Eddowes' gut cut

[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

[Elamarna]

There will be enough to tip the scales I beleive

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I await your new work with interest Trevor.


Steve

[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?

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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

[Sam Flynn]

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

[Joshua Rogan]

To me, at least the first reported stab to Eddowes' liver was quite likely collateral damage inflicted with the initial plunge of the knife into the abdomen, as Brown says: "Behind this [the ensiform cartilage], the liver was stabbed as if by the point of a sharp instrument".

He goes on to say "Below this was another incision into the liver of about two and a half inches, and below this the left lobe of the liver was slit through by a vertical cut." These could have been caused by the initial abdominal incision, and/or sustained as a result of the killer's going after the left kidney - it's perhaps significant in this context that Brown reports a slit in the left lobe of the liver, which would be some distance away from the otherwise midline cut down her upper abdomen. Brown also indicates that the spleen, another organ adjacent to the left kidney, had been damaged

In his statement (from the Ultimate JTR.Companion) Brown gives additional info on the cuts to the liver;

"There was a cut from the upper part of the slit on the under surface of the liver to the left side and another cut at right angles to this which were about an inch and a half deep and 2 1/2 inches long."

I must admit I find that description hard to picture, can anyone else? But could well be collateral damage from the kidney extraction. Except that Brown describes that as "carefully taken out"

and that the pancreas had been cut on the left hand side.

Again, according to his statement, Brown says "the pancreas was cut but not through on the left side of the spinal column", rather than the left side in general. So quite near the mid-line, most likely.

[Sam Flynn]

Interesting that Brown says that one of those perpendicular cuts was on the UNDER surface of the liver on the left.

[Joshua Rogan]

Interesting that Brown says that one of those perpendicular cuts was on the UNDER surface of the liver on the left.

Quite. Can we say that "the left lobe of the liver was slit through by a vertical cut" is the same wound as "the slit on the under surface of the liver"?

[Varqm]

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

Good point.I may have missed it but I have yet to read a report/quote that says organs were missing at the crime scene.
They did have opportunities:

Not the best ex. but at the Nichols inquest:

Robert Mann, the keeper of the mortuary, said the police came to the workhouse, of which he was an inmate. He went, in consequence, to the mortuary at five a.m. He saw the body placed there, and then locked the place up and kept the keys.

Inspector John Spratling..
The Coroner: Had they any authority to strip the body?
Witness: No, sir; I gave them no instructions to strip it. In fact, I told them to leave it as it was.

But they stripped the clothes anyway...
James Hatfield...
[Coroner] Who gave you instructions to do all this? - No one gave us any. We did it to have the body ready for the doctor.

But there are examples of killers taking organs so most likely the ripper did,but yes this is no proof in the ripper case.


-