The kidney removal of Catherine Eddowes.

[Trevor Marriott]

That's all speculation. For all we know they did quite a good examination at the scene, and given the crimes were now quite a sensation it's a bit more of a stretch to suggest they didn't rather than that they did. And they did document missing organs in their official documentation made during the post-mortems. Just because the first time they wrote something down in an official document is when he wrote the post-mortem report doesn't mean it is the first time he became aware of something. I mean really, we know they (Dr. Brown and Dr. Phillips) were there (just like we know the organ trade existed) so they could have noticed the missing organs (just like an organ thief could have stole the missing organs) even though we have no evidence of this (even though we have no evidence of this). The difference is, I can place Dr. Brown at the scene, quote inquest testimony that Dr. Phillips was sent for (i.e. come now) so that Dr. Brown could consult him given his experience with Annie Chapman. I can show he was sent for prior to Eddowes' body being removed from the crime scene, indicating they in all probabilit had their consultation that night, well before the post-mortem. And the rest follows.

But you cant prove that

Now, can you show me anything of similar relevance with regards to organ thieves? You can show they existed, just like I can show that both Dr. Brown and Dr. Phillips existed. But I can bring those two together, in the presence of Eddowes' body, with a good indication this was more or less in line with her body arriving at the mortuary. Can you produce anything of a similar nature with regards to organ thieves (meaning, I accept they existed - now show me what evidence you have that they were anywhere in the vicinity of Eddowes' body at a time when Dr. Brown was not).

- Jeff

- Jeff

You are asking a question that is unanswerable and I should reverse the question by asking you to show that they were not involved in the taking of organs from the mortuaries - cuts both ways.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

The doctors only did a cursory examination of the bodies at the crime scenes and to delve into a ripped open abdomen on the street in very bad light would not be a viable option and if that had have happened and they had found organs missing it would have been documented and formed part of their evidence at the inquest.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

That's all speculation. For all we know they did quite a good examination at the scene, and given the crimes were now quite a sensation it's a bit more of a stretch to suggest they didn't rather than that they did. And they did document missing organs in their official documentation made during the post-mortems. Just because the first time they wrote something down in an official document is when he wrote the post-mortem report doesn't mean it is the first time he became aware of something. I mean really, we know they (Dr. Brown and Dr. Phillips) were there (just like we know the organ trade existed) so they could have noticed the missing organs (just like an organ thief could have stole the missing organs) even though we have no evidence of this (even though we have no evidence of this). The difference is, I can place Dr. Brown at the scene, quote inquest testimony that Dr. Phillips was sent for (i.e. come now) so that Dr. Brown could consult him given his experience with Annie Chapman. I can show he was sent for prior to Eddowes' body being removed from the crime scene, indicating they in all probabilit had their consultation that night, well before the post-mortem. And the rest follows.

Now, can you show me anything of similar relevance with regards to organ thieves? You can show they existed, just like I can show that both Dr. Brown and Dr. Phillips existed. But I can bring those two together, in the presence of Eddowes' body, with a good indication this was more or less in line with her body arriving at the mortuary. Can you produce anything of a similar nature with regards to organ thieves (meaning, I accept they existed - now show me what evidence you have that they were anywhere in the vicinity of Eddowes' body at a time when Dr. Brown was not).

- Jeff

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

Hi Jeff,

There is some information in The Times dated 1 Nov and Lloyds Weekly dated 30 Sep which is interesting but frustrating in its ambiguity.

The Times states:
The body was removed as soon as possible to the mortuary in Golden-lane, where it was examined in the presence of Dr. Brown and Dr. Sequeira. Dr. Phillips, of Spital-square, the surgeon of the H Division of Metropolitan Police, arrived shortly afterwards, and assisted in the preliminary examination of the body.
It then has a description of the preliminary examination containing only Eddowes clothing and accoutrements. It is then noted that:
In the afternoon a post-mortem examination of the body was made

Lloyds noted:
The report quickly spread that the part of the body missing from Annie Chapman had also been removed in this case, but on inquiry we found that the rumour was unfounded.

This (Sunday) morning the lamps were burning brightly, but a curious little circumstance was mentioned by the wife of a caretaker living directly opposite the spot where the murdered woman was found. As she went home with her little girl on Friday night she noticed that the lamp in the north-west corner of the square was so dull that she could scarcely see her way. This must have thrown the pavement on which the body was found into comparative darkness, and may thus have in some way contributed to the selection of the spot by the murderer.

After a very careful examination of the body where it was found, it was at three o'clock removed to the City mortuary in Golden-lane, and here Drs. Brown and Sequeira continued their investigation for a considerable time.

At twenty minutes past five, when we left the mortuary, after the interview most kindly accorded by Dr. Gordon Brown, there was an expectation on the part of the police that Dr. Phillips, who gave the important evidence in connection with the case of Annie Chapman, would speedily arrive there.

It should be noted that there were a number of inaccuracies in the Lloyds report.

I also came across this excerpt from Phillip's report of the Eddowes autopsy:

I think the perpetrator of this act had sufficient time, or he would not have nicked the lower eyelids. It would take at least five minutes.

So what, in Phillip's opinion, took at least five minutes. He nominated that Chapman's mutilations would have taken him 15 minutes. "At least five minutes" seems too short for all Eddowes mutilations and extractions, but too long for just the nicking of the lower eyelids.

As I said, interesting but ambiguous.

Best regards, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

If JTR motive was to murder mutilate and harvest organs why do we not see evidence of the killer doing just that in the cases of Tabram, Mckenzie, Stride,Nicholls, and Coles now the old chestnut that keeps surfacing when I ask that question is that he was disturbed,I don't buy that.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Tabram - on a landing with the doors to several flats.
McKenzie - on an street
Nichols - on a street
Coles - in an archway in 1891
Stride - in a yard but by a partially open door and an open gate

No organs taken.

Chapman - in a backyard
Eddowes - in a dark, secluded square
Kelly - in her room

Organs taken.

[Jon Guy]

If JTR motive was to murder mutilate and harvest organs why do we not see evidence of the killer doing just that in the cases of Tabram, Mckenzie, Stride,Nicholls, and Coles now the old chestnut that keeps surfacing when I ask that question is that he was disturbed,I don't buy that.

Probabaly because Tabram, McKenzie and Coles were killed by a different killer to Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly.
It`s also pretty much nailed on that Stride`s killer was interrupted.

I may be wrong but I have seen no evidence to show any of the doctors accompanied any of the bodies to the mortuaries and noticed organs missing before the post mortem.

In which cases were there no Police guard at the mortuary ?

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor has pointed out, quite correctly, that organ harvesting before the post mortem did not take place with Nichols and Stride, because the fresh incisions would have been immediately obvious. This would have placed immediate suspicion on mortuary staff for the act itself, or complicity in it. In the cases of Chapman and Eddowes, there is no way that organ harvesters could be aware of exactly what excisions the police surgeons had already noted, and what they hadn't noticed, if anything. It was therefore equally unsafe to remove organs in those cases.

I disagree for all we know the organ thieves could have opened the abdomens even more than the killer did to remove the organs, how would anyone know the doctors doing the post mortem would have simply been presented with a ripped open abdomen

Also, as Herlock has pointed out, the surgeons and detectives were coming and going unannounced, so there was a massive risk of being caught in the act. This assumes that there was no constable on duty at any time. If the constable was there, but outside, he would know who was coming and going, and who might have left carrying a "parcel". Organ harvesting after the post mortem was therefore a much safer and less risky proposition.

If a mortuary attendant was involved and he himself removed the organs then he could have come and gone at will, bearing in mind the mortuary would have had other bodies anyone in company with a mortuary attendant and wearing a white coat would have been able to gain access

Organ harvesting was not an unknown act, and I am sure that the local experts would have been well aware of this problem, and the local experts were, of course, the police and the police surgeons. It should therefore have been made impossible for organ harvesting to take place before a post mortem. I consider it to be very relevant that not one police officer, nor any police surgeon has ever at any time indicated the possibility that the killer was not the one who removed the organs. I don't think that they were protecting themselves for an oversight on their part. They were actually looking for a killer who removed body parts.

Nothing is impossible in life or in the case death

Perhaps I should restate a line from the letter written to the police by an experienced butcher/slaughterer which I quoted earlier - "There has been nothing done yet to any of these poor women that an expert butcher could not do almost in the dark." He also wrote about how they could work far more quickly than the doctors believed possible.

And I have a statement from a master butcher who started off in an abattoir to the contrary

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

How do we know no organs were noted as missing at the crime scene? The doctor's could have noted their absence at the time, but it is the post-mortem where they officially record such things as they have the time to properly document all aspects of how it was done, and so of course it is to the post-mortem that they refer when giving testimony. The absence of statements to noting missing organs at the crime scenes makes for as strong an argument as the absence of evidence of an organ thief makes for your suggested alternative speculation.

- Jeff

The doctors only did a cursory examination of the bodies at the crime scenes and to delve into a ripped open abdomen on the street in very bad light would not be a viable option and if that had have happened and they had found organs missing it would have been documented and formed part of their evidence at the inquest.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Doctored Whatsit]

Trevor has pointed out, quite correctly, that organ harvesting before the post mortem did not take place with Nichols and Stride, because the fresh incisions would have been immediately obvious. This would have placed immediate suspicion on mortuary staff for the act itself, or complicity in it. In the cases of Chapman and Eddowes, there is no way that organ harvesters could be aware of exactly what excisions the police surgeons had already noted, and what they hadn't noticed, if anything. It was therefore equally unsafe to remove organs in those cases.

Also, as Herlock has pointed out, the surgeons and detectives were coming and going unannounced, so there was a massive risk of being caught in the act. This assumes that there was no constable on duty at any time. If the constable was there, but outside, he would know who was coming and going, and who might have left carrying a "parcel". Organ harvesting after the post mortem was therefore a much safer and less risky proposition.

Organ harvesting was not an unknown act, and I am sure that the local experts would have been well aware of this problem, and the local experts were, of course, the police and the police surgeons. It should therefore have been made impossible for organ harvesting to take place before a post mortem. I consider it to be very relevant that not one police officer, nor any police surgeon has ever at any time indicated the possibility that the killer was not the one who removed the organs. I don't think that they were protecting themselves for an oversight on their part. They were actually looking for a killer who removed body parts.

Perhaps I should restate a line from the letter written to the police by an experienced butcher/slaughterer which I quoted earlier - "There has been nothing done yet to any of these poor women that an expert butcher could not do almost in the dark." He also wrote about how they could work far more quickly than the doctors believed possible.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi George,

I've never found your tendencies to be annoying, even if we do find ourselves on opposite sides of the fence on many occasions. Personally, I find the most interesting discussions require one on each side, otherwise it's just two people going "yup, I agree", and patting each other on the back.

And yes, there are so many details we don't know, like how long was she unattended in the morgue prior to the post-mortem.

However, what I'm pointing out is that Dr. Phillips was sent for prior to her body being removed from the crime scene. Now, sure, maybe this is the only time in all of the crimes when a doctor was sent for he didn't come immediately, that's possible. I just find that sufficiently improbable that I don't consider it a valid argument without some evidence to back it up. His being at the post-mortem later isn't an indication he wasn't there when called the first time. In fact, I could put forth the argument that because he was at the post-mortem, there must have been enough of a reason to indicate his prior knowledge of the Chapman case was indeed useful.

Dr. Brown sent for Dr. Phillips because the Eddowes case showed a marked similarity with the Chapman case. Now, I accept that similarity could just have been because of the gross level abdominal mutilations. But given how rare that is, that is more than sufficient to call him in to get his opinion.

Dr. Brown tells us that Dr. Phillips was sent for prior to Eddowes being removed from the crime scene. We don't have any indication that Dr. Phillips came to Mitre Square, so I'm suggesting they met at the morgue but I could be wrong, and they could have met at the crime scene. In either case, with Dr. Phillips present to examine the body in order to get his opinion with regards to related to Annie Chapman, it is stretching a very long bow to suggest that they did not check Eddowes' uterus. Remember, at the Chapman inquest, the coroner suggested that the uterus was the reason for the crime, so whether they examined the body at the crime scene, or at the morgue that night, I think the idea they did not check her uterus is pushing the proverbial uphill. It just doesn't make sense.

And given that Dr. Brown sent for Dr. Phillips prior to Eddowes' body being moved from the mortuary, I'm suggesting that they did this examination long before the official post-mortem. Dr. Brown is not doing his post-mortem at this point, he's seeking information from a colleague who has already had experience with a very similar case. It's two professionals interacting, getting preliminary information, and not a post-mortem.

As such, the time the body was unattended until the post-mortem doesn't matter so much; they inspected the body long before the post-mortem (is what I'm arguing the testimony indicates).

I suppose one could suggest that Dr. Phillips arrives after Dr. Brown and Eddowes' body have arrived at the morgue. And in the interval between her body's arrival, and Dr. Phillips arrival, the body was left unattended and the organ thief slips in and makes off with her uterus and kidney.

But now it's starting to feel like it is up to me to prove a negative, that an organ thief didn't do that. I freely admit I can't prove Dr. Phillips and Dr. Brown examined the body that night upon its arrival at the morgue. But I can point to the testimony that strongly implies that is what happened. And if they examined it that night, upon arrival at the morgue, or shortly thereafter, I think the onus of responsibility is on the proponents for an organ thief to present some evidence of that thief presence at the morgue at that time.

Because, if Dr. Brown and Dr. Phillips examined the body that night, upon or shortly after arrival at the morgue, then it is simply untenable that they did not examine her uterus (or where it should be at least). So while this wasn't the official post-mortem, where Dr. Brown records his findings, Dr. Phillips is there to get his opinion, probably with regards to relatedness between the cases, and absolutely that would involve examining the most sensational aspect of Dr. Phillips' case, the missing uterus. And if it was there during this examination, there isn't a snowball's chance in hades it being missing during the post-mortem wouldn't get a mention. Now, I have no idea if they checked her kidney's and noted that one was missing, as there's no reason for them to have done so given that neither of Annie's kidneys' were taken, but we have absolutely every reason to be confident they checked the uterus.

Now, is it possible the body arrives at the morgue, Dr. Phillips has not yet arrived, Dr. Brown leaves it unattended, and an organ thief whips out the uterus and kidney, and only then do Dr. Phillips and Dr. Brown do their consultation? Of course, it's possible. As you know, I think anything that doesn't defy the laws of physics is possible, so possible is pretty much meaningless to me. Is there any evidence at all that makes that scenerio probable? In my mind, no. I just can't see it.

Do I think what I'm suggesting above is probable? Yes, because the testimony we have tells that Dr. Phillips was sent for prior to Eddowes being moved from the crime scene. And in every other situation where a doctor is sent for, they respond immediately. And his presence was requested to consult on the case, where his involved a missing uterus (which was suggested as a possible motive), so there is no chance they would not have examined the body for that purpose. To argue otherwise requires presenting actual information, such as testimony, that counters what I've presented.

We have so little information to work with, so yes, I know, maybe it didn't go the way it looks like it did, but that isn't proof of an organ thief, it's just the nature of a case from over 130 years ago.

As I say, I'm not claiming I know for sure all of the above must have happened. What I'm pointing out is that the limited information we have indicates the above is far more likely to be close to what happened than an organ thief. And with JtR, being close is as good as we can hope for in my view.

As for modern medical opinion, I've seen a range of them with regards to Eddowes sufficiently wide that one can always find an opinion to suit. Even at the time, Dr. Sequira thought JtR only required 3 minutes, while Dr. Brown thought a minimum of 5. Based upon the simulations I've done, neither is problematic even under the most taxing interpretations of other constraining testimony, but obviously simulations are not proof of what happened, but they do demonstrate that there is nothing inherently contradictory in the testimony as given.

Hmmm, my tendency to ramble on and on is probably far more annoying then your tendency to present alternatives. At least you can do so in under 1000s words! ha ha!

- Jeff

If JTR motive was to murder mutilate and harvest organs why do we not see evidence of the killer doing just that in the cases of Tabram, Mckenzie, Stride,Nicholls, and Coles now the old chestnut that keeps surfacing when I ask that question is that he was disturbed,I don't buy that.

I may be wrong but I have seen no evidence to show any of the doctors accompanied any of the bodies to the mortuaries and noticed organs missing before the post mortem.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

I was referring to the crime scenes where no organs were found missing at the crime scenes or at the mortuaries before the post-mortems

www.trevormarriott.com

Hi Trevor,

How do we know no organs were noted as missing at the crime scene? The doctor's could have noted their absence at the time, but it is the post-mortem where they officially record such things as they have the time to properly document all aspects of how it was done, and so of course it is to the post-mortem that they refer when giving testimony. The absence of statements to noting missing organs at the crime scenes makes for as strong an argument as the absence of evidence of an organ thief makes for your suggested alternative speculation.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

But it is documented, at the inquest it is reported that her uterus and kidney were missing.

And if they noticed that the uterus and kidney were present, which they would have given Dr. Phillips was called in because of his familiarity with the Chapman case, but later both were found to be missing as per your organ thief, that would have been documented.

- Jeff

I was referring to the crime scenes where no organs were found missing at the crime scenes or at the mortuaries before the post-mortems

https://www.trevormarriott.com

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

You are by now accustomed to my annoying tendency to be on the fence, verging on opposition to commonly adopted opinions. While I agree that at the inquest it is reported that her uterus and kidney were missing, my reservation is the amount of time that Eddowes body lay untended in the morgue prior to the post mortem. The security chain in the Chapman case is tenuous at best, but we don't know how secure was the body of Eddowes from the time of transportation to the morgue to the time of post mortem. The terrible ifs accumulate.

The hard to escape fact is that it was not a function of the on site assessment to determine the state of the organs in the body, unless it was externally discernible, as if the case of Kelly. That was the function of the post mortem.

While I lean towards an opinion that the organs were removed by Jack due to the preparatory procedures, I cannot discard the modern expert medical opinions that it was not possible in the circumstances and in the time available.

Where would this forum be without such conundrums.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

I've never found your tendencies to be annoying, even if we do find ourselves on opposite sides of the fence on many occasions. Personally, I find the most interesting discussions require one on each side, otherwise it's just two people going "yup, I agree", and patting each other on the back.

And yes, there are so many details we don't know, like how long was she unattended in the morgue prior to the post-mortem.

However, what I'm pointing out is that Dr. Phillips was sent for prior to her body being removed from the crime scene. Now, sure, maybe this is the only time in all of the crimes when a doctor was sent for he didn't come immediately, that's possible. I just find that sufficiently improbable that I don't consider it a valid argument without some evidence to back it up. His being at the post-mortem later isn't an indication he wasn't there when called the first time. In fact, I could put forth the argument that because he was at the post-mortem, there must have been enough of a reason to indicate his prior knowledge of the Chapman case was indeed useful.

Dr. Brown sent for Dr. Phillips because the Eddowes case showed a marked similarity with the Chapman case. Now, I accept that similarity could just have been because of the gross level abdominal mutilations. But given how rare that is, that is more than sufficient to call him in to get his opinion.

Dr. Brown tells us that Dr. Phillips was sent for prior to Eddowes being removed from the crime scene. We don't have any indication that Dr. Phillips came to Mitre Square, so I'm suggesting they met at the morgue but I could be wrong, and they could have met at the crime scene. In either case, with Dr. Phillips present to examine the body in order to get his opinion with regards to related to Annie Chapman, it is stretching a very long bow to suggest that they did not check Eddowes' uterus. Remember, at the Chapman inquest, the coroner suggested that the uterus was the reason for the crime, so whether they examined the body at the crime scene, or at the morgue that night, I think the idea they did not check her uterus is pushing the proverbial uphill. It just doesn't make sense.

And given that Dr. Brown sent for Dr. Phillips prior to Eddowes' body being moved from the mortuary, I'm suggesting that they did this examination long before the official post-mortem. Dr. Brown is not doing his post-mortem at this point, he's seeking information from a colleague who has already had experience with a very similar case. It's two professionals interacting, getting preliminary information, and not a post-mortem.

As such, the time the body was unattended until the post-mortem doesn't matter so much; they inspected the body long before the post-mortem (is what I'm arguing the testimony indicates).

I suppose one could suggest that Dr. Phillips arrives after Dr. Brown and Eddowes' body have arrived at the morgue. And in the interval between her body's arrival, and Dr. Phillips arrival, the body was left unattended and the organ thief slips in and makes off with her uterus and kidney.

But now it's starting to feel like it is up to me to prove a negative, that an organ thief didn't do that. I freely admit I can't prove Dr. Phillips and Dr. Brown examined the body that night upon its arrival at the morgue. But I can point to the testimony that strongly implies that is what happened. And if they examined it that night, upon arrival at the morgue, or shortly thereafter, I think the onus of responsibility is on the proponents for an organ thief to present some evidence of that thief presence at the morgue at that time.

Because, if Dr. Brown and Dr. Phillips examined the body that night, upon or shortly after arrival at the morgue, then it is simply untenable that they did not examine her uterus (or where it should be at least). So while this wasn't the official post-mortem, where Dr. Brown records his findings, Dr. Phillips is there to get his opinion, probably with regards to relatedness between the cases, and absolutely that would involve examining the most sensational aspect of Dr. Phillips' case, the missing uterus. And if it was there during this examination, there isn't a snowball's chance in hades it being missing during the post-mortem wouldn't get a mention. Now, I have no idea if they checked her kidney's and noted that one was missing, as there's no reason for them to have done so given that neither of Annie's kidneys' were taken, but we have absolutely every reason to be confident they checked the uterus.

Now, is it possible the body arrives at the morgue, Dr. Phillips has not yet arrived, Dr. Brown leaves it unattended, and an organ thief whips out the uterus and kidney, and only then do Dr. Phillips and Dr. Brown do their consultation? Of course, it's possible. As you know, I think anything that doesn't defy the laws of physics is possible, so possible is pretty much meaningless to me. Is there any evidence at all that makes that scenerio probable? In my mind, no. I just can't see it.

Do I think what I'm suggesting above is probable? Yes, because the testimony we have tells that Dr. Phillips was sent for prior to Eddowes being moved from the crime scene. And in every other situation where a doctor is sent for, they respond immediately. And his presence was requested to consult on the case, where his involved a missing uterus (which was suggested as a possible motive), so there is no chance they would not have examined the body for that purpose. To argue otherwise requires presenting actual information, such as testimony, that counters what I've presented.

We have so little information to work with, so yes, I know, maybe it didn't go the way it looks like it did, but that isn't proof of an organ thief, it's just the nature of a case from over 130 years ago.

As I say, I'm not claiming I know for sure all of the above must have happened. What I'm pointing out is that the limited information we have indicates the above is far more likely to be close to what happened than an organ thief. And with JtR, being close is as good as we can hope for in my view.

As for modern medical opinion, I've seen a range of them with regards to Eddowes sufficiently wide that one can always find an opinion to suit. Even at the time, Dr. Sequira thought JtR only required 3 minutes, while Dr. Brown thought a minimum of 5. Based upon the simulations I've done, neither is problematic even under the most taxing interpretations of other constraining testimony, but obviously simulations are not proof of what happened, but they do demonstrate that there is nothing inherently contradictory in the testimony as given.

Hmmm, my tendency to ramble on and on is probably far more annoying then your tendency to present alternatives. At least you can do so in under 1000s words! ha ha!

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

But it is documented, at the inquest it is reported that her uterus and kidney were missing.

And if they noticed that the uterus and kidney were present, which they would have given Dr. Phillips was called in because of his familiarity with the Chapman case, but later both were found to be missing as per your organ thief, that would have been documented.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

You are by now accustomed to my annoying tendency to be on the fence, verging on opposition to commonly adopted opinions. While I agree that at the inquest it is reported that her uterus and kidney were missing, my reservation is the amount of time that Eddowes body lay untended in the morgue prior to the post mortem. The security chain in the Chapman case is tenuous at best, but we don't know how secure was the body of Eddowes from the time of transportation to the morgue to the time of post mortem. The terrible ifs accumulate.

The hard to escape fact is that it was not a function of the on site assessment to determine the state of the organs in the body, unless it was externally discernible, as if the case of Kelly. That was the function of the post mortem.

While I lean towards an opinion that the organs were removed by Jack due to the preparatory procedures, I cannot discard the modern expert medical opinions that it was not possible in the circumstances and in the time available.

Where would this forum be without such conundrums.

Best regards, George

[JeffHamm]

If they had have noticed any organs missing it would have been documented

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But it is documented, at the inquest it is reported that her uterus and kidney were missing.

And if they noticed that the uterus and kidney were present, which they would have given Dr. Phillips was called in because of his familiarity with the Chapman case, but later both were found to be missing as per your organ thief, that would have been documented.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

From Dr. Brown's testimony at the inquest:

By the Coroner: Before we removed the body Dr. Phillips was sent for, as I wished him to see the wounds, he having been engaged in a case of a similar kind previously. He saw the body at the mortuary. The clothes were removed from the deceased carefully. I made a post-mortem examination on Sunday afternoon.

While Dr. Brown does not specifically state that Dr. Phillips saw the body upon its arrival at the mortuary and not just at the post-mortem, that is the implication of his statement.

And since Dr. Phillips was called for specifically due to his familiarity with the Chapman injuries, where the uterus was missing, it is untenable to argue that they did not examine Eddowes with regards to her uterus.

I accept that there is wiggle room, and one could speculate that Dr. Phillips only arrives at the time of the post-mortem, however, given he was sent for prior to the body being removed from Mitre Square, I suggest that the weight of the evidence is strongly against that. But, there may be reports other than just the inquest testimony as found on Casebook (under the official documents section) that goes against what I'm suggesting here. I just don't have access to them at the moment. But in my opinion, unless something demonstrates that Dr. Phillips did not come at the time he was called for, then based upon the above it is manifestly obvious that they must have noted her missing uterus before any organ thief would have a chance to claim it.

- Jeff

If they had have noticed any organs missing it would have been documented

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk