Jack the Ripper-The Secret Police Files

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;404366][QUOTE=Pierre;404362]

OK

Low light would mean the killer probably had skill and may have worked in low light before. That is if THE ORGANS WERE TARGETS.

OK. You use both "skill" and "have worked in low light before".

If on the other hand the object was just to mutilate and disembowelled the light is secondary to the desire to do so.

So then light is secondary. May it even be useful with some darkness?

The comments by all the experts are based on working in good modern lighting, they may have little or no experience of working in low light.

Good! So that is one reason for why they say what they say.

The comments suggesting lighting would be a factor is therefore possibly questionable from the perspective.

That is very interesting. Thanks Steve.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

OK. You use both "skill" and "have worked in low light before".

Yes if he targeted the kidney, it needed some knowledge.

If not targeted, skill/knowledge need not be involved.


If he had no experience of working(at anything) in low light, the tasks performed would probably be more difficult, but it does not preclude them from happening.

Good! So that is one reason for why they say what they say.

Of course, it is based on their personal and professional experience.

What else ca they base any assessment on?


Steve

[Pierre]

QUOTE=Elamarna;404406

Of course, it is based on their personal and professional experience.

What else ca they base any assessment on?

So what you say here is that the people who gave their views on the mutilations based their views on their own experience of working in good modern lighting.

And you say that they may have little or no experience of working in low light.

This means that the working conditions of the professionals and the working conditions of the killer was very different.

When Harrison and Calder constructed their experiment there is the question about another difference: the difference between them and the killer as to the ability (A) to perform mutilations in a dark place.

One dimension of this difference is experience.

Another dimension of this difference is the method.

Regards, Pierre

[Sam Flynn]

If he had no experience of working (at anything) in low light, the tasks performed would probably be more difficult, but it does not preclude them from happening.

Quite so.

[Elamarna]

QUOTE=Elamarna;404406



So what you say here is that the people who gave their views on the mutilations based their views on their own experience of working in good modern lighting.

And you say that they may have little or no experience of working in low light.

This means that the working conditions of the professionals and the working conditions of the killer was very different.

When Harrison and Calder constructed their experiment there is the question about another difference: the difference between them and the killer as to the ability (A) to perform mutilations in a dark place.

One dimension of this difference is experience.

Another dimension of this difference is the method.

Regards, Pierre

I agree.

the experiment if you can call it such, shows the Harrison and Calder could not remove the kidney with a 6 inch blade.

That is all.


Steve

[John G]

The experiment also demonstrated that, in attempting to remove a kidney, the perpetrator would be faced with the difficult problem of the abdominal cavity filing with blood which, together with faecal matter, would result in messy hands, acting as a major hindrance.

Dr Calder also opines that the kidneys are not easy to find because they are behind other major organs: see Marriott, 2013.

[Elamarna]

The experiment also demonstrated that, in attempting to remove a kidney, the perpetrator would be faced with the difficult problem of the abdominal cavity filing with blood which, together with faecal matter, would result in messy hands, acting as a major hindrance.

Dr Calder also opines that the kidneys are not easy to find because they are behind other major organs: see Marriott, 2013.

John

While blood will flow into the cavity, it does not get filled very quickly if the throat is cut first and will collect in the lowest areas,


While it may be an inconvenience it does not stop the killer ,in my opinion or, as the evidence from the time suggests.


John, the issue here is that if it is targeted then it does require knowledge.

If not targeted it does not matter as the intestines were removed anyway.


It should also be noted that Neale and Biggs see little problem with the mutilations and timings as given by the 88 medics.


Steve

[John G]

John

While blood will flow into the cavity, it does not get filled very quickly if the throat is cut first and will collect in the lowest areas,


While it may be an inconvenience it does not stop the killer ,in my opinion or, as the evidence from the time suggests.


John, the issue here is that if it is targeted then it does require knowledge.

If not targeted it does not matter as the intestines were removed anyway.


It should also be noted that Neale and Biggs see little problem with the mutilations and timings as given by the 88 medics.


Steve

Steve,

Yes, but Drs Biggs and Neale fail to take into account that no surrounding tissue was damaged in the case of Chapman, or that Eddowes' kidney was "carefully" removed. This suggests a very different, i.e. far more skilled, approach to that of the cut and slash method employed at abattoirs.

Thus, Dr Biggs asks the question, "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).

Dr Brown seems to provide the answer to this question, stating that the left kidney was "carefully taken out and removed".(The emphasis is mine).

[Elamarna]

Steve,

Yes, but Drs Biggs and Neale fail to take into account that no surrounding tissue was damaged in the case of Chapman, or that Eddowes' kidney was "carefully" removed. This suggests a very different, i.e. far more skilled, approach to that of the cut and slash method employed at abattoirs.

Thus, Dr Biggs asks the question, "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).

Dr Brown seems to provide the answer to this question, stating that the left kidney was "carefully taken out and removed".(The emphasis is mine).

John, we do not know what "carefully" meant

The Butcher said he would probably remove it by just plucking it out, that would leave very little damage to surrounding tissue if any.

The problem as Biggs points out is that the descriptions are inadequate to allow anyone to draw real conclusions.


Steve

[Sam Flynn]

Yes, but Drs Biggs and Neale fail to take into account that no surrounding tissue was damaged in the case of Chapman

Oh, but there was collateral damage. Two-thirds only of the bladder was removed, leaving one-third inside the corpse, and Chapman's colon was partially cut through.

[Fisherman]

Oh, but there was collateral damage. Two-thirds only of the bladder was removed, leaving one-third inside the corpse, and Chapman's colon was partially cut through.

Very true! The removal of the uterus from Annie Chapman´s body was not something any surgeon worth his salt would be proud of. What impressed Phillips was instead seemingly the skilful sweep of the knife that took out the portions from the body. It was not a question of fiddling around with the blade, stabbing, carving, groping and slashing the uterus out, but instead of a sweeping movement, made with lots of confidence and causing a totally clean cut - through all the wrong sections if you were a surgeon.

[Sam Flynn]

Very true! The removal of the uterus from Annie Chapman´s body was not something any surgeon worth his salt would be proud of.

Glad we agree on some things, Fish!

What impressed Phillips was instead seemingly the skilful sweep of the knife that took out the portions from the body.

I'm glad you said "seemingly", because Phillips' own notes contradict the "clean sweep" argument by noting the two-thirds hacked bladder and partially-severed colon; not to mention the incredibly crude means by which the killer opened Annie's abdomen in the first place.

[John G]

Oh, but there was collateral damage. Two-thirds only of the bladder was removed, leaving one-third inside the corpse, and Chapman's colon was partially cut through.

Yes, but this is what was stated in The Lancet:

"...and the incisions cleanly cut, avoiding the rectum and dividing the vagina low enough to avoid injury to the cervix uteri. Obviously the work of an expert-of one, at least, who had such knowledge of anatomical and pathological examinations as to be enabled to secure the pelvic organs with one sweep of a knife..." (The Lancet, September 29, 1888).

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: Glad we agree on some things, Fish!

So am I, Gareth!

I'm glad you said "seemingly", because Phillips' own notes contradict the "clean sweep" argument by noting the two-thirds hacked bladder and partially-severed colon; not to mention the incredibly crude means by which the killer opened Annie's abdomen in the first place.

See what you mean - of course it was not a "clean" sweep in that respect. What I think Phillips pointed to was an uninterrupted, unhesitating sweep of the knife, in itself something that told a story of a very skilled knifesman - but NOT a skilled surgeon.
This, by the way, is exactly what signifies the Torso killer´s work too. Skilled, unhesitating, sweeping knifework.

[Sam Flynn]

Yes, but this is what was stated in The Lancet:

"...and the incisions cleanly cut, avoiding the rectum and dividing the vagina low enough to avoid injury to the cervix uteri. Obviously the work of an expert-of one, at least, who had such knowledge of anatomical and pathological examinations as to be enabled to secure the pelvic organs with one sweep of a knife..." (The Lancet, September 29, 1888).

Indeed, John - although I've often wondered how much Dr Phillips himself is represented in that article, and how much of it was journalistic spin. The plain fact of the matter is that the Lancet does paint a somewhat cleaner picture of the evisceration than Dr Phillips' own testimony conveys.