The kidney removal of Catherine Eddowes.

[Patrick Differ]

But you and others seem to disregard what the modern-day experts have said about the degree of difficulty involved in first being able to locate the organs and then remove them in almost total darkness, from a blood-filled abdomen, and you want to readily accept what the Victorian Doctors say without question. I think you will accept that the study of everything connected to these murders from a medical perspective has progressed by leaps and bounds, and modern-day doctors who are experts in these particular issues are more knowledgeable than the doctors were in 1888 and should not be totally ignored as you and others seem to want to do

And I note that prosector rules out a butcher/slaughterman

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

First, they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948

I think these Victorian Doctors were conflicted as up until that point, none of them, had seen murders like this. Im not sure they saw many throats cut in the manner they were.

For me I have no doubt this killer was responsible for Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly. MO and Signatures are basically the same. You can debate Stride but it is unlikely in my mind that 2 killers were out cutting throats on the same night one hour apart and a quarter mile away.

Organs look different when the blood is drained from the body. But if a person was already used to removing organs from either an animal or human, then it is likely they had the knowledge of removal and the method.

Eddowes is described as having knife injuries to her liver and pancreas. In addition she had a 2 ft section of intestine removed at the scene. So ask why those organs and why the left kidney? In fact because the Left Kidney sits behind those organs. Anatomical knowledge? At some level no doubt.

To my knowledge the only organ removal being done in autopsies was by trained surgeons. The case in all Ripper victims autopsied. There was no shortage of cadavers for the London Medical Teaching community. The poor were readily available. I dont personally buy organ thieves touching any Ripper victim. In retrospect, if organ thievery occured and the thieves caught, it would have only aided the Ripper and threw attention to Body Snatching and the Medical community. But by 1888 that issue was pretty much regulated out.

If this killer had already successfully removed the Uterus of Chapman than it stands to reason he could have easily adapted and removed the Uterus again on another victim. The left kidney appears to be targeted by the killer as evidence on organs that sit in front of it show. A person who has removed organs that were in a condition where blood has been drained and by profession had knowledge and experience of handling organs , would have no problem with the removal. I believe that to be the case here.

It strikes me that the Lusk kidney and letter are not easily dismissed. Not when one considers the Apron and GSG as additional events of that night.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But you and others seem to disregard what the modern-day experts have said about the degree of difficulty involved in first being able to locate the organs and then remove them in almost total darkness, from a blood-filled abdomen, and you want to readily accept what the Victorian Doctors say without question. I think you will accept that the study of everything connected to these murders from a medical perspective has progressed by leaps and bounds, and modern-day doctors who are experts in these particular issues are more knowledgeable than the doctors were in 1888 and should not be totally ignored as you and others seem to want to do

And I note that prosector rules out a butcher/slaughterman

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

First, they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948

I seem to recall Trevor you favouring Dr Phillips’ ToD estimation whilst disregarding the mountain of modern at experts telling us that his estimation was unreliable?

You also appear to accept what Prosector said about butchers and slaughtermen and yet you disregard him when he says that the killer could have taken organs in Mitre Square?

[Herlock Sholmes]

But no examinations were done while the bodies were at the crime scenes, where any organs were found missing, and there is no evidence to show that the organs were found missing before the post-mortem, so you cannot dismiss the suggestion that the organs were taken at the mortuary before the post-mortems.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

First, they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948

The problem is threefold Trevor.

Firstly, we have no evidence whatsoever that anyone ever illegally took internal organs from corpses in mortuaries anywhere. We certainly have evidence of body dealers (as per Professor Hurren) These people dealt in cadavers which they sold on for dissection at hospitals. This is well documented. Professor Hurren also mentioned that they would also take amputated limbs if they were available. What she absolutely didn’t say anywhere in her article was that they ever went inside a corpse to remove organs. So surely you can accept that if someone proposes a theory which suggests the existence of something previously unknown or documented that is a case of taking a leap of faith. How can we accept that organ thieves existed, as you claim, without any documented evidence for them. We can’t just assume or infer something into existence.

Secondly, your point about us having no evidence that the doctors finding missing organs whilst in the mortuary before the Post Mortem. I agree and have never claimed otherwise. What I’ve said is that a) we know that the doctors were there for 2+ hours after the body arrived, and b) we know that they were waiting for the arrival of Dr Phillips, whose presence was requested by Dr Brown specifically to make comparisons to Annie Chapman. So in that 2+ they would undoubtedly have made ann examination of the body as you can hardly claim that they simply stood around doing nothing. But this is my point - no proposed ‘organ thief’ could have known what those doctors had or hadn’t seen. So, by taking organs before the Post Mortem, they ran the huge (and totally needless) risk of the doctors discovering a missing organ (the uterus for example) after noting its presence earlier, thus alerting the authorities to the theft. Why would they have done this? If they wanted a uterus and a kidney specifically (which, in itself, appears far fetched) they could have waited until the PM was over, gone into the mortuary when there was no chance of police or doctors being around, opened the cheap coffin, cut the stitches, took the organs, closed the coffin and left. Even then though they risked someone opening the coffin for whatever reason and seeing the stitches cut. It makes absolutely no sense.

Thirdly, if they were stealing organs for profit then why would they only bother taking two? More organs would have meant more money. Simply making do with two makes no sense.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, Trevor, that is why I said that Dr Brown was satisfied that the killer could have done the deed as claimed.

Inquest: Would you expect to find much blood on the person who inflicted the wounds?

Dr Brown: No I should not. etc... etc...

Dr Brown considered the murder, excisions and mutilations, and was satisfied that they were all done at Mitre Square.

For information purposes,0nly I have posted several images of Mitre Square and Church Passage created by a lovely lady by the name of Jane Coram. The second image shows the view from the square looking up the passage from the Square, as another poster pointed out, because of the lamp shining in the police officer's eyes he would have not been able to have seen the killer, in the opposite corner of the square, that being said the killer would have seen and heard the officer approaching and make good his escape.

The first image shows the murder location and although there is a gas lamp shown on the corner of the square at the Mitre Street entrance a gas lamp only emitted a downward beam of light so the light shown on the image is not a true reflection of the light on the night of the murder

[Trevor Marriott]

But you and others seem to disregard what the modern-day experts have said about the degree of difficulty involved in first being able to locate the organs and then remove them in almost total darkness, from a blood-filled abdomen, and you want to readily accept what the Victorian Doctors say without question. I think you will accept that the study of everything connected to these murders from a medical perspective has progressed by leaps and bounds, and modern-day doctors who are experts in these particular issues are more knowledgeable than the doctors were in 1888 and should not be totally ignored as you and others seem to want to do

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

First, they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948

And I note that prosector rules out a butcher/slaughterman So that the dents a hole in that theory somewhat

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, Trevor, that is why I said that Dr Brown was satisfied that the killer could have done the deed as claimed.

Inquest: Would you expect to find much blood on the person who inflicted the wounds?

Dr Brown: No I should not. etc... etc...

Dr Brown considered the murder, excisions and mutilations, and was satisfied that they were all done at Mitre Square.

But no examinations were done while the bodies were at the crime scenes, where any organs were found missing, and there is no evidence to show that the organs were found missing before the post-mortem, so you cannot dismiss the suggestion that the organs were taken at the mortuary before the post-mortems.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

First, they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948

[Trevor Marriott]

And as we don’t know who the killer was and therefore his level of knowledge or skill how can it be claimed that the killer couldn’t have done it. If he had that level of skill and knowledge then he obviously could have done it.

But you and others seem to disregard what the modern-day experts have said about the degree of difficulty involved in first being able to locate the organs and then remove them in almost total darkness, from a blood-filled abdomen, and you want to readily accept what the Victorian Doctors say without question. I think you will accept that the study of everything connected to these murders from a medical perspective has progressed by leaps and bounds, and modern-day doctors who are experts in these particular issues are more knowledgeable than the doctors were in 1888 and should not be totally ignored as you and others seem to want to do

And I note that prosector rules out a butcher/slaughterman

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

First, they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948

[Doctored Whatsit]

It's not all about the light available to the killer; it's whether the killer had the anatomical knowledge to first locate the organs in the darkest part of the square in a blood-filled abdomen and then have the knowledge as to how to remove them and to remove them in the time he had available to him from what was described as the darkest part of the square.,and to remove a kidney which is probably one of the most difficult organs to locate and remove

You have to remember in today's world of anatomy, when performing surgical procedures, the doctors wear surgical gloves so that they can take hold of slippery organs these had not been invented in 1888 so another problem the killer would have encountered had been seeking to remove organs

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes, Trevor, that is why I said that Dr Brown was satisfied that the killer could have done the deed as claimed.

Inquest: Would you expect to find much blood on the person who inflicted the wounds?

Dr Brown: No I should not. etc... etc...

Dr Brown considered the murder, excisions and mutilations, and was satisfied that they were all done at Mitre Square.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And as we don’t know who the killer was and therefore his level of knowledge or skill how can it be claimed that the killer couldn’t have done it. If he had that level of skill and knowledge then he obviously could have done it.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi George,

I agree that Sequeira was the least qualified doctor involved, but he was present at the post mortem, and therefore did see what had been done by the killer. Also, of course, Dr Brown was very experienced and highly regarded, and he seemed to have been perfectly satisfied that the killer had sufficient light, and did the deed as claimed.

It's not all about the light available to the killer; it's whether the killer had the anatomical knowledge to first locate the organs in the darkest part of the square in a blood-filled abdomen and then have the knowledge as to how to remove them and to remove them in the time he had available to him from what was described as the darkest part of the square.,and to remove a kidney which is probably one of the most difficult organs to locate and remove

You have to remember in today's world of anatomy, when performing surgical procedures, the doctors wear surgical gloves so that they can take hold of slippery organs these had not been invented in 1888 so another problem the killer would have encountered had been seeking to remove organs

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Doctored Whatsit]

Prosector:

"Of all the doctors involved, the one I respect least is Dr Sequeira. He had only been qualified for two years with the lowest practicing qualification possible (LSA - although he later got the MRCS), he was not a police surgeon (and therefore had little or no autopsy experience and, as far as I know, he only turned up to confirm death and was not present at the autopsy so how would he have known how much skill had been displayed?) Phillips was by far the most experienced doctor involved in the Ripper cases (and I include Bond in that) and Brown was the next. They both thought that JTR had both anatomical knowledge and some degree of surgical skill."

With "little or no autopsy experience", what faith can be had in his opinion as to what level of light was "suffient"?

Note: Prosector later admitted that he was mistaken about Sequeira's attendance at the autopsy.

Hi George,

I agree that Sequeira was the least qualified doctor involved, but he was present at the post mortem, and therefore did see what had been done by the killer. Also, of course, Dr Brown was very experienced and highly regarded, and he seemed to have been perfectly satisfied that the killer had sufficient light, and did the deed as claimed.

[GBinOz]

The specific point that I want to mention is the level of light available to the killer. In discussions we often hear phrases like ‘in near total darkness,’ or ‘pitch black’ when discussing the level of difficulty facing the killer. No one can deny that this murder occurred during the hours of darkness but we have to consider the words of Doctor Sequiera who arrived in Mitre Square ten minutes or so after PC Watkins found the body. He said at the inquest:

“Where the murder was committed was probably the darkest part of the square, but there was sufficient light to enable the miscreant to perpetrate the deed.”

“Sufficient light.” Can anyone think of a reason why we should doubt him?

Prosector:

"Of all the doctors involved, the one I respect least is Dr Sequeira. He had only been qualified for two years with the lowest practicing qualification possible (LSA - although he later got the MRCS), he was not a police surgeon (and therefore had little or no autopsy experience and, as far as I know, he only turned up to confirm death and was not present at the autopsy so how would he have known how much skill had been displayed?) Phillips was by far the most experienced doctor involved in the Ripper cases (and I include Bond in that) and Brown was the next. They both thought that JTR had both anatomical knowledge and some degree of surgical skill."

With "little or no autopsy experience", what faith can be had in his opinion as to what level of light was "suffient"?

Note: Prosector later admitted that he was mistaken about Sequeira's attendance at the autopsy.

[JeffHamm]

It's interesting that it was noted by the Doctor that there was sufficient light for the killer to inflict the wounds on Eddowes, because it then means that by the same token, there must have been a form of light source within relative proximity to Eddowes as she was being butchered.

On that basis it's difficult to believe that the Ripper couldn't be seen by PC Harvey, who was alleged to have walked as far as the entrance to the square.

If that's indeed true, then the Ripper must have been gone before that time.

If the Ripper had enough light to inflict wounds on Eddowes, then by the same token there would have been enough light for the Ripper to have been seen also.

There was a lamp situated at the far end of the alleyway (approximately where Lawrende claimed he saw Eddowes and a man earlier) that could have obscured a person's field of view as they looked down the alleyway and directly towards the murder site.

It therefore seems that IF the Ripper was still there mutilating Eddowes when PC Harvey allegedly walked down the alleyway and as far as the Square, then PC Harvey couldn't have walked as far as the square without seeing the killer.

So, either the Ripper was there at the time Harvey claimed he was there, but the latter lied about how far he walked down the alley I.e. he didn't bother to walk down to the other end closest to the square, or...

the Ripper had gone before PC Harvey got there...and he simply failed to notice the significance of Eddowes laying there.

PC Harvey failing to see Eddowes laying there isn't particularly suspicious, but failing to see the killer IF the killer was still there, is not viable unless PC Harvey lied about how far he walked towards the square.

All of the above of course is based entirely on there being "sufficient light."

Hi RD,
There was a lamp at the end of Church Passage, so when PC Harvey gets to the end of the passage he's got light between him and the dark area where Eddowes was found. That results in making it nigh on impossible to see into the dark corner. In addition, it raises the distinct possibility that PC Harvey does not have to patrol all the way to the end of the passage, but just far enough into it to be able to ensure there's nothing untoward within the passage and the lamp allows him to see to the end. Mitre Square was not part of his beat, so he doesn't have to check into the square itself, just deal with the length of the passage way.

The converse, however, is not true. JtR in the dark area would very easily be able to see PC Harvey if the PC entered into the area lit up by the lamp.

It is, therefore, very possible that it was PC Harvey's patrol that resulted in JtR fleeing the area, resulting in him getting away rather than being caught in the act.

- Jeff

[Lewis C]

He was referring to the act of murder and mutilation and not the removal of the organs thats just your take on what he said to suit your own agenda

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

He said, "There was sufficient light to enable the miscreant to perpetrate the deed". "The deed" would include everything that the killer did. That would include the removal of organs if Dr. Sequiera thought that the killer did that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

He was referring to the act of murder and mutilation and not the removal of the organs thats just your take on what he said to suit your own agenda

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No Trevor. You’ve made that up.