Jack the Ripper-The Secret Police Files

[John G]

David

I don't think it is about peoples eyes evolving or devolving, obviously that takes a great deal of time, however there is some truth in the case that those who lived at lower lighting levels than available today, functioned perfectly well in those conditions.

The issue was I believe that modern "experts" making comments about low light and not being able to perform certain tasks in such levels is basically incorrect, has they have little of no idea or experience of trying to perform in those conditions.

At least that was the point I was making.

Some people simply see better in low light than others, end of in my view.

Of course the real issue was the information supplied to the "experts" that it was almost totally dark, which is not supported by the primary source.


Steve

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).

[Trevor Marriott]

Trying to argue that Sequeira was not referring to the mutilations is a reflection of just how desperate your argument has become.
Sequeira includes the mutilation in the "deed", in his next remark.
"I formed the opinion that the perpetrator of the deed had no particular design on any particular organ".

There is absolutely no reason for Sequeira to make a distinction between the murder and the mutilation. Just as no doctor made a distinction between the murder & mutilation of Chapman or Nichols.

Sequeira`s comments tend to point to the fact that organ harvesting was not the motive. If that be the case, why did the killer take the organs that he is alleged to have taken, organ harvesting is then a non starter. I

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?

A clear indication that those two victims were either not killed by the same hand, or there is more support to the theory that the organs were removed at the two different mortuaries, by two different persons.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

Some people simply see better in low light than others, end of in my view.

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?

[Wickerman]

And that reference was made in relation to the murder, and not the murder coupled with the removal of the organs he used the term "deed"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trying to argue that Sequeira was not referring to the mutilations is a reflection of just how desperate your argument has become.
Sequeira includes the mutilation in the "deed", in his next remark.
"I formed the opinion that the perpetrator of the deed had no particular design on any particular organ".

There is absolutely no reason for Sequeira to make a distinction between the murder and the mutilation. Just as no doctor made a distinction between the murder & mutilation of Chapman or Nichols.

[Elamarna]

Incidentally, Phil, if you want to go ahead and produce the scientific evidence that you believe exists which says that people operating in the dark develop the ability to see better in the dark than other humans please go ahead and post it.

I would have thought you would already have done this to be honest rather than simply saying "yes there is" which doesn't really help anyone does it?

David

I don't think it is about peoples eyes evolving or devolving, obviously that takes a great deal of time, however there is some truth in the case that those who lived at lower lighting levels than available today, functioned perfectly well in those conditions.

The issue was I believe that modern "experts" making comments about low light and not being able to perform certain tasks in such levels is basically incorrect, has they have little of no idea or experience of trying to perform in those conditions.

At least that was the point I was making.

Some people simply see better in low light than others, end of in my view.

Of course the real issue was the information supplied to the "experts" that it was almost totally dark, which is not supported by the primary source.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Dr. Sequeira: The death must have been instantaneous after the severance of the windpipe and the blood vessels.

Why not quote that first when asked? question answered.

In addition he says windpipe and blood vessels, which is not what you asked was it?

In addition you obviously hold Dr Biggs in high regard, if you accept his other views why not this one?

I dont hold Dr Biggs in an more high regard than any of the others. Dr Biggs was the most recent of all the experts i used. He was able to assist and give a more detailed insight into many other aspects of these murders, not just the organ removals.

I never said you did hold him in higher regard than others, but it is clear that you accept what suites you and reject what does not.

I have answered this in the same post where 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 Trevor Dr Neale says he agrees with the medics in 1888.no reference to modern day surgery, if we cannot accept this fact then there is no point at all in using modern day experts, just as Pierre claims.

I have said repeatedly that if the killer was targeting organs for harvesting, or trophies, and knew where they were located, and how to remove them, why would he mutilate the bodies in such a way that the said organs he may have been seeking might have become damaged. This point was not taken into by any of my experts for consideration but is equally valid.

That is opinion which is not supported by your own experts. If you did not ask you should not assume. However they do make comments in this area which do not support the harvesting theory.
I think that other evidence is needed to support this view.

It is not an opinion it is a fact

No Its not! its your view, the experts do not back you, nor does the historical data.

There is evidence of course that he collected, or at least took some organs, there is no evidence that he was harvesting specific organs.

Trevor it is not obvious a long bladed was used. The idea come from the old ideas you so often derided.
Again you accept Biggs"s views on other issues why not here.
Yes scalpel are much smaller, I have used ones less than half inch in blade length.
It's all about what we feel comfortable with.
Example. In the kitchen I use a small 3 inch knife for almost all the jobs, perhaps because I am used to a scalpel. My other half does the same jobs using a 6-7inch blade. She can't use the smaller one.

You cannot cut a persons throat in the way these victims had their throats cut with a small bladed article, The victims were in most cases almost decapitated. Likewise you cannot stab someone with a small bladed article, which will penetrate deep enough to inflict some of the injuries which were noted on the victims.

Your source and expertise for this statement, that it cannot be done with a blade of less than six inches.

And please supply proof that the same blade was used for the other injuries!

Mr Langford cites other animals as being similar but yes the pig is also used in research because of the similarity to man.
However if you are going to say there were few pig butchers in Whitechapel you need to provide details. In addition why only Whitechapel, he could work anywhere and come back to Whitechapel if he lived there. Of course he may not have lived there at all; I think he did by the way.

So are we to believe that a butcher in 1888 is more skilled than a surgeon? As to the demand for pork in Whitechapel would have been small for obvious reasons it is safe to assume that slaughterhouses catering for the slaughter of pigs would have been few and far between. So the likelihood of a butcher being the killer, and having the expertise and ability to remove these organs is unbelievable.[/COLOR]

I see no suggestion of your first statement being made.

The second statement, admits there were probably some, and it was not a demand, it was a request that one backs up a statement, that's all it needs just one.

And of course you ignore the possibility that he may have worked outside of Whitechapel completely.

Hope this clarifies the issue you raised?

It merely shows that you will accept some of what your experts say, yet ignore other points made by the same expert. Classic Cherry picking.


It also demonstrates that where your theories are concerned you have a closed mind.

As far as experts conflicting with each other this is always going to be the case, it was in 1888 and still is in 2016.

Agreed on that at least



Steve

[David Orsam]

Answer one. .yes. there is.

Incidentally, Phil, if you want to go ahead and produce the scientific evidence that you believe exists which says that people operating in the dark develop the ability to see better in the dark than other humans please go ahead and post it.

I would have thought you would already have done this to be honest rather than simply saying "yes there is" which doesn't really help anyone does it?

[David Orsam]

Why I bother with spiked childish comments like this sometimes I do not know but...

Answer one. .yes. there is.
Answer two..not in the way you are bending the point. .no.
Answer three.. yes, minimally. Like average height, age, weight has changed due to nutrition and technology.

Animals of all kinds in the wild are not human beings and invariably have different physical attributes and reactions thereof.
In other words. .animals have sweet fanny Adams to do eith the point in question.

And if you continue to deliberately reply to every post I post on every thread..because you feel the need or "have to"..I will presume you to be a compulsive troll by your continued actions. Ignoring you doesn't seem to achieve the desired result. Please desist. Final chance.
Now. Its Christmas. So just drop it. Period.

peace and goodwill.

Paranoid or what?

My post wasn't really aimed at you Phil believe it or not, it was aimed at the idea that Pierre might have said something sensible (as in your comment "For once Pierre has a point worth thinking about".).

Pierre's point, apparently encouraged by you, that the killer might have had the superhuman ability to see in the dark is ridiculous and should be treated with the contempt it deserves.

You need to chill out in this time of peace and goodwill Phil (although I must say I don't remember a period when you have ever "ignored" me - if it happened it must have lasted a micro second - all I recall is you continually trying to lecture me about one thing or another).

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor thanks for taking time to reply.

Steve

Dr. Sequeira: The death must have been instantaneous after the severance of the windpipe and the blood vessels.

In addition you obviously hold Dr Biggs in high regard, if you accept his other views why not this one?

I dont hold Dr Biggs in an more high regard than any of the others. Dr Biggs was the most recent of all the experts i used. He was able to assist and give a more detailed insight into many other aspects of these murders, not just the organ removals.

I have answered this in the same post where 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.

I have said repeatedly that if the killer was targeting organs for harvesting, or trophies, and knew where they were located, and how to remove them, why would he mutilate the bodies in such a way that the said organs he may have been seeking might have become damaged. This point was not taken into by any of my experts for consideration but is equally valid.

That is opinion which is not supported by your own experts. If you did not ask you should not assume. However they do make comments in this area which do not support the harvesting theory.
I think that other evidence is needed to support this view.

It is not an opinion it is a fact

No Trevor it is not obvious a long bladed was used. The idea come from the old ideas you so often derided.
Again you accept Biggs"s views on other issues why not here.
Yes scalpel are much smaller, I have used ones less than half inch in blade length.
It's all about what we feel comfortable with.
Example. In the kitchen I use a small 3 inch knife for almost all the jobs, perhaps because I am used to a scalpel. My other half does the same jobs using a 6-7inch blade. She can't use the smaller one.

You cannot cut a persons throat in the way these victims had their throats cut with a small bladed article, The victims were in most cases almost decapitated. Likewise you cannot stab someone with a small bladed article, which will penetrate deep enough to inflict some of the injuries which were noted on the victims.

Mr Langford cites other animals as being similar but yes the pig is also used in research because of the similarity to man.
However if you are going to say there were few pig butchers in Whitechapel you need to provide details. In addition why only Whitechapel, he could work anywhere and come back to Whitechapel if he lived there. Of course he may not have lived there at all; I think he did by the way.

So are we to believe that a butcher in 1888 is more skilled than a surgeon? As to the demand for pork in Whitechapel would have been small for obvious reasons it is safe to assume that slaughterhouses catering for the slaughter of pigs would have been few and far between. So the likelihood of a butcher being the killer, and having the expertise and ability to remove these organs is unbelievable.[/COLOR]

Hope this clarifies the issue you raised? As far as experts conflicting with each other this is always going to be the case, it was in 1888 and still is in 2016.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Phil Carter]

Is there any scientific basis to this? Don't our pupils automatically adjust to light, expanding or contracting depending upon the amount available? Are you saying human eye sight was physically different during the Victorian period whereby less light was required to be able to see?

In nature, evolutionary speaking, animals who live in caves or only emerge at night don't seem to develop better eyesight, they tend to go blind (relying on sound).

Why I bother with spiked childish comments like this sometimes I do not know but...

Answer one. .yes. there is.
Answer two..not in the way you are bending the point. .no.
Answer three.. yes, minimally. Like average height, age, weight has changed due to nutrition and technology.

Animals of all kinds in the wild are not human beings and invariably have different physical attributes and reactions thereof.
In other words. .animals have sweet fanny Adams to do eith the point in question.

And if you continue to deliberately reply to every post I post on every thread..because you feel the need or "have to"..I will presume you to be a compulsive troll by your continued actions. Ignoring you doesn't seem to achieve the desired result. Please desist. Final chance.
Now. Its Christmas. So just drop it. Period.

peace and goodwill.

[Elamarna]

And that reference was made in relation to the murder, and not the murder coupled with the removal of the organs he used the term "deed"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Your Interpretation, Trevor.

deed means what was done.

because you do not believe the organs were removed on site, they are not part of the deed for you, that is a truly circular argument.

Steve

[Elamarna]

There are many problems with believing "experts" and using them for scientific statements is absolutely impossible if they do not give references to systematic research.

I agree that is why I always say we must have more than one view.

Much of what they are speaking about is personal experience and so no research may exist, however that does not mean their views should be ignored.



Considering the "lightning levels", as you say he assumes them. So what he said has no reliability.

agreed

We do not know if these experiments were systematic or if they controlled the circumstances. So that part of the text has no validity.

Based on an experiment with no controls?


Agreed, I was only highlighting that the two had carried out a limited experimental procedure.



Again, "believes were present." Not a reliable "expert". They are experts in their own daily practical work but they are not historians and certainly not medicine historians!

Well actually we cannot be sure of the second point.

However medical historians may not have the practical skills to comment on what can and cannot be done. to dismiss them as you do is not scientific


The expression of "anatomical knowledge" is not operationalized anywhere.



The same problem: no operationalization of the concept "anatomical knowledge". Therefore, everythng stated about it is totally lacking validity.

That Pierre is nitpicking, we all know what is meant, knowledge above that of the ordinary many in the street.

Based on what?

If you read the book Pierre you would see, the fact that the uterus was not Complete. established historical fact.

"As opposed to the first two" - yes, indeed, another discourse with differing statements by "experts"!

Which is why you need more than one !







Since they know nothing about it - how could it be interesting?


Because it shows there expert advice is given using variables that are not certain, and open to debate.


Yes. Terrible.



That is not "great". It is a typical example of "garbage-in-garbage-out", i.e. you use variables for a regression model which gives meaningless results. The "experts" are the variables. The result is no reliable or valid "theory".

I disagree, it is far better than just quoting a single expert, so often done in Ripperology and often the actual text is not provided, this is far better and allow analysis of their statements.




It is like being on a ship in a storm in total darkness, Steve. Anything goes.

To an extent YES



Really?



That is not clear and striking. Historians have known this for a long time.



That is only part of the issue, and yes when one reads his comments as a whole, some things are very clear, both from his views and on how those views are interpreted.

I donīt know why Trevor asks that question.



OK.



No point in trying to determine his handedness. The important question is why they said what they said.




And has I have explained before it s probably because they were guessing based on limited knowledge.

If you have a better idea, please suggest it!


Look at your statement here Steve and please try to answer my question following it:

"5 minutes is enough time":

Enough for whom?

For the killer to commit all the mutilations, although I believe from research by Gavin Bromley that he had a longer window than 5 minutes.

5 minutes is the window used by Trevor, and even that is possible.



Those two categories, Steve: "as targets" OR "by chance". Of course they were removed "as targets", i.e. as trophies. You can always discuss what things he took in detail, but what he wanted to do was to disembowel his victims.

Yes I agree, not sure what you are asking here

Was there staff from the mortuary visiting Millerīs Court and working in the room of Kelly?

The point of this question?

Biggs made it clear he believed the organs were removed onsite, however when asked if it could have been done at the mortuary, he said yes of course it could, but was unlikely.

Thats just a common sense reply with regards to if it were possible.

He believed they were taken at site, so not sure how that question relates



Actually, you do not need Dr Biggs to know that.


People need to be reminded of the facts, there is no issue here, what is the problem


Why do we need experts to tell us that we can noy obtain precise data in this case?



Because otherwise we are left with one sided arguments, supported by experts that only one thing is possible?

Why do you have an issue with expert medical views Pierre? Have not yo used one in the last month or so.




Especially for experts on other things than history. For them, that is very hard.



No he is talking from a medical perspective, the reports are not specific or particularly scientific, history does not come into that, te same would apply if they were written yesterday.




And the size of the knife is also a typical garbage-in-garbage-out variable. It doesnīt tell us anything at all.

Wrong again Pierre, we have historical sources claiming the knife was of x size, this may be wrong,
Experts have made comments on the viability of use such a knife, this is used to support various theories.

If such size is not set in stone those theories are less secure.



Three experts giving no reliable interpretations, partly because the data is not easy to handle, partly because they use "own experiences", partly because they are not medicine historians.



Sorry we are talking about medical interpretation here, are you seriously suggesting an historian with maybe no practice knowledge of surgery is more reliable than a active medic who knows what can and cannot be done, and how such looks.

You appear to be arguing in favour of ditching all opinions other than those of historians on medical issues.



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


My point



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.

Completely irrelevant, the empire that is.


This was London in 1888. A civilized place.


?


And I say you get more garbage variables. Bring in the experts and soon anything goes. Why didnīt Trevor ask a medicine historian instead?

Personally I would have asked both. your elitism on historians is showing again Pierre.



t is not good overall but is has no validity and no reliability. From this set of variations of ideas Trevor has made a gigantic leap to a person which he believes (if he does) killed some (!) or all (!) of the victims. It is just ripperology at its worst. No data, no coherence, no results.



We disagree Pierre, the information is useful if you cannot see that you are not looking.

Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

Isn't this all really academic?, Trevor needs the corner to be too dark which in turn helps his theory that the mutilation was done later in a well lighted room.
Regardless of the opinion of a doctor who was actually in the square that morning.

Dr. Sequeira.
I know the locality This is the darkest portion of the square There would have been sufficient light to enable the perpetrator of the deed to have committed the deed without the addition of any extra light

Thats all we need to know, isn't it?

And that reference was made in relation to the murder, and not the murder coupled with the removal of the organs he used the term "deed"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[John G]

Isn't this all really academic?, Trevor needs the corner to be too dark which in turn helps his theory that the mutilation was done later in a well lighted room.
Regardless of the opinion of a doctor who was actually in the square that morning.

Dr. Sequeira.
I know the locality This is the darkest portion of the square There would have been sufficient light to enable the perpetrator of the deed to have committed the deed without the addition of any extra light

Thats all we need to know, isn't it?

I think the real issue is: whether there was sufficient time and light for the killer to have eviscerated both Chapman and Eddowes with the level of skill suggested by the Victorian GPs.

[Elamarna]

Trevor thanks for taking time to reply.

Steve
Just to put some meat on the bone to the points you raised. I am not even going to reply to Pierre's



The reason this question was asked because I believed that the killer struck from behind whilst she was still standing, sticking the knife deep into the throat and drawing it across, thus preventing her from shouting out, and with instantaneous death would perhaps show why there was no arterial spray present.



Trevor I happen to agree with the position you suggest that however was not the issue, I cannot see any reference to a Doctor claiming severing of the windpipe would lead to a quick death. That is what you published and that is all I questioned





As to some of the experts saying 5 mins would be enough, and in this day and age given the knowledge and the expertise of the experts they may be able to carry this all off in 5 mins, but who in 1888 had such knowledge and expertise as to carry it off in 5 mins. That person would have to have been up to the same standard as the experts of today I would suggest. After all Dr Brown obviously puzzled by the timings engaged his own expert, and that took him 5 mins just to remove one organ and he damaged that in the process


And we are back at the opinions of experts.
Biggs and Neale both agree with Sequeria and Brown's opinion.
The fact that Brown had someone else attempt to repeat proves nothing from an experimental point of view. There are too many variables!

In addition you obviously hold Dr Biggs in high regard, if you accept his other views why not this one?






I have said repeatedly that if the killer was targeting organs for harvesting, or trophies, and knew where they were located, and how to remove them, why would he mutilate the bodies in such a way that the said organs he may have been seeking might have become damaged. This point was not taken into by any of my experts for consideration but is equally valid.


That is opinion which is not supported by your own experts. If you did not ask you should not assume. However they do make comments in this area which do not support the harvesting theory.
I think that other evidence is needed to support this view.





I have photographic evidence from a murder scene to show that the intestines do spill out when a victim is laying on their back. So it can happen.


Yes it can, however it is not usually and to happen in both cases where the abdomen is opened is highly unlikely.





He then says that there is no way to determine the size of knife from the wounds!

This obviously if true removes one of the objections from Harrison and Calder for on-site removal.

It is obvious to all that the throat cutting and mutilations were done by someone using a long bladed knife and not by the use of a penknife, or a razor. 6 ins was mentioned in the first instance because that is the size of knife mentioned by the victorian doctors. Modern day surgeons use scalpels with blades no more that 2 ins in length. So I think any size of bladed instrument above that would still cause them the same problems.
Another point I raised with regards to the organ removal at the scene, that being the abilty for the killer to not only find the organs but to take hold of them and be able to remove then un aided. By this I refer to the modern day use of surgical gloves used by surgeons to take hold of and work with organs. In 1888 no one had these so again a major problem for the killer at the crime scene, working in the dar in a blood filled abdomen
The point is Dr Biggs claim the size of blade cannot be determined by the wounds.


No Trevor it is not obvious a long bladed was used. The idea come from the old ideas you so often derided.
Again you accept Biggs"s views on other issues why not here.
Yes scalpel are much smaller, I have used ones less than half inch in blade length.
It's all about what we feel comfortable with.
Example. In the kitchen I use a small 3 inch knife for almost all the jobs, perhaps because I am used to a scalpel. My other half does the same jobs using a 6-7inch blade. She can't use the smaller one.


It may not have been how the killer was thinking but if the killer had a knife of that size then it would have still been a problem to him. The other point you fail to mention is that is was suggested that a butcher may have been the killer. But as we know a pig is the nearest animal to the human form. I wonder how many pig butchers there were in Whitechapel in 1888.



Mr Langford cites other animals as being similar but yes the pig is also used in research because of the similarity to man.
However if you are going to say there were few pig butchers in Whitechapel you need to provide details. In addition why only Whitechapel, he could work anywhere and come back to Whitechapel if he lived there. Of course he may not have lived there at all; I think he did by the way.



In addition he is used to working in good lighting conditions, 1888 Butcher's were not and therefore could, one assumes work in lower light levels, training and mainly experience in such conditions being the key.

Just an assumption on your part.


Yes an educated guess based on science.




One again asks where does this “almost total darkness” come from?

It comes from the term used to describe the murder scene. "The darkest part of the square". The only light nearest to the murder scene was not visible from the scene and the light from that simply shone down. The killer would still need sufficient light to see in side the abdomen, firstly to avoid cutting himself, and secondly and most importantly to see what he was doing, where was that light ?



According to Dr Sequeira there was enough light. He was there. He is the primary source for the lighting conditions.
I prefer to use such sources when they are available rather than guess.
The darkness corner is not the same as near total darkness.





Phillip Harrison says he regularly uses a 4 inch blade.

This expert is an eviscerator he is taking body parts out of bodies all day every day, in a controlled environment with plenty of light, but again even if the knife used by the killer was 4 ins and not 6 it would still be problematical in almost total darkness from a blood filled abdomen.



Trevor it is open to argument how dark it was. The sources say light enough to do the work.
It is your opinion that it would still be problematical. Something several of the experts you use disagree with.
In addition the variables used by Harrison and Calder, light and blade length, may both be inaccurate. And of course the question of eyesight and 1888 levels raised with Langford apply here to.

I hope things are somewhat clearer to you

yes Trevor your views are much clearer. It appears that you cherry pick from each expert that which you like and ignore that you do not.
A shame because the actual approach to the data is good.

Steve