Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Periodicals: Upcoming Article - by TomTomKent 2 hours ago.
Periodicals: Upcoming Article - by TomTomKent 2 hours ago.
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by NickB 3 hours ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: George Hutchinson Shadowing Sarah Lewis' Statement - by Darryl Kenyon 4 hours ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: George Hutchinson Shadowing Sarah Lewis' Statement - by Wickerman 5 hours ago.
Mary Jane Kelly: George Hutchinson Shadowing Sarah Lewis' Statement - by Wickerman 6 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Mary Jane Kelly: George Hutchinson Shadowing Sarah Lewis' Statement - (7 posts)
Periodicals: Upcoming Article - (6 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Help On Some Details - (4 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (3 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Most accurate reconstruction (Graphic Warning) - (1 posts)
Casebook Announcements: Server Switching and Reprogramming.. - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Motive, Method and Madness

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #31  
Old 11-01-2018, 05:42 AM
Batman Batman is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBarnett View Post
There's one category of person for whom the amount of light would be irrelevant - a blind man.
Who starts a fire in Kelly's room.
__________________
Bona fide canonical and then some.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 11-01-2018, 05:52 AM
DJA DJA is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Some Australian Mountain Range.
Posts: 1,743
Default

How did she afford the coal!
__________________
My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 11-01-2018, 06:13 AM
MrBarnett MrBarnett is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Romford
Posts: 2,426
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Batman View Post
Who starts a fire in Kelly's room.
No. Tabram only.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 11-01-2018, 06:13 AM
Rob1n Rob1n is offline
Constable
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Edgware.
Posts: 81
Default

Or, could he have used a lantern like a Police one, it wouldn't show light in anything but the direction it was aimed and, wasn't really bright enough to attract attention from a distance when aimed correctly? Mad suggestion or not?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 11-01-2018, 06:26 AM
Rob1n Rob1n is offline
Constable
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Edgware.
Posts: 81
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damaso Marte View Post
The killer was used to the typical lighting conditions of late 19th century London at night. This doesn't seem particularly strange to me.
Yes, that makes sense.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 11-01-2018, 06:35 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,313
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
Not if they're included in the injuries to which he did refer. He was unlikely only to offer his opinion on the external wounds without also including the most important injuries of all, namely the removal of the organs.
Not beyond the bounds of possibility. I'd put it at a comfortable 4-5 minutes, but I don't think Sequeira was too wide of the mark; he might even have been right.
But of course the star interview report was dated Oct 1st, If Both Brown and Sequeira had been interviewed before the post mortem then they would not have known about any organs being missing, so the time they mentioned 3 & 5 mins respectively could not have included the time it would have taken to remove the organs.

You have to use Browns expert as a yardstick to how long it would have taken to remove the organs in the same way they were removed from Eddowes. It took him 3 minutes to remove a uterus, and he still manged to damage the bladder, which was not done to Eddowes, add to that the time taken to locate and remove a kidney, I would suggest that it would have taken at least another 2 minutes. So we have a minimum of 5 mins with just the organ removals, add to that the extra time to cut or tear the apron, to murder and mutilate, and to rifle her pockets,

Did the killer have that much time with Eddowes? In my opinion, the answer is no, and if you want it breaking down as I have done, I would suggest you read the revised chapter on Eddowes which appears in "Jack the Ripper- The Real truth" Now available in paperback as well as kindle

https://amzn.to/2AF41DK

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 11-01-2018, 06:42 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is online now
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 11,611
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
It took him 3 minutes to remove a uterus, and he still manged to damage the bladder, which was not done to Eddowes
But Chapman's bladder was damaged, and probably under better lighting conditions. Which brings us back to the topic of this thread.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 11-01-2018, 06:48 AM
MrBarnett MrBarnett is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Romford
Posts: 2,426
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
But of course the star interview report was dated Oct 1st, If Both Brown and Sequeira had been interviewed before the post mortem then they would not have known about any organs being missing, so the time they mentioned 3 & 5 mins respectively could not have included the time it would have taken to remove the organs.

You have to use Browns expert as a yardstick to how long it would have taken to remove the organs in the same way they were removed from Eddowes. It took him 3 minutes to remove a uterus, and he still manged to damage the bladder, which was not done to Eddowes, add to that the time taken to locate and remove a kidney, I would suggest that it would have taken at least another 2 minutes. So we have a minimum of 5 mins with just the organ removals, add to that the extra time to cut or tear the apron, to murder and mutilate, and to rifle her pockets,

Did the killer have that much time with Eddowes? In my opinion, the answer is no, and if you want it breaking down as I have done, I would suggest you read the revised chapter on Eddowes which appears in "Jack the Ripper- The Real truth" Now available in paperback as well as kindle

https://amzn.to/2AF41DK

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Of course, surgeons aren't trained to remove organs at speed.

There was a superstar knacker at John Harrison's yard who was apparently able to kill and strip a horse carcase in 20 minutes, compared to the hour or more a less talented slaughtermen would take. His skill made him a wealthy man - his fingers apparently 'dripped with diamonds'. And of course, horse slaughtering was generally carried out at night - by flickering candlelight at least as late as the 1870s.

I'm not trying to push a slaughterman suspect here, my point is just that someone who wasn't surgically trained might well have been able to do the job quicker than someone who had been.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 11-01-2018, 07:13 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,313
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBarnett View Post
Of course, surgeons aren't trained to remove organs at speed.

But in this case clearly Brown was concerned with the times for him to ask an expert to carry out the removal in as quick time as possible. If he was concerned 130 years ago why should we still not be concerned given the results of his expert 130 years on.

There was a superstar knacker at John Harrison's yard who was apparently able to kill and strip a horse carcase in 20 minutes, compared to the hour or more a less talented slaughtermen would take. His skill made him a wealthy man - his fingers apparently 'dripped with diamonds'. And of course, horse slaughtering was generally carried out at night - by flickering candlelight at least as late as the 1870s.

I'm not trying to push a slaughterman suspect here, my point is just that someone who wasn't surgically trained might well have been able to do the job quicker than someone who had been.
It all comes down to how much time the killer would have with Eddowes from walking down Church passage to when he left the square (disturbed by Pc Harvey or otherwise)

In my book there is some new medical evidence to support the belief that the organs from Chapman and Eddowes were not removed by the same person.

Clearly by the posts of some members here they are never going to accept the fact that the organs were not removed by the killer, which I accept is there prerogative, but they are clearly not prepared to even consider alternatives, and that is a sad fact, and says a lot about the state of ripperolgy on these forums

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 11-01-2018, 07:32 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,313
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
But Chapman's bladder was damaged, and probably under better lighting conditions. Which brings us back to the topic of this thread.
yes you are right parts of her bladder were cut through to be specific but these were specific cuts to enable the other organs to be accessed and I quote from one of my medical experts on the topic of Chapman

"An interesting point is the removal of the pelvic organs. The report states that the uterus and its appendages and the upper portion of the vagina, and parts of the bladder had been entirely removed. To remove the appendages, the uterus, the fallopian tubes and ovaries in one frenzied attack and one slice of a blade would be almost impossible. It is a very difficult and quite a skilled undertaking to remove these organs carefully even by today’s methods especially as the comment is that they were cleanly cut and the cut missed the rectum. These specific organs are in very close proximity to each other and at post-mortem are removed by a mixture of blunt dissection and sharp knife. Even doing this carefully it is still possible to damage some of the surrounding organs and tissues. There would have been no need for the killer to remove the intestines to facilitate the removal of the uterus"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.