Jack the Ripper-The Secret Police Files

[Wickerman]

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?

[David Orsam]

Our eyes are accustomed to bright light.
People back then lived in a different world. Hazy..dingy streets were the norm. Eyes would be more accustomed to that fact. Not specifically. .but on a general basis.

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).

[Trevor Marriott]

Miners, perhaps? Working underground in coal mines?

Dont they have miner lamps to see with ?

We have cat burglars, so why not cat killers both are supposed to have excellent night vision.

Lets try and keep this on a sensible level. We are talking about the need for someone to have enough light in a small open area of the abdomen. That light would have to be sufficient, and central to be able to see inside the abdomen, and to be able to locate the organs, and be sufficient enough for the killer to be able to see how to remove them with what is described as anatomical knowledge.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Phil Carter]

For once Pierre has a point worth thinking about.
Today we live in an all electrical world. Nearly every street and house are well lit. Our eyes are accustomed to bright light.
People back then lived in a different world. Hazy..dingy streets were the norm. Eyes would be more accustomed to that fact. Not specifically. .but on a general basis.

Merry Xmas to all

Phil

[Pcdunn]

Working in Dark Places?

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.

Regards, Pierre

Miners, perhaps? Working underground in coal mines?

[Trevor Marriott]

An opportunity to respond

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

Trevor asks Dr Biggs says something along the lines of at the Eddowes inquest the Dr said the windpipe was severed and this was the cause of instantaneous death, and follows up with asking if that is possible.

Dr Biggs rightly says no, but I wonder why Trevor asked this?
I can find no record of any such statement in the official inquest testimony.

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.

Contrary to what Trevor likes to say; 5 minutes is enough time, even given the light to carry out the full attack in Dr Biggs opinion.

Of course there is a good argument that he had more than the 5 minutes Trevor suggests.

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

He does not think any great degree of skill is shown, he rightly in my opinion points out that we do not know if the organs were removed as targets or by chance.

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.

Trevor has suggest that the intestines could spring out, Biggs says they may spill out; but normally would not, if victim laying on the back.

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.

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

On to the Master Butcher, why I searched in the first place


Mr Paul Langford

Mr Langford is asked if he could do it in “almost total darkness” and with a six inch blade

He says darkness is a serious problem, says he would not like to work in such conditions with a sharpe knife, agreed most would not; but that may not be how killer was thinking!

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


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

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 ?


He add he could not remove the kidney with a six inch blade.



Two points arise from this

1) He says he could not remove, that is about the individuals ability, this is why a second expert on this would be great, I would say essential.

2) The star witness in Trevor’s work, Dr Biggs makes it clear that the blade may have been less than 6 inches.

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.

Steve

I hope things are somewhat clearer to you

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GUT]

Hi Pierre,

The length of posts is in inverse proportion to the sense they make.

Regards,

Simon

That's why Pierre's are all so long.

[GUT]

But doesn't even tell us his source, just rubbish like "I've found a source in the archieves that provides data that I interpret (read believe) to mean that ...."

What a load of a Reindeer Doo Doo.

[GUT]

Pierre constantly dismisses any statement where some is said to have "believed" something, or "assumed" something else.

Does that mean he dismisses his own posts as that's all he does.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Pierre,

The length of posts is in inverse proportion to the sense they make.

Regards,

Simon

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;403969]

I know this an old thread but it seems the right one to post the following.

Hi Steve,

I would like to comment on your post if I may.

...My one regret is that Trevor used only one expert for the butcher, more on that later.

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.

The first expert used is Phillip Harrison: he suggests that he could not do the mutilations using a 6 inch blade in the lighting levels he assumes were present.

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

And does not believe that the organs could have been removed on site.
To back his views he cites experiments carried out by himself and the second expert Dr Ian Calder,

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

Dr Calder again mentions it would be impossible to remove the kidney in the dark.

Based on an experiment with no controls?

He say the mutilations may have been possible but questions if any of the organs were removed at site due to the lighting conditions he believes were present.

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!

Both of the above strongly suggest that the killer had some anatomical knowledge.

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

We then have Edmund Neale

He suggests the body was opened from the inside out so to speak, he also says that the uterus could be removed quite quickly by someone with anatomical knowledge.

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

He also suggests that the method of removing uterus in the Eddowes case is not as he would expect for experimentation.

Based on what?

However as opposed to the first two experts, he agrees with the timings given by the medics at the inquest and says all very feasible.

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

Neale also talks about the stab to the liver, which is cleary seen by him as the point of entry for the wound rather than an individual stab.

So initially we have 3 experts all very well qualified, giving different assessments.

Hallelujah.

It is interesting the Harrison and Calder base much of their view on what is or is not possible on:

a) The size of knife claimed to be used
b) The lighting in Mitre Square

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

One wonders where the information on the light in Mitre Square comes from, given that the only primary source we have Dr. George William Sequeira says while it was dark there was enough light to work by, it seems Dr Brown did not disagree.

Yes. Terrible.

Before going any further please let me repeat Trevor has done the correct thing here he has got multiple opinions which is great.

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".

He then will use this to construct his theories and it is here we disagree, its about how we interpret what is said. And who knows who if any are correct.

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

However we now have Dr Michael Biggs who makes some very clear and striking observations.

Really?

It is clear that Biggs does not feel we can take the opinions of 1888 medics as established fact.

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

Trevor asks Dr Biggs says something along the lines of at the Eddowes inquest the Dr said the windpipe was severed and this was the cause of instantaneous death, and follows up with asking if that is possible.

Dr Biggs rightly says no, but I wonder why Trevor asked this?
I can find no record of any such statement in the official inquest testimony.

I donīt know why Trevor asks that question.

Dr Biggs talks about arterial blood spray in depth and makes it clear there are many reasons why there may at time be little or appear to be little

OK.

He clearly says it is not scientifically possible to determine the position of the killer or which hand he used from the wounds. This I have always agreed with Trevor on

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

Contrary to what Trevor likes to say; 5 minutes is enough time, even given the light to carry out the full attack in Dr Biggs opinion.

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

"5 minutes is enough time":

Enough for whom?

Of course there is a good argument that he had more than the 5 minutes Trevor suggests.

He does not think any great degree of skill is shown, he rightly in my opinion points out that we do not know if the organs were removed as targets or by chance

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.

Biggs when asked if it were possible to remove the organs at site says very clearly yes, when ask if they may have been removed at the mortuary of course says it may have been possible.

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

Dr Biggs talks in depth at estimating time of death by temp, blood loss etc and basically says none are exact and at best will give a rough window.

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

He also goes into some discussion about bleeding times, this has been seen as a contentious issue with regards to the information supplied by Payne-James. However I see no conflict, to me Payne-James is talking about active bleeding, under pressure, Biggs is talking about after that brief period and in my opinion rightly says there is no way of getting a precise window once this is reached.

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

Trevor has suggest that the intestines could spring out, Biggs says they may spill out; but normally would not, if victim laying on the back.

Biggs makes it clear he believes the killer was not a medically trained person, he argues that the wounds argue against rather than in favour of skill.

I have nothing to say about this right now.

He comments that the inquest reports do not give very clear descriptions, and are therefore hard to use.

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

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

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

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

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.

On to the Master Butcher, why I searched in the first place

Mr Paul Langford

He confirms that human and some animal carcasses are alike.
Asked if could carry out the mutilations, he says probably, but would need time and light

Mr Langford is asked if he could do it in “almost total darkness” and with a six inch blade

He says darkness is a serious problem, says he would not like to work in such conditions with a sharpe knife, agreed most would not; but that may not be how killer was thinking!

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.

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

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

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.

It is contrary to the only primary source we have regarding the light in the corner of Mitre Square.

This was London in 1888. A civilized place.

He add he could not remove the kidney with a six inch blade.

Two points arise from this

1) He says he could not remove, that is about the individuals ability, this is why a second expert on this would be great, I would say essential.

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

2) The star witness in Trevor’s work, Dr Biggs makes it clear that the blade may have been less than 6 inches.

Phillip Harrison says he regularly uses a 4 inch blade.

This is just an overdue assessment of the expert statements supplied by Trevor.

It is not an attack on his work, in some places I agree, in others not.

As I said well done it using more than one expert, pity about only one butcher, but its good overall.

Where we disagree is how we use the information supplied.

Steve

It 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.

You should use your time for better things, Steve.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

I know this an old thread but it seems the right one to post the following.


I think it is fairly clear to most that Trevor Marriott and I do not often agree on things, actually i did earlier this week.

His often repeated calls of go and read his books when asked questions on his postings, leads to an attitude of doing the opposite.

However recently I decided to go and have a look for the “Master Butcher” statement, as it seemed Trevor had no intention of providing any information other than mentioning it existed, which I found strange if it truly supported the argument he used.


My version of the “The Secret Police Files” had not been updated on my Kindle, so I duly did and went I search of said “Master Butcher”, not only did I find him, but also reread the statements from the 3 experts Trevor used plus read fully for the first time Dr Biggs comments.

Now credit where credit is due, Trevor has done what I always ask for, when using expert evidence/data use more than one, you will get different possibly balanced views and indeed we do.

My one regret is that Trevor used only one expert for the butcher, more on that later.

The first expert used is Phillip Harrison: he suggests that he could not do the mutilations using a 6 inch blade in the lighting levels he assumes were present.
And does not believe that the organs could have been removed on site.
To back his views he cites experiments carried out by himself and the second expert Dr Ian Calder,


Dr Calder again mentions it would be impossible to remove the kidney in the dark.
He say the mutilations may have been possible but questions if any of the organs were removed at site due to the lighting conditions he believes were present.

Both of the above strongly suggest that the killer had some anatomical knowledge.

We then have Edmund Neale

He suggests the body was opened from the inside out so to speak, he also says that the uterus could be removed quite quickly by someone with anatomical knowledge.
He also suggests that the method of removing uterus in the Eddowes case is not as he would expect for experimentation.

However as opposed to the first two experts, he agrees with the timings given by the medics at the inquest and says all very feasible.

Neale also talks about the stab to the liver, which is cleary seen by him as the point of entry for the wound rather than an individual stab.



So initially we have 3 experts all very well qualified, giving different assessments.


It is interesting the Harrison and Calder base much of their view on what is or is not possible on:

a) The size of knife claimed to be used
b) The lighting in Mitre Square

One wonders where the information on the light in Mitre Square comes from, given that the only primary source we have Dr. George William Sequeira says while it was dark there was enough light to work by, it seems Dr Brown did not disagree.

Before going any further please let me repeat Trevor has done the correct thing here he has got multiple opinions which is great.

He then will use this to construct his theories and it is here we disagree, its about how we interpret what is said. And who knows who if any are correct.



However we now have Dr Michael Biggs who makes some very clear and striking observations.

It is clear that Biggs does not feel we can take the opinions of 1888 medics as established fact.

Trevor asks Dr Biggs says something along the lines of at the Eddowes inquest the Dr said the windpipe was severed and this was the cause of instantaneous death, and follows up with asking if that is possible.

Dr Biggs rightly says no, but I wonder why Trevor asked this?
I can find no record of any such statement in the official inquest testimony.

Dr Biggs talks about arterial blood spray in depth and makes it clear there are many reasons why there may at time be little or appear to be little

He clearly says it is not scientifically possible to determine the position of the killer or which hand he used from the wounds. This I have always agreed with Trevor on

Contrary to what Trevor likes to say; 5 minutes is enough time, even given the light to carry out the full attack in Dr Biggs opinion.

Of course there is a good argument that he had more than the 5 minutes Trevor suggests.

He does not think any great degree of skill is shown, he rightly in my opinion points out that we do not know if the organs were removed as targets or by chance

Biggs when asked if it were possible to remove the organs at site says very clearly yes, when ask if they may have been removed at the mortuary of course says it may have been possible.

Dr Biggs talks in depth at estimating time of death by temp, blood loss etc and basically says none are exact and at best will give a rough window.

He also goes into some discussion about bleeding times, this has been seen as a contentious issue with regards to the information supplied by Payne-James. However I see no conflict, to me Payne-James is talking about active bleeding, under pressure, Biggs is talking about after that brief period and in my opinion rightly says there is no way of getting a precise window once this is reached.

Trevor has suggest that the intestines could spring out, Biggs says they may spill out; but normally would not, if victim laying on the back.

Biggs makes it clear he believes the killer was not a medically trained person, he argues that the wounds argue against rather than in favour of skill.

He comments that the inquest reports do not give very clear descriptions, and are therefore hard to use.

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.




On to the Master Butcher, why I searched in the first place


Mr Paul Langford

He confirms that human and some animal carcasses are alike.
Asked if could carry out the mutilations, he says probably, but would need time and light

Mr Langford is asked if he could do it in “almost total darkness” and with a six inch blade

He says darkness is a serious problem, says he would not like to work in such conditions with a sharpe knife, agreed most would not; but that may not be how killer was thinking!


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.

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

It is contrary to the only primary source we have regarding the light in the corner of Mitre Square.

He add he could not remove the kidney with a six inch blade.



Two points arise from this

1) He says he could not remove, that is about the individuals ability, this is why a second expert on this would be great, I would say essential.

2) The star witness in Trevor’s work, Dr Biggs makes it clear that the blade may have been less than 6 inches.

Phillip Harrison says he regularly uses a 4 inch blade.


This is just an overdue assessment of the expert statements supplied by Trevor.

It is not an attack on his work, in some places I agree, in others not.

As I said well done it using more than one expert, pity about only one butcher, but its good overall.

Where we disagree is how we use the information supplied.


Steve

[Karl]

I do not speak legalese very well, but it does strike me that the following observation renders much of the bickering moot:

A comment on Trevor’s book in respect of Francis Tumblety.
(...)
Yet, in his book, Trevor makes clear that Mary Kelly might not have been killed by the same person who committed the earlier murders.

And Bob's your uncle; Tumblety could still be the ripper were he ever so much in custody while MJK was being murdered. Not having read Mr. Marriott's book, I cannot verify myself that he argues for the possibility of MJK's murder being non-canonical, but it would make it fallacious to insist on Tumblety's innocence so adamantly based merely on his alibi for this particular murder. Just saying.

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=John G;346160]

Yes, I accept that was the "generally received impression", although as I've noted numerous times some textbooks still argued that, for the type of misdemeanour Tumblety was charged with, prisoners were entitled to bail from the time of adjournment of the first remand hearing. In fact, in R v Manning (1888) defence counsel even argued this point before a divisional court judge, I.e as to whether s23 of the Indictable Offences Act, by which a magistrate was bound to grant bail to an accused for certain types of misdemeanour at committal, I.e indecent assault, also applied to remand.

What you have to appreciate is that the law in this area was in a mess and even contradictory. For example, for certain misdemeanours, such as an attempt to commit a felony, the Indictable Offences Act allowed the magistrate a discretion as to whether to grant bail at the committal hearing. However, if bail was denied all the prisoner had to do was to apply for a writ of habeas corpus, to a judge in chambers, who was bound to grant it under the provisions of the Habeas Corpus Act! See R v Bennett.

In any event, it does seem that magistrates did grant bail, at least virtually automatically, at the remand hearing for the type of misdemeanour Tumblety was charged with, which is hardly surprising considering that there was no argument about an automatic right to bail at committal, so to do otherwise would merely be postponing the inevitable. In fact, the only case you've managed to cite to the contrary is Oscar Wilde's, and even there the magistrate was probably under the misapprehension that he'd been charged with a felony! I hardly think, therefore, that that proves your point. Quite the contrary.

Well I will stick with the due process of the judicial system. Please feel free to "prove" that bail was automatic for gross indecency offences at the initial remand hearing stage.

I wont hold my breath waiting

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[John G]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;346130]

But Gross Indeceny was not a misdemeanor for which bail was automatic at remand !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes, I accept that was the "generally received impression", although as I've noted numerous times some textbooks still argued that, for the type of misdemeanour Tumblety was charged with, prisoners were entitled to bail from the time of adjournment of the first remand hearing. In fact, in R v Manning (1888) defence counsel even argued this point before a divisional court judge, I.e as to whether s23 of the Indictable Offences Act, by which a magistrate was bound to grant bail to an accused for certain types of misdemeanour at committal, I.e indecent assault, also applied to remand.

What you have to appreciate is that the law in this area was in a mess and even contradictory. For example, for certain misdemeanours, such as an attempt to commit a felony, the Indictable Offences Act allowed the magistrate a discretion as to whether to grant bail at the committal hearing. However, if bail was denied all the prisoner had to do was to apply for a writ of habeas corpus, to a judge in chambers, who was bound to grant it under the provisions of the Habeas Corpus Act! See R v Bennett.

In any event, it does seem that magistrates did grant bail, at least virtually automatically, at the remand hearing for the type of misdemeanour Tumblety was charged with, which is hardly surprising considering that there was no argument about an automatic right to bail at committal, so to do otherwise would merely be postponing the inevitable. In fact, the only case you've managed to cite to the contrary is Oscar Wilde's, and even there the magistrate was probably under the misapprehension that he'd been charged with a felony! I hardly think, therefore, that that proves your point. Quite the contrary.