The kidney removal of Catherine Eddowes.

[Patrick Differ]

Eddowes was not seen negotiating, a back view of a woman who might have been her was seen briefly, in a dark street, by a man merely walking past her.

Swanson's marginalia has caused numerous problems, including the fact that no other serving officers seem to have been aware of any of his information. One thing is very clear, he talks about a Jew whose evidence would have convicted JtR. The evidence of Lawende and Levy could not possibly have convicted anyone. Unless they were lying on oath, they could not identify that the woman they saw was Eddowes. Eddowes could have been somewhere else nearby, and Lawende said he didn't believe that he would recognise the man if he saw him again. Hopeless witnesses if you want a conviction!

Schwartz would be a better witness, but even his evidence is a bit short of conclusive, and from his version of events, nothing he said suggests that BS man was a Jew.

I thought Eddowes was seen with her hand on the mans chest not in any distress? I suppose that the woman seen by Lawende , Levy, Harris might not have been Eddowes but then no one came forward. If some other woman were engaging around Mitre Square there is no recording of that. The Square would also still be canvassed by Police every 15 minutes.

There is another consideration and that would be recognition of the man they saw with the woman. Im not sure what reason the press chose to characterize Joseph Hyam Levy as a reluctant witness, stating they thought he new something and perhaps appeared aloof. The Press had become more agressive so it could have been accurate.

Why would Schwartz be a better witness? I doubt he tipped off the Police about the Jewish Butcher but someone did. Im curious how that happened. Lawende and Levy did not come forward as they had the knock on the door. Would they have?

Alot of gaps in this case. Keep turning over rocks.

[FrankO]

So why do we not see any attempt to remove organs from Stride,Tabram, McKenzie and Coles...

Because they were either not Ripper victims or the circumstances were different, Trevor.

[Trevor Marriott]

Exactly Frank. I’ve never previously doubted the existence ‘organ thieves’ but after reading-reading Hurren’s article it’s clear that she never mentions people stealing organs from mortuaries but only body dealers. Trevor said that she has mentioned them. I asked for proof and Trevor ‘refused’ to provide it. He then tried to twist it by saying that she had mentioned corrupt mortuary attendants (something that I’d never questioned) But he still ‘refuses’ to produce the alleged mention of organ thieves. How difficult could it be for him to prove himself right but no, nothing.

It’s only reasonable to conclude therefore that neither Professor Hurren (or indeed anyone) has ever given any evidence for the existence of organ thieves. If that is the case then Trevor has invented the phenomena just to facilitate a theory. Not good.

I have found this from an old file I belive its quote from either an article or from one of her books

"The dealing in bodies and body parts involved a complex supply chain starting with undertakers, mortuary attendants, infirmary porters, and nurses who would all alert a body dealer of a death and then they would be paid by the body dealer for that information, or in the case of a mortuary attendant allowing access to a mortuary to simply remove body parts from a dead body, as body parts were more lucrative acquisitions than a whole body"

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

So why do we not see any attempt to remove organs from Stride,Tabram, McKenzie and Coles I will tell you why, because the abdomens of these victims were not opened up sufficiently for the body dealers to remove organs. All of these bodies were the subject of minor abdominal injuries, whereas Chapman and Eddowes had their abdomens fully opened up.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Why are you suddenly using the term ‘body dealers’ Trevor.

Because you know that organ thieves don’t exist. These people took whole bodies…they didn’t sneak into mortuaries and start operating. The game is up.

[Trevor Marriott]

Indeed, Mike. Jack the Ripper cut Nichols's body open from the breastbone to the pubes, leaving her intestines protruding. He opened Chapman between the breastbone to the pubes, cutting three pieces of belly wall away, two of which he put by the shoulders, then he pulled out her intestines and lay them at her shoulders as well. He cut Eddowes's abdomen open from the sternum to the pubes, pulled out her intestines and lay them at her shoulders, cut off a piece of colon and lay it beside her body.

The question shouldn't be "Why would he have cut out any organs and taken them away with him?" but "Why wouldn't he have cut out any organs and taken them away with him?". Jack the Ripper was clearly ind outnterested in the female body and especially in what was under their skirts. We know that, because why else would he have risked his very neck to get their skirts out of the way & cut their bellies open? And he clearly wanted to get access to something below the intestines, because why else would he have wanted to pull them out and get them out of the way?

The only known 'organ thief' was Jack the Ripper.

So why do we not see any attempt to remove organs from Stride,Tabram, McKenzie and Coles I will tell you why, because the abdomens of these victims were not opened up sufficiently for the body dealers to remove organs. All of these bodies were the subject of minor abdominal injuries, whereas Chapman and Eddowes had their abdomens fully opened up.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Indeed, Mike. Jack the Ripper cut Nichols's body open from the breastbone to the pubes, leaving her intestines protruding. He opened Chapman between the breastbone to the pubes, cutting three pieces of belly wall away, two of which he put by the shoulders, then he pulled out her intestines and lay them at her shoulders as well. He cut Eddowes's abdomen open from the sternum to the pubes, pulled out her intestines and lay them at her shoulders, cut off a piece of colon and lay it beside her body.

The question shouldn't be "Why would he have cut out any organs and taken them away with him?" but "Why wouldn't he have cut out any organs and taken them away with him?". Jack the Ripper was clearly interested in the female body and especially in what was under their skirts. We know that, because why else would he have risked his very neck to get their skirts out of the way & cut their bellies open? And he clearly wanted to get access to something below the intestines, because why else would he have wanted to pull them out and get them out of the way?

The only known 'organ thief' was Jack the Ripper.

Exactly Frank. I’ve never previously doubted the existence ‘organ thieves’ but after reading-reading Hurren’s article it’s clear that she never mentions people stealing organs from mortuaries but only body dealers. Trevor said that she has mentioned them. I asked for proof and Trevor ‘refused’ to provide it. He then tried to twist it by saying that she had mentioned corrupt mortuary attendants (something that I’d never questioned) But he still ‘refuses’ to produce the alleged mention of organ thieves. How difficult could it be for him to prove himself right but no, nothing.

It’s only reasonable to conclude therefore that neither Professor Hurren (or indeed anyone) has ever given any evidence for the existence of organ thieves. If that is the case then Trevor has invented the phenomena just to facilitate a theory. Not good.

[FrankO]

No, it’s you that needs to stop inventing things simply to make a theory ‘work’ Trevor. You also need to ask yourself why none of the doctors or police officers at the time had any issue with the obvious fact that the killer took organs. None of the doctors saw this as impossible or even unlikely. Again, this is your own invention.

Indeed, Mike. Jack the Ripper cut Nichols's body open from the breastbone to the pubes, leaving her intestines protruding. He opened Chapman between the breastbone to the pubes, cutting three pieces of belly wall away, two of which he put by the shoulders, then he pulled out her intestines and lay them at her shoulders as well. He cut Eddowes's abdomen open from the sternum to the pubes, pulled out her intestines and lay them at her shoulders, cut off a piece of colon and lay it beside her body.

The question shouldn't be "Why would he have cut out any organs and taken them away with him?" but "Why wouldn't he have cut out any organs and taken them away with him?". Jack the Ripper was clearly interested in the female body and especially in what was under their skirts. We know that, because why else would he have risked his very neck to get their skirts out of the way & cut their bellies open? And he clearly wanted to get access to something below the intestines, because why else would he have wanted to pull them out and get them out of the way?

The only known 'organ thief' was Jack the Ripper.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The only person here who is ducking and diving is you. I have answered your questions if you are not happy with the answers, that's tough I am not going to keep engaging with you on this topic. You clearly have your own agenda, which is not in line with mine. So we will agree to disagree.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No you haven’t answered them as anyone can see who can read.

Why did you invent organ thieves?

[Trevor Marriott]

Unbelievable! Drs Brown and Sequiera went to the mortuary just after 3.00. They were still there two hours later. What do you suppose that they were doing Trevor. Playing dominoes? Chatting about cricket? Or examining the body? Then we have the fact that Brown was waiting for Phillips arrival. And why did Brown request Phillips presence - to examine the body and compare it to Chapman. You know this…so why are you dodging the obvious?

I answer every one of your questions specifically. You are still ducking and diving.

The only person here who is ducking and diving is you. I have answered your questions if you are not happy with the answers, that's tough I am not going to keep engaging with you on this topic. You clearly have your own agenda, which is not in line with mine. So we will agree to disagree.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

Eight Questions That Trevor Refuses To Answer Properly (Or At All)



1. Why won’t you accept this most basic piece of reasoning - that it’s impossible to state that someone didn’t have time to do something if the ‘time required’ and the ‘time available’ are unknowns? (Find me one single human being who disagrees with me on this particular point)

For the last time I will answer your loaded questions, many of which I have previously answered on this topic.

With all of the murders, there is no accurate time scale to show how long the killer had with each of the victims however, with the Eddowes murder we do have a time scale, assuming that the couple seen by Lawende were Eddowes and her killer we know the time they were seen but what we dont know is how long after being seen before they moved into the square, the longer they remained talking the less time the killer had to do all that he is alleged to have done at the crime scene.

If you had provided valid answers I wouldn’t waste time repeatedly asking the same questions. As I’ve said before Trevor, the simple act of adding words after a question does not equate to an answer and you STILL haven’t answered this question properly and the fact that you call them “loaded” proves that you are deliberately avoiding a proper answer because you know what that answer is.

We don’t have an accurate timescale for Eddowes because to have an accurate timescale it would be imperative to know how Lawende and Watkins ‘clocks’ were synchronised. I’m not explaining this again to you. Your point about how long they might have stood there is one that you keep desperately repeating even though it’s obvious. So it is a FACT, an absolute FACT that we don’t know how long they might have killer had available to him. It’s also a FACT that we don’t know how long it took. Therefore it is an absolute FACT that we cannot state that the killer didn’t have time. That you won’t accept this fundamental point proves that you aren’t discussing this in good faith.


2. Where is your documented evidence that such a thing as ‘organ thieves’ who stole internal organs from corpses in mortuaries actually existed? And no, just you saying it isn’t evidence.

Prof Hurren in her various books has documented how body dealers operated in conjunction with corrupt mortuary attendants operated so do your own research and then prove me wrong.

As I pointed out in the previous post Trevor, and as everyone can see, I asked you about ORGAN THIEVES and not body dealers. And I’ve never doubted the existence of corrupt mortuary attendant or body dealers. Stop wriggling and answer the question. Where is the evidence for people stealing organs from bodies in mortuaries as opposed to people taking the actual body itself?

You have made the claim Trevor therefore the onus is on you to provide the evidence. That you can’t provide evidence leaves us with only one conclusion - that you have made it up to suit your theory. Prove me wrong and of course I’ll accept their existence.


3. Why would organ thieves (if such people ever existed) have only taken two organs when they had ample opportunity to have taken more and therefore made more money?

It is obvious take too many organs and the likelihood of detection becomes an issue.

So doctors wouldn’t think it strange that 2 organs were missing (because internal organs often evaporate or get mislaid) but they would have noticed 3 or 4 being missing. How can anyone even consider this?!


4. Why would they have taken the absolutely massive and pointless risk of discovery by stealing organs prior to a Post Mortem when they could easily have waited until after the PM when they would have known that there would have been no further official interest in the body? Especially considering that, if organ thieves existed, they would have always taken organs after a PM.

Following any post-mortem the abdomens are sewn back up, so it would be impossible to remove organs.

Unbelievable! 99.999% of bodies in mortuaries wouldn’t have had opened abdomens Trevor, so how would they have stolen organs from other bodies (or are you suggesting that they only leapt into actions in cases of abdominal mutilations?) Basically Trevor you are saying that an ‘organ thief’ could open up an abdomen and steal body parts but he was incapable of cutting some stitches? These answers are so weak Trevor. Why can’t you see this?


5. How could a practiced organ thief, with the body on a table, in a lit room and not in the open where they could be disturbed from three directions still botch the removal of the uterus rendering it useless (as Dr Brown said)?

I have said previously, the bodies of Eddowes and Chapman were taken to 2 different mortuaries and 2 methods of extraction used. It is clear by that 2 different people were responsible for the removal one more experienced than the other

And, as everyone can see, that isn’t an answer to the question. You’ve just changed the subject and made another ‘point.’ I’ve asked how he could have botched the removal of the uterus when he had ideal conditions to do it? So who does a botched removal point toward? A guy in a well lit mortuary with ample time or a man in a dark square constantly wary of being interrupted? Not hard is it Trevor?


6. How is it that not one single Doctor, Surgeon or Police Officer at the time of the murder expressed the slightest doubt that the killer was quite capable of removing organs.

The Police had never encountered these type of murders before and in my opinion, after the Chapman murder, where her uterus and the fallopian tube, still attached were removed intact and the length of time the doctor stated it would have taken him to remove the organs, the warning bells should have sounded or perhaps they did and it was decided to keep the full destails of the crimes out of the public domain

Phillips estimated that it would have taken 15 minutes. How is that an issue?

How could they have kept the ‘full’ details out of the public domain?What else could there have been? You are just desperately inventing things Trevor.


7. Why do you dismiss the Doctors who saw Kelly’s body and stated that the heart was missing?

The doctor only states that the heart was absent for the pericardium, he doesn't state it was never found, and we have 2 senior police officers who were at the crime scene state that no organs were taken away by the killer

Dr Hebbert (Bond’s assistant) - "In this case, to be sure, all the organs except the heart were found scattered around the room..."

Dr Gabe, also present in the room - ““… a certain organ was missing".


8. As we know that the Doctors were still at the mortuary at 5.20 awaiting Dr Phillips arrival we can reasonably estimate that they didn’t vacate until around 6.00am or later. So do you really think it remotely likely that organ thieves (if they existed) would have entered the mortuary in broad daylight and started illegally removing internal organs from the most high profile corpse that Golden Lane Mortuary ever had? Do you think that they were so stupid that they wouldn’t have been aware of the extent police interest and that at any time a police officers or doctors might have shown up?

There was an 8-hour gap between them leaving and returning to carry out the post-mortem, and the mortuary attendant would have been aware that no cursory examination had been conducted on the body so ample opportunity

Unbelievable! Drs Brown and Sequiera went to the mortuary just after 3.00. They were still there two hours later. What do you suppose that they were doing Trevor. Playing dominoes? Chatting about cricket? Or examining the body? Then we have the fact that Brown was waiting for Phillips arrival. And why did Brown request Phillips presence - to examine the body and compare it to Chapman. You know this…so why are you dodging the obvious?

I answer every one of your questions specifically. You are still ducking and diving.

[Trevor Marriott]

Eight Questions That Trevor Refuses To Answer Properly (Or At All)


1. Why won’t you accept this most basic piece of reasoning - that it’s impossible to state that someone didn’t have time to do something if the ‘time required’ and the ‘time available’ are unknowns? (Find me one single human being who disagrees with me on this particular point)

For the last time I will answer your loaded questions, many of which I have previously answered on this topic.

With all of the murders, there is no accurate time scale to show how long the killer had with each of the victims however, with the Eddowes murder we do have a time scale, assuming that the couple seen by Lawende were Eddowes and her killer we know the time they were seen but what we dont know is how long after being seen before they moved into the square, the longer they remained talking the less time the killer had to do all that he is alleged to have done at the crime scene.

2. Where is your documented evidence that such a thing as ‘organ thieves’ who stole internal organs from corpses in mortuaries actually existed? And no, just you saying it isn’t evidence.

Prof Hurren in her various books has documented how body dealers operated in conjunction with corrupt mortuary attendants operated so do your own research and then prove me wrong

3. Why would organ thieves (if such people ever existed) have only taken two organs when they had ample opportunity to have taken more and therefore made more money?

It is obvious take too many organs and the likelihood of detection becomes an issue

4. Why would they have taken the absolutely massive and pointless risk of discovery by stealing organs prior to a Post Mortem when they could easily have waited until after the PM when they would have known that there would have been no further official interest in the body? Especially considering that, if organ thieves existed, they would have always taken organs after a PM.

Following any post-mortem the abdomens are sewn back up, so it would be impossible to remove organs

5. How could a practiced organ thief, with the body on a table, in a lit room and not in the open where they could be disturbed from three directions still botch the removal of the uterus rendering it useless (as Dr Brown said)?

As I have said previously, the bodies of Eddowes and Chapman were taken to 2 different mortuaries and 2 methods of extraction used. It is clear by that 2 different people were responsible for the removal one more experienced than the other

6. How is it that not one single Doctor, Surgeon or Police Officer at the time of the murder expressed the slightest doubt that the killer was quite capable of removing organs?

The Police had never encountered these type of murders before and in my opinion, after the Chapman murder, where her uterus and the fallopian tube, still attached were removed intact and the length of time the doctor stated it would have taken him to remove the organs, the warning bells should have sounded or perhaps they did and it was decided to keep the full destails of the crimes out of the public domain

7. Why do you dismiss the Doctors who saw Kelly’s body and stated that the heart was missing?

The doctor only states that the heart was absent for the pericardium, he doesn't state it was never found, and we have 2 senior police officers who were at the crime scene state that no organs were taken away by the killer

8. As we know that the Doctors were still at the mortuary at 5.20 awaiting Dr Phillips arrival we can reasonably estimate that they didn’t vacate until around 6.00am or later. So do you really think it remotely likely that organ thieves (if they existed) would have entered the mortuary in broad daylight and started illegally removing internal organs from the most high profile corpse that Golden Lane Mortuary ever had? Do you think that they were so stupid that they wouldn’t have been aware of the extent police interest and that at any time a police officers or doctors might have shown up?

There was an 8-hour gap between them leaving and returning to carry out the post-mortem, and the mortuary attendant would have been aware that no cursory examination had been conducted on the body so ample opportunity

[Doctored Whatsit]

No it doesnt mean cut out it means that the organs were found missing at the post-mortem.

Now, whose ducking and diving? There is a hint of desperation in your posts

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Oh Trevor really, it clearly means nothing of the kind.

"I carefully closed up the clothes of the woman. Some portions had been excised." That is a clear statement that portions had already been excised before he closed up the clothes. It can mean nothing else. We all understand the obvious difference between "had been excised", which he said, and "have now been excised", which you want him to have said.

Desperation is, as you suggest, evident, but it is from you not others.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Eight Questions That Trevor Refuses To Answer Properly (Or At All)


1. Why won’t you accept this most basic piece of reasoning - that it’s impossible to state that someone didn’t have time to do something if the ‘time required’ and the ‘time available’ are unknowns? (Find me one single human being who disagrees with me on this particular point)

2. Where is your documented evidence that such a thing as ‘organ thieves’ who stole internal organs from corpses in mortuaries actually existed? And no, just you saying it isn’t evidence.

3. Why would organ thieves (if such people ever existed) have only taken two organs when they had ample opportunity to have taken more and therefore made more money?

4. Why would they have taken the absolutely massive and pointless risk of discovery by stealing organs prior to a Post Mortem when they could easily have waited until after the PM when they would have known that there would have been no further official interest in the body? Especially considering that, if organ thieves existed, they would have always taken organs after a PM.

5. How could a practiced organ thief, with the body on a table, in a lit room and not in the open where they could be disturbed from three directions still botch the removal of the uterus rendering it useless (as Dr Brown said)?

6. How is it that not one single Doctor, Surgeon or Police Officer at the time of the murder expressed the slightest doubt that the killer was quite capable of removing organs?

7. Why do you dismiss the Doctors who saw Kelly’s body and stated that the heart was missing?

8. As we know that the Doctors were still at the mortuary at 5.20 awaiting Dr Phillips arrival we can reasonably estimate that they didn’t vacate until around 6.00am or later. So do you really think it remotely likely that organ thieves (if they existed) would have entered the mortuary in broad daylight and started illegally removing internal organs from the most high profile corpse that Golden Lane Mortuary ever had? Do you think that they were so stupid that they wouldn’t have been aware of the extent police interest and that at any time a police officers or doctors might have shown up?

[Herlock Sholmes]

By the way….no answers to the other posts I see.

Have you found those organ thieves yet?

[Herlock Sholmes]

No it doesnt mean cut out it means that the organs were found missing at the post-mortem.

Now, whose ducking and diving? There is a hint of desperation in your posts

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But I thought that ducking and diving and interpreting evidence any way that suited a point of view was the norm Trevor?