days prior to this murder - that there was a market for the uterus.

Dr Brown was also asked about this;

"[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. "

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

But wasn't Philip Harrison arguing that it would be virtually impossible to expertly remove the organs within the likely timeframe, and taking into account the relatively poor lighting, i.e. without damaging adjacent tissues?

On the other hand, Dr Biggs seems to be saying that the medical reports are too "vague and ambiguous" to draw any firm conclusions (and, as I've noted before, I consider Dr Phillips "one sweep of the knife" conclusion to be highly dubious.) As he notes in respect of Eddowes: "It is a question as to whether the uterus and kidney were 'surgically' removed, or was it just the case that large chunks of these organs were hacked out by an 'unskilled' person." (Marriott, 2013).

Yes john

That the point Trevor hataken cherry picking to a new hight

[Wickerman]

Sequeira`s comments tend to point to the fact that organ harvesting was not the motive.

On the contrary, what Sequeira is saying is, "no particular organ", not no intent to remove any organ, which is what you seem to be implying.

All Sequeira is responding to is the theory espoused by Wynne Baxter only 4 days prior to this murder - that there was a market for the uterus.
Sequeira suggested he saw no intent towards removing that particular organ, as opposed to any other.
This is just an opinion which can be debatable, especially in view of the potential cloud being cast over the medical profession.

If it were the same killer that killed Chapman and Eddowes then why did he take the same organ twice, and why were the uteri of both removed in two different ways if it were the same killer?

The first answer is that he saw this as part of his signature, regardless what else he took.
And the second part is that the killer was not a professional who would remove the organ in a particular way.
Removal of the uterus was repeated again at Millers Court, the fact he didn't take it away is a separate question - removal seems to be the signature.