The kidney removal of Catherine Eddowes.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But that's the point no one checked the bodies for missing organs before the post mortems and you have no evidence to the contrary

Did you not look at the pics I posted earlier in this thread, I was present at those post mortems and took the pics and I saw and had explained to me by modern medical experts the degree of difficulty involved in a killer trying to remove these organs in almost total darkness

You really do need to take a fresh look at how these organs went missing and who took them because you are clearly blinkered in your misguided belief that the killer took them.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So Dr. Brown asked Dr. Phillips to view the body just for fun? He asked him because he had seen the mutilations and missing organs in Chapman and he wanted his opinion. But the point that you are deliberately missing Trevor is that the organ thief wouldn’t have known that Phillips or Brown hadn’t looked into the abdomen unless they had invited him along. So he was taking a massive risk in stealing an organ that for all he knew might have been seen by a doctor. Why would they jeopardise their whole operation rather than simply wait until after the post mortem, when they knew that there would be no further interest in the body and that they would have had the cover of darkness. The points against are too many.

The organs were taken by the killer, however long it took, they were taken. Why we keep having to waste time over these tiresome theories? Over and over and over again. They don’t add up.

[Trevor Marriott]

There’s not one single piece of evidence that even vaguely points to that conclusion. It’s the usual case Trevor of you coming up with an idea and thinking that just because you thought of it then it must be true. The body of Eddowes got to the mortuary in the early hours (I can’t recall the time but I’m guessing at some time around 3ish?) and the inquest took place at 2.30 in the afternoon. At some point after its arrival Dr. Phillips checked the mutilations at the request of Dr. Brown. So he would have checked for missing organs in the open abdomen. This was the highest profile murder that the police had ever had. The mortuary, which wasn’t an old shed, but was described as “the best building of the kind in London,” would I would have assumed been fairly secure. Maybe even with a Constable on guard (which I seem to recall occurring with one of the other victims?) Any potential organ thieves would have been only too aware of the attention that this body would get and of the possibility of police and doctors visiting at any time. You are suggesting that, in broad daylight, someone just took the risk of swiping organs without caring that someone like Phillips or Brown might have said “hold on, those organs were there when we checked earlier.”

I wish you’d give this one up Trevor.

But that's the point no one checked the bodies for missing organs before the post mortems and you have no evidence to the contrary

Did you not look at the pics I posted earlier in this thread, I was present at those post mortems and took the pics and I saw and had explained to me by modern medical experts the degree of difficulty involved in a killer trying to remove these organs in almost total darkness

You really do need to take a fresh look at how these organs went missing and who took them because you are clearly blinkered in your misguided belief that the killer took them.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well, all the facts and the evidence points to that theory being correct !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

There’s not one single piece of evidence that even vaguely points to that conclusion. It’s the usual case Trevor of you coming up with an idea and thinking that just because you thought of it then it must be true. The body of Eddowes got to the mortuary in the early hours (I can’t recall the time but I’m guessing at some time around 3ish?) and the inquest took place at 2.30 in the afternoon. At some point after its arrival Dr. Phillips checked the mutilations at the request of Dr. Brown. So he would have checked for missing organs in the open abdomen. This was the highest profile murder that the police had ever had. The mortuary, which wasn’t an old shed, but was described as “the best building of the kind in London,” would I would have assumed been fairly secure. Maybe even with a Constable on guard (which I seem to recall occurring with one of the other victims?) Any potential organ thieves would have been only too aware of the attention that this body would get and of the possibility of police and doctors visiting at any time. You are suggesting that, in broad daylight, someone just took the risk of swiping organs without caring that someone like Phillips or Brown might have said “hold on, those organs were there when we checked earlier.”

I wish you’d give this one up Trevor.

[Trevor Marriott]

Not this yet again. The organs were taken by the killer. The idea that they were taken in the mortuary is a theory invented for the sake of having a theory.

Well, all the facts and the evidence points to that theory being correct !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Not this yet again. The organs were taken by the killer. The idea that they were taken in the mortuary is a theory invented for the sake of having a theory.

[FISHY1118]

From being the killer !!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Why !!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Patrick Differ]

Not sure what happened there..fat fingers. Per Fishman the Mortuaries were described as no more than human slaughterhouses. Small , not well lit and not furnished with medical equipment. I have not read where the Doctors in the case of Chapman and Eddowes distinguished the Intestine specific anatomy like descending colon or transverse colon. The Peritoneum was not a thick membrane. This begs the question..Did the killer get a better view of the abdomen in emerging light after he removed " intestines " during Chapman and apply what he learned to Eddowes? Butchers deal with viscera daily with animals v a mortuary assistant with no medical skill as they are not the ones removing organs.
i do not believe this killer was a transient because of the depth of local knowledge required to escape in a 20 to 30 minute cycle. If the Eddowes apron on Goulston Street showed anything it showed a killer completely comfortable within an area teaming with Constables and plain clothes detectives all the while taunting them. He lived right there. No transient could be that lucky ( my opinion).

[Patrick Differ]

Fishman in his East End 1888 describes the mortuaries in questions as no more than a h

[The Rookie Detective]

hi rookie
good post and completely agree. i would add a hunter/ fisherman to the list. at the very least the ripper had anatomical knowledge and was skilled with tje knife.

Yes, I agree.

An individual who was experienced at hunting animals and various prey is an excellent point. They would no doubt be skilled with a knife and I think you're spot on with that idea.

It would be good to have a list of all those suspects and/or persons of interest that would fit into the list.

it's always surprised me that subjective observations like age, height, appearance, ethnicity, attire etc... sometimes take precedence over the fact that the Ripper must of had at least one of the following...


Anatomical Knowledge
Surgical Skill
Skill with a knife
Experience with a knife


I feel that at least one of those listed above can be attributed to the Ripper. Not necessarily all, but one at least.

[Trevor Marriott]

Rule them out from what exactly ?

From being the killer !!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

I think the question should be...


Could a man with no anatomical knowledge, no skill with a knife, and/or no surgical skill, manage to inflict the injuries that he did on his victims?

(We have to consider that the killer had limited restrictions with time and light when attempting to answer that question)


If the answer is a resounding NO, then the killer is considerably more likely to have been an individual who was used to cutting things up for a living.

A surgeon
A person with surgical experience
A person with medical experience
A butcher
A horse slaughterer
A professional killer
Any profession that used a knife


For me, the killer almost certainly needed to have been at least one of the above list.


If not, then how could a man with no anatomical knowledge, no surgical skill, and/or no skill with a knife, manage to do what he did?

The killer may have been lucky to flee and escape, but luck doesn't play a part in the level of njuries he managed to achieve in the relatively short amount of time he had, and all in relative darkness.

hi rookie
good post and completely agree. i would add a hunter/ fisherman to the list. at the very least the ripper had anatomical knowledge and was skilled with tje knife.

[Indian Harry]

If the answer is a resounding NO, then the killer is considerably more likely to have been an individual who was used to cutting things up for a living.

A surgeon
A person with surgical experience
A person with medical experience
A butcher
A horse slaughterer
A professional killer
Any profession that used a knife


For me, the killer almost certainly needed to have been at least one of the above list.

I am with you on this.

Now that you mention horse slaughteres... I sometimes ponder the possibility that Nichols was done in by one of the slaughterers employed right there in Bucks Row. For subsequent murders the culprit was smart enough to operate a little further from his place of employment to avoid drawing attention.

[FISHY1118]

On another point, I rule out a surgeon or a doctor as the Anatomy Act allowed Bona Fide medical personnel access to organs from mortuaries

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Rule them out from what exactly ?

[The Rookie Detective]

I think the question should be...


Could a man with no anatomical knowledge, no skill with a knife, and/or no surgical skill, manage to inflict the injuries that he did on his victims?

(We have to consider that the killer had limited restrictions with time and light when attempting to answer that question)


If the answer is a resounding NO, then the killer is considerably more likely to have been an individual who was used to cutting things up for a living.

A surgeon
A person with surgical experience
A person with medical experience
A butcher
A horse slaughterer
A professional killer
Any profession that used a knife


For me, the killer almost certainly needed to have been at least one of the above list.


If not, then how could a man with no anatomical knowledge, no surgical skill, and/or no skill with a knife, manage to do what he did?

The killer may have been lucky to flee and escape, but luck doesn't play a part in the level of njuries he managed to achieve in the relatively short amount of time he had, and all in relative darkness.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi George , Some interesting points you make for sure , and like all things in this JtR world, its always subject to heavy debate . Having said that tho George ,given the language and the exact technical wording Dr Phillipps uses , i cant help lean towards a more Medical man he is describing than just a butcher or abattoir worker.

In my opinion, if ever there were grounds for a case for supporting a Surgeon or Doctor as a legitimate suspect, this one description from Dr Phillipps has to surely carry weight for that arguement . I dont see how anyone could effectively debate such a person would be ''less'' likely than a butcher or abattoir worker , given Dr Phillipps wording.

Forgive me if i dont share your view on different killer/s for the C5 victims , Im comfortable with all the evidence and inquest testimony, that for me points to a single same killer. Just my opinion of course. Cheers.


P.s Any thought on the jfk files?

On another point, I rule out a surgeon or a doctor as the Anatomy Act allowed Bona Fide medical personnel access to organs from mortuaries

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk