If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Comment

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"

Comment

Doesn't this seriously undermine Dr Phillips' analysis regarding the skill of the perpetrator?

Not really, as the "one sweep of the knife" and "avoiding the rectum" bits came from the writer of a somewhat sensationalist Lancet editorial rather than Phillips himself. What does undermine Phillips' analysis of the perpetrator's skill is that he himself notes that neither the bladder nor the colon escaped unscathed, and Chapman's abdomen was opened rather inefficiently in the form of three pieces of flesh, rather than a single, long cut.

Comment

Not really, as the "one sweep of the knife" and "avoiding the rectum" bits came from the writer of a somewhat sensationalist Lancet editorial rather than Phillips himself. What does undermine Phillips' analysis of the perpetrator's skill is that he himself notes that neither the bladder nor the colon escaped unscathed, and Chapman's abdomen was opened rather inefficiently in the form of three pieces of flesh, rather than a single, long cut.

Thanks for this, Gareth, much appreciated. Wasn't it the case that, following Dr Phillips' conclusions, the police targeted local hospitals on the assumption that the perpetrator was possibly a medical professional?

Regarding the cuts to Chapman's abdomen, "Those familiar with autopsy or surgery will know that skin is often the hardest tissue to cut." (Black, Rutty, Hainsworth, Thomson (2017) Moreover, as one of Trevor's experts points out in relation to Chapman, who may well have been emaciated, "...evisceration is more difficult in a person with a poor covering of body fat. When a person is very thin the skin at autopsy loses it's elasticity. It is more difficult to carefully remove organs when the opening cannot be stretched." (Marriott, 2015)

In other words, the killer, who would have been using a Victorian knife, and possibly not one kept in tip-top condition, may have found it too problematic to open the abdomen with a single cut, particularly considering the time pressures he would have been under.

Comment

It really depends. After the capture of Joseph James DeAngelo, all cards are back on the table, because he was an officer during most of his crimes, including homicides.

Despite being stationed in two different parts, either side of Sacramento, the barriers we thought existed to LE being the offender are not barriers at all.

For example, constables can go outside of their beat going to and from work. Some constables may fill in for others.

I would like to know which parts of their equipment were bought by themselves and which they could keep, even if thrown off the force.

I suspect if JtR was a PC that he was fired at some point, either at the start of the crimes (and the real start is important here), during the crimes or after them. He would also have had a record of consorting with prostitutes in the force.

Comment

It really depends. After the capture of Joseph James DeAngelo, all cards are back on the table, because he was an officer during most of his crimes, including homicides.

Despite being stationed in two different parts, either side of Sacramento, the barriers we thought existed to LE being the offender are not barriers at all.

For example, constables can go outside of their beat going to and from work. Some constables may fill in for others.

I would like to know which parts of their equipment were bought by themselves and which they could keep, even if thrown off the force.

I suspect if JtR was a PC that he was fired at some point, either at the start of the crimes (and the real start is important here), during the crimes or after them. He would also have had a record of consorting with prostitutes in the force.

Ah, are you suggesting that he may have been fired prior to the murders but retained his uniform?

Otherwise I think a uniformed killer would have two major problems. Firstly, he risked getting blood and gore on his uniform, and he would surely have a problem explaining that to his sergeant on parade.

Secondly, if he was seen by a Whitechapel officer that officer would be aware that he was way off beat. He would therefore be attracting unwelcomed attention to himself (this would also apply if he was a former officer who retained his uniform), which he was presumably keen to avoid.

Comment

Ah, are you suggesting that he may have been fired prior to the murders but retained his uniform?

Otherwise I think a uniformed killer would have two major problems. Firstly, he risked getting blood and gore on his uniform, and he would surely have a problem explaining that to his sergeant on parade.

Secondly, if he was seen by a Whitechapel officer that officer would be aware that he was way off beat. He would therefore be attracting unwelcomed attention to himself (this would also apply if he was a former officer who retained his uniform), which he was presumably keen to avoid.

Comment

He was there, and furthermore very familiar with the locale.I'm sure GPs are just as capable on assessing the level of lighting and the practicalities of (crude) organ removal as a surgeon would have been. Sequeira came from a long line of distinguished medical practitioners, and was no fool.

You're missing the point .
He was not there when there were no lamps in the square , or was lit up like Blackpool when he arrived .It's ridiculous to trust in that .
I presume you've taken a walk down a countryside public footpath with no moonlight when it's all you can do to see your feet in front of you ?
The cities then were like that .No neon lighting is a whole different ball game than what we know today in cities
There was no crude removal of the kidney .
The membrane was "cut " and the kidney "carefully removed" ...... I doubt your average thirty something GP had much experience of removing kidneys

Comment

The killer was used to the typical lighting conditions of late 19th century London at night. This doesn't seem particularly strange to me.

No more than we would be .
The eyes undergo "dark adaptation".
Takes about 20 minutes if I remember to get close to optimum but it's a myth that people living at that time could adjust better in the dark than we do today .
If you want to know what dark is , take a walk in the country , miles from any main road lightening the night sky when there's no moonlight .
Then try to imagine looking for a kidney