The kidney removal of Catherine Eddowes.

[The Rookie Detective]

Folks- i think this killer had some level of skill because of the amount of time he had to perform what is clearly a stepwise method. Silence- cut throat and bleed out and then mutilate. Location in metro was within a 30 minute police beat cycle and London City 15 minutes. Killing in metro ( all but Eddowes) was in theory more time to kill.

Could the killer be anyone when you consider the time and motion analysis of these kills? To silence and cut throats would take about 30 seconds. Again this was controlled rage in silence so what happened next? According to the attending Doctors they considered some anatomical knowledge to extract organs. So then the question becomes lets assume anyone could have throttled these women and cut their throats after they got them laying on the ground. I can buy that.

But thats where I personally think it ends. If Eddowes was killed and mutilated in about 5 minutes and there was an escalation from Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes - that is a pattern. Would anyone know how to escalate as that was an apparent goal. Could anyone with a sharp knife know how to remove intestines, uterus and kidney or simply Rip them out?
Having never had experience with a cadaver or animal and seiing it for the first time? I think the escalation tells a story.

This killer knew how to render the victim unconscious and also knew that cutting the throats and bleeding out led to less blood in the abdomen. Medical and butcher people would certainly know that. The average Joe likely would not.

The cuts were also described as clean. Do all these things point to a potential profession. In my mind I believe it points to a local who knew he had x amount of time to perform the murder, and used his own skill to perform the mutilations. By the time he got to Eddowes he knew how fast he could get to the kidney because he already did the previous steps.

I think anyone could have silenced and cut the throats.
I dont think that just anyone could perform an Eddowes in 5 minutes by just Ripping. No matter what Cornwell says.⁸

Excellent post Patrick


It's specifically what the killer did to his victims post-mortem that sets him apart from a generic killer taking a life with a knife.

The most difficult and skillful part of the entire murder sequence for the killer, was AFTER the victim was already dead.

He dispatched his victims suddenly, quickly, quietly and with extreme speed and focus.

It would have taken less than 30 seconds to kill, but the vast majority of time spent by the killer with his victim involved what he did to them after they were deceased.

The ripper wasn't just a killer, he was specifically a post-mortem mutilator.

That's the Ripper's signature right there.

And that particular key signature required a combination of the following...

Skill with a knife
Experience using a knife
Skill in cutting things up
Experience with cutting things up
Basic anatomical knowledge


And that's the point; the Ripper needed to have been someone who fits that specific criteria.

[Patrick Differ]

Hi RD,

Does that list really eliminate anyone? Is there any suspect that we know wasn't skilled with a large sharp knife? A person could have such skill even if he didn't have an occupation or formal training related to that skill.

I would eliminate Maybrick anyway, and consider Lechmere to be among the weakest suspects that I wouldn't eliminate. Kosminski isn't my favorite, but I think he's viable.

Folks- i think this killer had some level of skill because of the amount of time he had to perform what is clearly a stepwise method. Silence- cut throat and bleed out and then mutilate. Location in metro was within a 30 minute police beat cycle and London City 15 minutes. Killing in metro ( all but Eddowes) was in theory more time to kill.

Could the killer be anyone when you consider the time and motion analysis of these kills? To silence and cut throats would take about 30 seconds. Again this was controlled rage in silence so what happened next? According to the attending Doctors they considered some anatomical knowledge to extract organs. So then the question becomes lets assume anyone could have throttled these women and cut their throats after they got them laying on the ground. I can buy that.

But thats where I personally think it ends. If Eddowes was killed and mutilated in about 5 minutes and there was an escalation from Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes - that is a pattern. Would anyone know how to escalate as that was an apparent goal. Could anyone with a sharp knife know how to remove intestines, uterus and kidney or simply Rip them out?
Having never had experience with a cadaver or animal and seiing it for the first time? I think the escalation tells a story.

This killer knew how to render the victim unconscious and also knew that cutting the throats and bleeding out led to less blood in the abdomen. Medical and butcher people would certainly know that. The average Joe likely would not.

The cuts were also described as clean. Do all these things point to a potential profession. In my mind I believe it points to a local who knew he had x amount of time to perform the murder, and used his own skill to perform the mutilations. By the time he got to Eddowes he knew how fast he could get to the kidney because he already did the previous steps.

I think anyone could have silenced and cut the throats.
I dont think that just anyone could perform an Eddowes in 5 minutes by just Ripping. No matter what Cornwell says.⁸

[Lewis C]

Surgeon
Doctor
Medical/Surgical Student
Slaughterer
Butcher
Coroner
Convicted murderer
Surgical Skill
Anatomical knowledge
Skilled with a large sharp knife.



Any suspect or person of interest who doesn't fit into one of the above, was not the Ripper.


That's Lechmere, Maybrick and Kosminski gone then.


It doesn't matter why the killer took a Kidney that's important, it's HOW the killer able to do what he literally did, in relative darkness and within a very limited time frame.

How?!

Hi RD,

Does that list really eliminate anyone? Is there any suspect that we know wasn't skilled with a large sharp knife? A person could have such skill even if he didn't have an occupation or formal training related to that skill.

I would eliminate Maybrick anyway, and consider Lechmere to be among the weakest suspects that I wouldn't eliminate. Kosminski isn't my favorite, but I think he's viable.

[Geddy2112]

It doesn't matter why the killer took a Kidney that's important, it's HOW the killer able to do what he literally did, in relative darkness and within a very limited time frame.

Do you think he specifically targeted the kidney or did he just take 'something.' Just odd to think if indeed, as per Trevor there were organ thieves at work why did they not take both kidneys or more organs to sell?

[The Rookie Detective]

Surgeon
Doctor
Medical/Surgical Student
Slaughterer
Butcher
Coroner
Convicted murderer
Surgical Skill
Anatomical knowledge
Skilled with a large sharp knife.



Any suspect or person of interest who doesn't fit into one of the above, was not the Ripper.


That's Lechmere, Maybrick and Kosminski gone then.


It doesn't matter why the killer took a Kidney that's important, it's HOW the killer able to do what he literally did, in relative darkness and within a very limited time frame.

How?!

[John Wheat]

I won’t mention names but there are two posters on here who love asking questions and making statements but they just will not answer and straight question.

Don't forget those on the Maybrick threads.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Only two?

[Fiver]

I won’t mention names but there are two posters on here who love asking questions and making statements but they just will not answer and straight question.

Only two?

[FrankO]

This was brought up on a previous thread some time ago, and I suggested that the probable reason for getting Dr Phillips to study the sieved remains of the fire would be for evidence of a burnt heart. I couldn't think of any other reason to involve a police surgeon.

I missed it on the other thread then, DW, but I was thinking exactly the same thing as you regarding the motive behind the sieving of the remains of the fire by those medical men.

Perhaps someone should open a thread on Kelly's heart - we are doing it to death on this thread!

Although, of course, it's quite unbelievable why we are or need to be doing it to death, isn't it?

[Herlock Sholmes]

''You are increasing the volume of your voice, but not the logic of your argument'."

I won’t mention names but there are two posters on here who love asking questions and making statements but they just will not answer and straight question.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Currently, the number agreeing with you is zero.

The most staggering part of Trevor’s argument is about his starting point Fiver. In reaction to his claim that the killer wouldn’t have had time I’ve said this.

If you claim that X didn’t have time to do Y then you HAVE to know the minimum time that Y could have taken to do and what was the maximum time that X had available to him.

You can’t get more basic than that. But when I asked Trevor if he accepted the point he said “but we don’t know how long he had!”

How can anyone not understand this point? I can only conclude that Trevor does understand it but he’ll say absolutely anything rather than accept an inarguable point.

[Fiver]

You would be surprised

Currently, the number agreeing with you is zero.

[Fiver]

You need a reality check !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

''You are increasing the volume of your voice, but not the logic of your argument'."

[Trevor Marriott]

What devastating reasoning.

Remind me again Trevor….how many agree with you?

You would be surprised

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

It’s long past time that this thread (and theory) was put to bed now that we can all see the situation. Trevor refuses to a) provide evidence that he claims to have access to, b) consistently avoids answering direct questions, and c) he even refuses to accept points that everyone else would concede to be basic reason and common sense.

1. (This is what I mean by my point c). The starting point of Trevor’s theory is his ‘fact’ that the killer wouldn’t have had time in Mitre Square to remove organ. This is an example of him refusing to accept something that everyone else would accept without argument; that this claim cannot be made because we have no definitive time that the killer wouldn’t have required, we have no idea of the killer’s knowledge and level of skill and we don’t know how long the killer had available to him. Therefore it’s just a fact that the claim that the killer didn’t have time cannot be made.

And we still dont no how long the killer had with Eddowes.

EXACTLY, how the hell can you not understand this? If we don’t know how long he had and we don’t know how long it would have taken then YOU can’t say that he couldn’t have had time. This is the simplest thing ever and yet you don’t understand it.

2. Next, Trevor claims that it’s known that organ thieves stole organs from mortuaries. I have never doubted him on this point (I’ve always said though that their mere existence cannot be considered proof that organs were taken.)

You have acknowledged that organs were stolen for mortuaries

WHY CANT YOU READ? I said that I’d always taken your word for it because you made the claim. I now question it and until you can provide evidence I will not acknowledge it.

3. Trevor stated in the strongest terms that Dr Phillips didn’t attend the mortuary before the post mortem. We now that to be incorrect and that, at 5.20am, Dr Brown was still at Golden Lane mortuary (possibly Sequiera too) awaiting Dr Phillips arrival - hardly something that he would have done if Phillips wasn’t due to arrive until 9 hours later.

The post mortem was not carried out on Eddowes till the afternoon, I am sure that having regard for the fact that Phillips was still dealing with Stride and Phillips had not arrived by 5.20am they would have adjourned till later.

EMBARRASSING - Long gave the apron to Phillips to take to the mortuary because he knew that’s where he was heading. And he KNEW that was where he was heading because Dr Brown had requested his presence.

So, according to you, a full two hours after arriving at the mortuary Dr Brown is just standing there twiddling his thumbs before going home? Stop typing Trevor you’re just making yourself look bad.

4. Trevor asks why no organs were taken from Nichols and Stride “if the killer was harvesting organs.” So he’s created a motive merely to use it to make a point. We don’t know why he took organs so we can’t know that for whatever reason he might have decided not to. Trevor also dismisses the entirely reasonable suggestion that in both cases the killer might have been interrupted but what’s worse is that Trevor doesn’t consider even Stride a ripper victim! So why does he now throw her back into the mix purely to make a point? This is a sure sign of real desperation.

Its a fact that if the killler was harvesting organs there was no attempt by the killer to remove organs from some of the other victims

HOW, AS AN ADULT, CAN YOU NOT UNDERSTAND SOMETHING SO SIMPLE! You can’t just invent a motive so that you can make a point. What if he WASN’T harvesting organs? I might as well say “if the killer had a broken arm how could he have committed the murders??

5. Trevor claims to know for a fact that Kelly’s heart wasn’t missing. Such unfounded confidence borders on the bizarre. To support this he largely, but not entirely, relies on a 1896 News of The World article/interview with the retired Inspector Reid. Despite Trevor’s ongoing tactic of labelling anyone that he doesn’t believe as ‘unsafe to rely on’ it’s strange (to say the least) that he takes Reid’s word as gospel despite the fact that he makes so many errors in his interview that it’s often more like a work of fiction. He ignores the fact that Bond said that the heart was missing and that despite him listing the location in the room of the other organs he makes no mention of the heart. He also ignores Drs Gabe and Hebbert on this subject. And apart from this, even if the heart wasn’t missing this still would be evidence for organ thieves.

2 Senior police officers and a doctor confirm that the heart was not taken away by the killer

And 3 Doctors said that it was. On medical issues doctors trump police officers.

6. Trevor refuses to address this very obvious question - why did organ thieves, looking to make money from selling organs and having ample time and the ideal conditions, content themselves with a kidney and a uterus when they could easily have taken a sackful of organs. All saleable items. The reason that Trevor ignores this point couldn’t be more obvious.

I have addressed this question with regards to Kelly if as you believe, the killer took her heart, why did he not take any other organs when he had the time to remove almost every internal organ?

That’s not an answer. That’s a question. Can’t you tell the difference? You haven’t answered because can’t without showing your theory to be the utter nonsense that it provably is.

7. Finally Trevor, for some inexplicable reason, can’t seem to grasp that organ thieves would have had to, as part of their method, only taken organs from corpses due for a PM AFTER that PM had taken place. Imagine the doctors surprise at the PM when he pulled back the sheet on a woman who died in bed to find that her abdomen had been opened up? Stealing after a PM, under cover of darkness with (usually) no police or doctors coming and going make total sense. But in this case Trevor suggests that they were so desperate to get their hands on a kidney and a uterus that they simply couldn’t wait. They also ran the huge risk that the doctors who had examined the body might have noticed that the uterus was present. No sensible person could accept this suggestion.

You clearly are not a sensible person !!!!!!!!!

You need a reality check !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


www.trevormarriott.co.uk

What devastating reasoning.

Remind me again Trevor….how many agree with you?