Eddowes' gut cut

[Sam Flynn]

Surgical skill is one thing, anatomical knowledge is another. The latter is far more widespread.

[Trevor Marriott]

Even if a surgeon was mutilating these victims, he isn't going to methodically operate on them like he was at the hospital.
Surgical cuts goes out the window, time is of the essence, he will rip them open like anyone else. The difference is, an experienced murderer will know where to find an organ, and how to remove it cleanly if he wanted to keep it. Like the kidney - removed with care.
Other usless organs just hacked out because they are in the way - which we also see.

Any one with sufficient anatomical knowledge in 1888 to be able to remove a kidney anda uterus in double quick time, and in almost total darkness would surely know that there would be no need to remove the intestines !!!!!!! so you argument falls flat on that issue,



I don't buy your "stabbing through the clothes" argument, if this is what you are referring to above.
Some of her clothes were pulled up above the waist, so any cuts in them will be upside down cuts. These were not stab wounds though.

You are not thinking logically with the factual evidence

“Chintz Skirt” – jagged cut six inches long from waistband, left side of front, edges slightly bloodstained.

“Brown Linsey Dress Bodice – clean cut bottom of left side, five inches long from right to left.

“Grey Stuff Petticoat – white waistband cut one and a half inches long,

“Very Old Green Alpaca Skirt – jagged cut ten and a half inches long, through waistband downwards,

“Very Old Ragged Blue Skirt – jagged cut ten and a half inches long, through waistband downwards,

I can see no other logical explanation for the cuts to the clothing other than the belief that she was stabbed through her outer clothing and the knife drawn down and across as the cuts in the clohting have been described.








Trevor, for goodness sakes. Dr. Brown had the body to work with, we only have words, and you think you know better than him?

Its not a question of knowing better than him its a question of trying to understand the facts and the evidence. The killer either had anatomical knowledge or he did not. If he didn't then he could not have removed the organs in the short time he would have had with the victim.

If he did have that knowledge then there are question marks about his actions at the crime scene.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

If the killer had anatomical knowledge as is being suggested then he would surely not have ripped open the abdomen in the way he did.

Even if a surgeon was mutilating these victims, he isn't going to methodically operate on them like he was at the hospital.
Surgical cuts goes out the window, time is of the essence, he will rip them open like anyone else. The difference is, an experienced murderer will know where to find an organ, and how to remove it cleanly if he wanted to keep it. Like the kidney - removed with care.
Other usless organs just hacked out because they are in the way - which we also see.

By doing this in the way he did, he would run the risk of damaging any organs he might have been seeking if that was part of the motive, and I don't believe this to be the case, and I certainly don't believe that the taking of the organs was an afterthought as some suggest.

I don't buy your "stabbing through the clothes" argument, if this is what you are referring to above.
Some of her clothes were pulled up above the waist, so any cuts in them will be upside down cuts. These were not stab wounds though.

Dr Brown stated that he believed the killer had sufficient anatomical knowledge to locate and remove the organs. But the mutilation of the body and the ripping of the abdomen now tells us that perhaps he was wrong.

Trevor, for goodness sakes. Dr. Brown had the body to work with, we only have words, and you think you know better than him?

[Trevor Marriott]

Regardless of any experience, cutting loose skin will always turn out jagged. Skin must be firm, or tight if you like, for a cut to run perfectly true and steady.
Skin which is loose will always ruffle up (like ripples) against the sweep of the knife. The blade cuts through the ripples but when the skin is relaxed again we see what looks like a jagged wound.

If the killer had anatomical knowledge as is being suggested then he would surely not have ripped open the abdomen in the way he did. By doing this in the way he did, he would run the risk of damaging any organs he might have been seeking if that was part of the motive, and I don't believe this to be the case, and I certainly don't believe that the taking of the organs was an afterthought as some suggest.

Dr Brown stated that he believed the killer had sufficient anatomical knowledge to locate and remove the organs. But the mutilation of the body and the ripping of the abdomen now tells us that perhaps he was wrong.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

One of my team of medical experts who has reviewed the medical evidence makes this observation

"I am first struck by the jagged appearance of the abdominal wound. This does not look like a surgical incision. The irregular nature of it,....

Regardless of any experience, cutting loose skin will always turn out jagged. Skin must be firm, or tight if you like, for a cut to run perfectly true and steady.
Skin which is loose will always ruffle up (like ripples) against the sweep of the knife. The blade cuts through the ripples but when the skin is relaxed again we see what looks like a jagged wound.

[Wickerman]

I believe it was pointed out at the time that the kidney is a particularly difficult organ to find, especially in the dark.....

I'm inclined to think this is what concerned the medical men at the time. The kidney is not an automatic target, especially not what any 'nobody' would go for.
It takes a degree of knowledge to know what to feel for and where to find it.
It's not something that is likely to be grabbed at random either.

[Robert]

I believe it was pointed out at the time that the kidney is a particularly difficult organ to find, especially in the dark. So I guess it must have been Roland Rat.

[Debra A]

But I say that he didnt remove the uterus and kidney from Eddowes, As stated I believe the motive was clearly and simply murder and mutilation and no design on the taking away of organs.

Where is the conclusive evidence that the killer took the organs, there is none, all there is are inferences drawn from the post mortem, where they were found to be missing some 12 hours later.

I am not going to get embroiled in this debate yet again, save to say that I will be publishing a complete new review of Sept 30th later in the year which will contain new facts and evidence to support my theories.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Proof at last, Trevor?

[Joshua Rogan]

But I say that he didnt remove the uterus and kidney from Eddowes, As stated I believe the motive was clearly and simply murder and mutilation and no design on the taking away of organs.

So....ripping a woman completely open, pulling out some internal organs and leaving them at the scene is "simply murder and mutilation", but taking any others away is organ harvesting and must have been done by a third party?

[Elamarna]

There will be enough to tip the scales I beleive

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I await your new work with interest Trevor.


Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

Except that, undoubtedly, the killer did remove organs at the crime scenes. He didn't take them away, but he did pull or cut the intestines from the abdomen. I'm interested to know why you think he did this if he wasn't interested in removing internal organs....please don't say he was a freemason.

But I say that he didnt remove the uterus and kidney from Eddowes, As stated I believe the motive was clearly and simply murder and mutilation and no design on the taking away of organs.

Where is the conclusive evidence that the killer took the organs, there is none, all there is are inferences drawn from the post mortem, where they were found to be missing some 12 hours later.

I am not going to get embroiled in this debate yet again, save to say that I will be publishing a complete new review of Sept 30th later in the year which will contain new facts and evidence to support my theories.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

There will be enough to tip the scales I beleive

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

There already is, Trevor.

[Trevor Marriott]

Probably abit of both Trevor, sure we will be at swords again before end of year, thats the subject for you.
I dont ignore the clothing i just diagree, and that too is the way of things.

And i doubt we will ever agree about the removal, unless there is significant new evidence.

All the best


Steve

There will be enough to tip the scales I beleive

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

Yes, very much the same sort of thing, only Mann was claimed to kill and then remove at mortuary. Pity for theory was he was not involvef in all cases.

I mention him in passing as regards a suspect in Bucks Row, but its only one or two lines if memory holds.


Steve

ahh yes. I remember Trows Mann theory now.

and now I will immediately forget it.

[Elamarna]

thanks El

LOL. yes Ive heard that idea before from him, but the way he worded it in this latest made it sound like the killer removed the organs somewhere else--I thought he may have been on to a new "theory".

didn't trow have the same idea with his Mann suspect-the mortuary attendant?

Yes, very much the same sort of thing, only Mann was claimed to kill and then remove at mortuary. Pity for theory was he was not involvef in all cases.

I mention him in passing as regards a suspect in Bucks Row, but its only one or two lines if memory holds.


Steve