The kidney removal of Catherine Eddowes.

[Trevor Marriott]

Chapman Inquest


Coroner - ”You do not think they could have been lost accidentally in the transit of the body to the mortuary?”

Dr Phillips - “I was not present at the transit. I carefully closed up the clothes of the woman. Some portions had been excised.”


It couldn’t be clearer. He closed Annie Chapman’s clothes in Hanbury Street after seeing that some portions had been excised.


That means cut out. And the Coroner was very clearly asking about organs.

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

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Doctored Whatsit]

I know many have doubts about these witnesses. If the police were being truthful about an identification that took place at Hove or some other place then the only Jewish witnesses were one of the 3 mentioned. So which one? Two of these knew Jacob Levy. If i interpret Sagar correctly, the Jewish Butcher was identified by a Jew who refused to testify but did identify. What if that was Lawende and/or Levy?

Long may have been influenced by Leather Apron? but the Chapman murder was commited between 5:30 am and 6. So if Chapman flipped off the man she was talking to that Long walked past on the same side of the street, ( pictures indicate that sidewalk was only about 8 ft wide) then that means Chapman and the Ripper hooked up immediately after Long passed, on the quick as they were then heard in the back yard of #29. I dont buy the timing being suggested.

You can probably pick all the witnesses apart and claim none were credible or that Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly were with someone else immediately after being seen. However I think the timing of Chapman and Eddowes make that suggestion weak in comparison. Would Chapman and Eddowes, both seen negotiating just before they were murdered, go through that routine again? And hw would that affect the timing.

The thing with Hutchinson that caught my attention were 2 things, other than waiting to come forward. (1) his description of the parcel and American cloth which would be canvass. (2) his claim that he thought he saw this same man a few days after Kellys murder, on of all places, Middlesex Street. On the day of the congested Sunday market. Why that street? Coincidence? Maybe or maybe not?

The American cloth comment led me on a search for parcels used by medical, butchers, tailors, barbers and from a tool organization standpoint these canvass type parcels of the size stated were indeed available. Medical and Butchers specifically were known to keep their tools organized.

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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Chapman Inquest


Coroner - ”You do not think they could have been lost accidentally in the transit of the body to the mortuary?”

Dr Phillips - “I was not present at the transit. I carefully closed up the clothes of the woman. Some portions had been excised.”


It couldn’t be clearer. He closed Annie Chapman’s clothes in Hanbury Street after seeing that some portions had been excised.


That means cut out. And the Coroner was very clearly asking about organs.

[Patrick Differ]

I am a little confused by your choice of witnesses. Long didn't see the man's face, and only described him as being "dark", and "looked like a foreigner". Schwartz didn't specify a Jew, nor did Lawende and Levy, and the evidence of the last two would have been just about useless in court, because they couldn't even positively identify Eddowes, and Lawende said on oath that he didn't think he'd recognise the man again. Even if the woman was Eddowes, there is no certainty that the man was the last person she contacted. Their refusal to testify is pure speculation. Many are doubtful about the reliability of Hutchinson's evidence, and even if true, this man might not have been her last client.

I do agree that Sagar was watching a Jewish butcher, but that suspicion isn't proof that JtR was Jewish. I have an open mind on the subject - JtR was probably someone skilled with a knife like a butcher/slaughterer, and he could have been British or Jewish.

I know many have doubts about these witnesses. If the police were being truthful about an identification that took place at Hove or some other place then the only Jewish witnesses were one of the 3 mentioned. So which one? Two of these knew Jacob Levy. If i interpret Sagar correctly, the Jewish Butcher was identified by a Jew who refused to testify but did identify. What if that was Lawende and/or Levy?

Long may have been influenced by Leather Apron? but the Chapman murder was commited between 5:30 am and 6. So if Chapman flipped off the man she was talking to that Long walked past on the same side of the street, ( pictures indicate that sidewalk was only about 8 ft wide) then that means Chapman and the Ripper hooked up immediately after Long passed, on the quick as they were then heard in the back yard of #29. I dont buy the timing being suggested.

You can probably pick all the witnesses apart and claim none were credible or that Chapman, Stride, Eddowes and Kelly were with someone else immediately after being seen. However I think the timing of Chapman and Eddowes make that suggestion weak in comparison. Would Chapman and Eddowes, both seen negotiating just before they were murdered, go through that routine again? And hw would that affect the timing.

The thing with Hutchinson that caught my attention were 2 things, other than waiting to come forward. (1) his description of the parcel and American cloth which would be canvass. (2) his claim that he thought he saw this same man a few days after Kellys murder, on of all places, Middlesex Street. On the day of the congested Sunday market. Why that street? Coincidence? Maybe or maybe not?

The American cloth comment led me on a search for parcels used by medical, butchers, tailors, barbers and from a tool organization standpoint these canvass type parcels of the size stated were indeed available. Medical and Butchers specifically were known to keep their tools organized.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well i could ask that same question about the killer's actions

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I’ve answered every single one of your questions Trevor and here you are, yet again, ducking and diving.

You know that you are wrong.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I did wonder how long it would take for you to rejoin this topic, you are so predictable

and Prof Hurren does highlight in her books the fact that there were corrupt mortuary attendants

No Trevor I’m not falling for the ‘old switcheroo.’ I’ve never once claimed that there were no corrupt mortuary attendants. What I asked you about very specifically specifically was the phenomena of ‘organ thieves.’ People who you claim took organs from bodies in mortuaries. You claimed that Professor Hurren mentions ‘organ thieves’ somewhere in her work. She doesn’t mention any such thing in her ripper-related article but you claimed that she had mentioned them somewhere so I asked you to produce the evidence for that but you told me to do my own research. That’s not how it works. You are the one making the claim therefore you are the one that needs to provide the evidence. I will have no problem accepting the existence of organ thieves if, and only if, evidence is provided.

If you accept that there were body dealers who not only dealt in bodies but also body parts, then would you not think that a mortuary would be a good place to conduct that type of operation?

Professor Hurren only talks about ‘body dealers’ in her article. Corrupt people who sold bodies for vivisection. The only other thing that she mentioned in her article was amputated limbs.

This theory about butchers and slaughtermen having the skill and knowledge to anatomically remove these organs is really pie-in-the-sky stuff. If you take the Chapman murder, she not only had her uterus removed but the fallopian tubes, which were clearly still attached to the uterus. Now, what butcher or slaughterman would have the knowledge or the skill to remove these without damaging them? You need to take the blinkers off and start looking at this in a different light.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

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.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Doc- why a kosher butcher and why a sticking knife ? 'In the case of the knife it was a process of elimination of knives and instruments used by medical people. The sticking knife looks like a perfect match based on knife specifications stated by Doctors. My opinion is a sticking knife is a high probability.

Why a Jewish Butcher? Connecting dots. If any of the eyewitnesses Long, Schwartz, Lawende, Levy, Hutchinson are to be believed then the perpetrator was Jewish. If the Police are to be believed then the perpitrator was Jewish.

I asked myself if all of these People collectively were biased but Schwartz, Lawende and Levy were Jews. Levy according to the Press, acted like he knew something but refused to get too involved. While he did testify at Eddowes inquest he did not say much other than disagree with Lawende on the height of the man seen with Eddowes. What did he know? What did he say? Levy thought the killer was 3 inches taller than Eddowes at 5ft 0 inches.

Finally, after the death of Mary Kelly, Detective Robert Sagar comes into focus. They were monitoring a Jewish Butcher working or interacting on Butchers Row. They went indercovet to gain access within the tight knit Jewish community. They could not just flash the badge and walk in? That appears telling.

The theory I am working on is that Jacob Levy is the butcher in the Jewish Butcher Theory, and that Lawende ( joseph hyam levys best friend and jacob levys first cousin) are the ones who identified Jacob Levy to the Police. Remember they refused to testify against him and it was thetefore impossible to convict him. So instead they monitored him up until the time his friends? ( his brother in law isaac Barnett) took him to Stone Asylum after examination Dr Sequira. A Doctor who himself was there at the Eddowes murder.

I am a little confused by your choice of witnesses. Long didn't see the man's face, and only described him as being "dark", and "looked like a foreigner". Schwartz didn't specify a Jew, nor did Lawende and Levy, and the evidence of the last two would have been just about useless in court, because they couldn't even positively identify Eddowes, and Lawende said on oath that he didn't think he'd recognise the man again. Even if the woman was Eddowes, there is no certainty that the man was the last person she contacted. Their refusal to testify is pure speculation. Many are doubtful about the reliability of Hutchinson's evidence, and even if true, this man might not have been her last client.

I do agree that Sagar was watching a Jewish butcher, but that suspicion isn't proof that JtR was Jewish. I have an open mind on the subject - JtR was probably someone skilled with a knife like a butcher/slaughterer, and he could have been British or Jewish.

[Trevor Marriott]

This shows you were making a false assumption when you asked this question. Considering the random slashing and damaged organs, why do you assume the Ripper was "carefully" removing anything?

Because he carefully removed the uterus and the fallopian tubes from Chapman

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

If your ‘organ thief’ was stealing organs to sell why did he make do with just a uterus and a kidney. According to you he was in a mortuary with the body on the slab. Why didn’t he take the heart, the liver, a lung or two?

Well i could ask that same question about the killer's actions

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Patrick Differ]

If you agree on the use of a sticking knife, why is it still a kosher butcher that is your suspect? If it was a sticking knife, and I believe that was the police surgeons' opinion, all we have is the suggestion that JtR was an experienced butcher/slaughterer.

Doc- why a kosher butcher and why a sticking knife ? 'In the case of the knife it was a process of elimination of knives and instruments used by medical people. The sticking knife looks like a perfect match based on knife specifications stated by Doctors. My opinion is a sticking knife is a high probability.

Why a Jewish Butcher? Connecting dots. If any of the eyewitnesses Long, Schwartz, Lawende, Levy, Hutchinson are to be believed then the perpetrator was Jewish. If the Police are to be believed then the perpitrator was Jewish.

I asked myself if all of these People collectively were biased but Schwartz, Lawende and Levy were Jews. Levy according to the Press, acted like he knew something but refused to get too involved. While he did testify at Eddowes inquest he did not say much other than disagree with Lawende on the height of the man seen with Eddowes. What did he know? What did he say? Levy thought the killer was 3 inches taller than Eddowes at 5ft 0 inches.

Finally, after the death of Mary Kelly, Detective Robert Sagar comes into focus. They were monitoring a Jewish Butcher working or interacting on Butchers Row. They went indercovet to gain access within the tight knit Jewish community. They could not just flash the badge and walk in? That appears telling.

The theory I am working on is that Jacob Levy is the butcher in the Jewish Butcher Theory, and that Lawende ( joseph hyam levys best friend and jacob levys first cousin) are the ones who identified Jacob Levy to the Police. Remember they refused to testify against him and it was thetefore impossible to convict him. So instead they monitored him up until the time his friends? ( his brother in law isaac Barnett) took him to Stone Asylum after examination Dr Sequira. A Doctor who himself was there at the Eddowes murder.

[Fiver]

Here is an extract from my book "Jack The Ripper-The Real Truth" I interviewed a master butcher with 35 years experience in the meat trade who started off working in a slaughterhouse house.

"I have also been asked whether I could carefully remove these same organs in almost total darkness using a six-inch sharp-bladed knife."

This shows you were making a false assumption when you asked this question. Considering the random slashing and damaged organs, why do you assume the Ripper was "carefully" removing anything?

[Fiver]

Ergo, a killer who had cut up bodies before.

Like the Torso killer.

* The Ripper killings had a strong emotional content based on the excessive mutilations. The Torso Killer's cutting up the bodies appears to be functional, not emotional, done to reduce the bodies into pieces small enough to carry.
* The Ripper liked to pose the bodies of his victims and sometimes their personal effects. The Torso Killer did not.
* The Ripper killed his victims on the spot, as testified to by several police detectives and surgeons. The Torso Killer transported the bodies to where they were found.
* The Torso Killer disposed of his victims heads in a way they were never found, probably in an attempt to conceal their identities. The Ripper made no attempt to hide his victims' identities.
* The Torso Killer appears to have operated over a significantly wider area and over a much longer time than the Ripper.
* The Ripper was much more of a risk taker because of the public locations of his killings and the time the Ripper was willing to spend at those locations doing mutilations, taking organs, and posing the victims. Further evidence of risk taking is the Ripper appears to have been interrupted twice, appears to have killed twice in one night, and his continued killing in spite of the increased wariness of the general population, as well as increased patrolling by the police and the Whitechapel vigilance Committee.
* The Ripper liked taking internal organs as trophies. The Torso Killer took heads, and probably not as trophies.

[Trevor Marriott]

And I’ve asked you for the evidence you claimed to have seen of ‘organ thieves’ stealing body parts from mortuaries. Professor Hurren, who you are fond of quoting, only talks about ‘body dealers’ in the article that you refer to. I have found no evidence for the existence of people stealing organs from mortuaries. If you can’t provide the evidence that you claimed to have then everyone on here can only draw one conclusion. That there was no such thing. There may have been such a thing but no one can or should accept the existence of something without a smidgeon of evidence or simply on the word of someone that has a theory to prop up.

I did wonder how long it would take for you to rejoin this topic, you are so predictable

and Prof Hurren does highlight in her books the fact that there were corrupt mortuary attendants

If you accept that there were body dealers who not only dealt in bodies but also body parts, then would you not think that a mortuary would be a good place to conduct that type of operation?

This theory about butchers and slaughtermen having the skill and knowledge to anatomically remove these organs is really pie-in-the-sky stuff. If you take the Chapman murder, she not only had her uterus removed but the fallopian tubes, which were clearly still attached to the uterus. Now, what butcher or slaughterman would have the knowledge or the skill to remove these without damaging them? You need to take the blinkers off and start looking at this in a different light.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

and one question I keep asking, which posters seem not to want to answer, is if it was the same killer for Eddowes and Chapman, why do we see clear anatomical skill being used to remove the uterus and its appendages from Chapman and less anatomical skill shown in the removal of the organs from Eddowes?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Answered in #384.

Perhaps you could answer this one (and change the habits of a lifetime of course)

Dr Brown: “The uterus was cut away with the exception of a small portion, and the left kidney was also cut out.”

How is it that an ‘organ thief’ with the body on a slab couldn’t cut out the uterus properly? Which explains the above better?

a) A man with a body on a slab and in a lit room with little or no chance of being disturbed?

or,

b) A man doing what he did, in darkness, outdoors, wary of being disturbed from three directions?


And Isn’t it interesting that when the coroner asked Brown:

”Would the parts removed be of any use for professional purposes?”


He replied confidently:

”None whatever.”


Which theory is ‘dead and buried’?

23 people who have all researched and read about this case for years voted on whether or not the ripper took organs. Every single one said that your theory is a non-starter. Any reasonable person reading those results would say “well perhaps I’m wrong,” but not you Trevor. Every single point that you have made has been rebutted. You have been repeatedly challenged to provide evidence of a claim that you made but you ‘refuse’ point blank to do so. You have been proven wrong on Dr Phillips being at the mortuary but you have never acknowledged the fact despite the proof being there in black and white. And I, and others, have made numerous valid points against your theory and have you dealt with these points properly? No, you criticise the question, you answer a question that hasn’t been asked, you ignore points, you change the subject, you repeat falsehoods or you persistently make unfounded claims. Roger made a point on the other thread about dealing with people who discuss/debate in bad faith. This is what you do I’m afraid Trevor. I answer questions and respond to points. You duck and weave, dodge and avoid. It’s like trying to remove a slippery kidney.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And why, if the killer was organ collecting, why take another uterus from Eddowes when he had a perfect specimen from Chapman?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

If your ‘organ thief’ was stealing organs to sell why did he make do with just a uterus and a kidney. According to you he was in a mortuary with the body on the slab. Why didn’t he take the heart, the liver, a lung or two?