The kidney removal of Catherine Eddowes.

[Trevor Marriott]

There’s a 1895 book entitled "A System of Legal Medicine" where Dr. Charles Alfred Hebbert (who was Dr. Thomas Bond's assistant) discussed the aspects of the Miller's Court murder. Dr. Hebbert had written:

"In this case, to be sure, all the organs except the heart were found scattered around the room..."

Dr Gabe was reported to have said (Manchester Evening News of 09.11.88) that "a certain organ was missing". This would seem to be reliable because the newspaper also reported him as saying that "The ears and nose were cut off, the liver was lying between the legs, and the head was hanging by a thread". I don't think there was any other report about the liver lying between the legs at this time but it's confirmed in Bond's PM report (albeit that he says "between the feet" which is the same thing). Presumably the missing organ was the heart (although the Hartlepool Daily Mail of 9th Nov seemed to think that "the womb and other parts are missing" but gave no source as to where it obtained this information)

Further corroboration would later come to prove that the heart was not taken away comes in the form of two newspaper articles, the first published in Lloyds Weekly dated November 11th 1888 which the interviewee would appear to have been Superintendent Arnold who was in overall charge of Whitechapel policing, and visited the crime scene shortly after the discovery of the body. The relevant part of the article reads “The kidneys and heart had also been removed from the body, and placed on the table by the side of the breasts.

The second piece of corroboration comes from The New York Herald dated November 10th and is a quote from Dr Gabe who also attended the crime scene while the body was still in situ:
“The nose and ears were sliced away. The throat was cut from left to right, so that the vertebrae alone prevented a heads manlike severance. Below the neck the trunk suggested a sheep's carcass in a slaughter house. Ribs and backbone were exposed and the stomach, entrails, heart and liver had been cut out and carefully placed beside the mutilated trunk”

There clearly is a conflict with Dr Gabes article
But Insp Reid and Supt Arnold should not be ignored as the police would be the ones to provide all the details for the coroner

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

There’s a 1895 book entitled "A System of Legal Medicine" where Dr. Charles Alfred Hebbert (who was Dr. Thomas Bond's assistant) discussed the aspects of the Miller's Court murder. Dr. Hebbert had written:

"In this case, to be sure, all the organs except the heart were found scattered around the room..."


Dr Gabe was reported to have said (Manchester Evening News of 09.11.88) that "a certain organ was missing". This would seem to be reliable because the newspaper also reported him as saying that "The ears and nose were cut off, the liver was lying between the legs, and the head was hanging by a thread". I don't think there was any other report about the liver lying between the legs at this time but it's confirmed in Bond's PM report (albeit that he says "between the feet" which is the same thing). Presumably the missing organ was the heart (although the Hartlepool Daily Mail of 9th Nov seemed to think that "the womb and other parts are missing" but gave no source as to where it obtained this information)

Wrong thread.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There’s a 1895 book entitled "A System of Legal Medicine" where Dr. Charles Alfred Hebbert (who was Dr. Thomas Bond's assistant) discussed the aspects of the Miller's Court murder. Dr. Hebbert had written:

"In this case, to be sure, all the organs except the heart were found scattered around the room..."


Dr Gabe was reported to have said (Manchester Evening News of 09.11.88) that "a certain organ was missing". This would seem to be reliable because the newspaper also reported him as saying that "The ears and nose were cut off, the liver was lying between the legs, and the head was hanging by a thread". I don't think there was any other report about the liver lying between the legs at this time but it's confirmed in Bond's PM report (albeit that he says "between the feet" which is the same thing). Presumably the missing organ was the heart (although the Hartlepool Daily Mail of 9th Nov seemed to think that "the womb and other parts are missing" but gave no source as to where it obtained this information)

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well, you keep believing all that you have posted, and perhaps one day you will wake up to reality, but I doubt that will ever happen

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Pathetic.

Not one single answer.

[Trevor Marriott]

To be fair and give Trevor a final chance to make meaningful responses to the individual points against his theory let’s sum up in individual, numbered, easy-to-respond-to points.


1. The basis for Trevor’s theory is that the killer didn’t have the time to remove organs in Mitre Square.

If Trevor says “it’s impossible that Doc could have got from A to B in an hour.” And I say “ what is the distance between A and B?” To which Trevor replies “I don’t know.” Then I ask “how quickly could Doc have travelled between A and B?” And Trevor responded “I don’t know.” How much value would we place in Trevor’s original claim that Doc couldn’t have done it? It’s none of course. So why does Trevor make the claim that the killer couldn’t have removed organs when we don’t know how long it would have taken him or how long he had available to him? Trevor has completely failed to address this point. And he hasn’t done it because the point is indisputable.


2. Trevor claims that the Doctor’s, Brown and Sequiera, couldn’t have examined the body to any great extent before the post mortem. And yet we know from the evidence that the body was removed to the mortuary at 3am and that Dr. Brown (and possibly Sequiera, although he isn’t mentioned) were still at the mortuary 2 hours later. What does Trevor think that they were doing in that 2 hours? Watching the slowest undressing of a corpse in history? Why else would they have gone to the mortuary in the first place if not to further examine the body under more favourable conditions than in Mitre Square? Do we know that they noticed the uterus? Of course not but the relevant point is that organ thieves couldn’t possibly have known that they hadn’t which would have made the decision to steal organs before the post mortem absolutely insane.


3. Trevor claims that the Doctors would have documented it if they had found the uterus missing in any examination before the post mortem. This is obvious nonsense because the doctors didn’t document the pre-PM examination at all. Why would they? Do we have any examples of a doctor doing this? I’m not aware of any. All documentation about the corpse would have been done at the post mortem, unless Trevor thinks that one of the Doctors said “shouldn’t we make some notes now in case some bits go missing?” Trevor can’t just invent criteria simply so that he could knock them down and claim that he’s made a point.


4. Trevor claims that Dr Phillips was only at the mortuary for the post mortem and not before. We know that this isn’t true. Phillips presence at the mortuary was requested by Dr Brown while Brown was still in Mitre Square with the body and Brown himself tells us why he had requested Phillips opinions. We know that PC Long handed the apron piece to Dr Phillips at Leman Street Station at some point in the early hours of the morning. And we know, from the Lloyd’s reporter that spoke to Dr Brown at 5.20 at the mortuary, that Brown was still awaiting the arrival of Dr Phillips. So unless Trevor believes that Brown was prepared to stand around at the mortuary twiddling his thumbs for another 9 hours until the PM then we can safely assume that Phillips arrived at the mortuary some time after 5.20. And why was he going to the mortuary? Because Brown had requested his presence to examine the injuries in comparison to a corpse that had had organs removed. And again, there is absolutely no way that organ thieves could have known that he hadn’t seen that the uterus was still in place.


5. Trevor makes the point that organ thieves existed. I have never doubted this but we have to note that, when asked if there would have been a market for these particular stolen organs, Brown said “none whatever.” It also has to be pointed out that the uterus was taken incomplete. Would there be a market for incomplete organs. How could an experienced organ thief, in mortuary conditions, still have failed to remove the organ cleanly and in its entirety which would surely have been his aim? Isn’t that more likely evidence that it had been taken incomplete in far less favourable conditions.


6. Finally Trevor makes the point that organ thieves would have had enough time to take organs. I’ve never really doubted this but we have to apply common sense. Organ thieves would never have removed organs from a body that was due for a post mortem (I should have no need to explain the very obvious reason why this is the case) So why would they change in this case (and in the case of Chapman for that matter?) It makes absolutely no sense because they had no need to change their method and take such an insane risk. If Phillips arrived at around 5.30 (it may have been later) and was there for an hour or so, then we have Doctors at the mortuary until around 6.30-7.00. This was two hours after sunrise; broad daylight. Can anyone seriously believe that out organ thieves would have been there, stealing organs from a corpse, when anyone, police officer, Doctor, non-corrupt official, nurse etc could have walked in on them? And this was after 3 doctors had examined the body and could very easily have spotted that the uterus was still in place. We can only stretch credibility so far. The idea isn’t worth further consideration.


The organs were provenly taken by the killer.

Well, you keep believing all that you have posted, and perhaps one day you will wake up to reality, but I doubt that will ever happen

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

To be fair and give Trevor a final chance to make meaningful responses to the individual points against his theory let’s sum up in individual, numbered, easy-to-respond-to points.


1. The basis for Trevor’s theory is that the killer didn’t have the time to remove organs in Mitre Square.

If Trevor says “it’s impossible that Doc could have got from A to B in an hour.” And I say “ what is the distance between A and B?” To which Trevor replies “I don’t know.” Then I ask “how quickly could Doc have travelled between A and B?” And Trevor responded “I don’t know.” How much value would we place in Trevor’s original claim that Doc couldn’t have done it? It’s none of course. So why does Trevor make the claim that the killer couldn’t have removed organs when we don’t know how long it would have taken him or how long he had available to him? Trevor has completely failed to address this point. And he hasn’t done it because the point is indisputable.


2. Trevor claims that the Doctor’s, Brown and Sequiera, couldn’t have examined the body to any great extent before the post mortem. And yet we know from the evidence that the body was removed to the mortuary at 3am and that Dr. Brown (and possibly Sequiera, although he isn’t mentioned) were still at the mortuary 2 hours later. What does Trevor think that they were doing in that 2 hours? Watching the slowest undressing of a corpse in history? Why else would they have gone to the mortuary in the first place if not to further examine the body under more favourable conditions than in Mitre Square? Do we know that they noticed the uterus? Of course not but the relevant point is that organ thieves couldn’t possibly have known that they hadn’t which would have made the decision to steal organs before the post mortem absolutely insane.


3. Trevor claims that the Doctors would have documented it if they had found the uterus missing in any examination before the post mortem. This is obvious nonsense because the doctors didn’t document the pre-PM examination at all. Why would they? Do we have any examples of a doctor doing this? I’m not aware of any. All documentation about the corpse would have been done at the post mortem, unless Trevor thinks that one of the Doctors said “shouldn’t we make some notes now in case some bits go missing?” Trevor can’t just invent criteria simply so that he could knock them down and claim that he’s made a point.


4. Trevor claims that Dr Phillips was only at the mortuary for the post mortem and not before. We know that this isn’t true. Phillips presence at the mortuary was requested by Dr Brown while Brown was still in Mitre Square with the body and Brown himself tells us why he had requested Phillips opinions. We know that PC Long handed the apron piece to Dr Phillips at Leman Street Station at some point in the early hours of the morning. And we know, from the Lloyd’s reporter that spoke to Dr Brown at 5.20 at the mortuary, that Brown was still awaiting the arrival of Dr Phillips. So unless Trevor believes that Brown was prepared to stand around at the mortuary twiddling his thumbs for another 9 hours until the PM then we can safely assume that Phillips arrived at the mortuary some time after 5.20. And why was he going to the mortuary? Because Brown had requested his presence to examine the injuries in comparison to a corpse that had had organs removed. And again, there is absolutely no way that organ thieves could have known that he hadn’t seen that the uterus was still in place.


5. Trevor makes the point that organ thieves existed. I have never doubted this but we have to note that, when asked if there would have been a market for these particular stolen organs, Brown said “none whatever.” It also has to be pointed out that the uterus was taken incomplete. Would there be a market for incomplete organs. How could an experienced organ thief, in mortuary conditions, still have failed to remove the organ cleanly and in its entirety which would surely have been his aim? Isn’t that more likely evidence that it had been taken incomplete in far less favourable conditions.


6. Finally Trevor makes the point that organ thieves would have had enough time to take organs. I’ve never really doubted this but we have to apply common sense. Organ thieves would never have removed organs from a body that was due for a post mortem (I should have no need to explain the very obvious reason why this is the case) So why would they change in this case (and in the case of Chapman for that matter?) It makes absolutely no sense because they had no need to change their method and take such an insane risk. If Phillips arrived at around 5.30 (it may have been later) and was there for an hour or so, then we have Doctors at the mortuary until around 6.30-7.00. This was two hours after sunrise; broad daylight. Can anyone seriously believe that out organ thieves would have been there, stealing organs from a corpse, when anyone, police officer, Doctor, non-corrupt official, nurse etc could have walked in on them? And this was after 3 doctors had examined the body and could very easily have spotted that the uterus was still in place. We can only stretch credibility so far. The idea isn’t worth further consideration.


The organs were provenly taken by the killer.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You are not able to see the truth if it jumped up and slapped you in the face

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Strangely, no one else can either. You stand completely alone but insisting that you are right and that everyone else is wrong. You’ve tried everything Trevor but there’s one thing that you haven’t done and that is to respond directly and deal with the individual points. All that you’ve got is:

“You are not able to see the truth if it jumped up and slapped you in the face.”

Pointless response.

”I rest my case.”

Pointless response.

“If they had have done it would have been documented.”

Clearly untrue.

“I totally agree that there is no way the doctors at the crime scenes could have carried out a detailed examination whereby they could have found organs missing.”

Proven incorrect.

…..

No one agrees with you as usual. Everyone of your points has been rebutted and dismissed and you have deliberately failed to respond directly to any points made.

I’d say “game over” Trevor but I was never really ‘on’ was it? You should have done what most people do….they present a theory for discussion, debate and criticism but that’s not ‘you’ is it? You always come up with a theory and assume that because you came up with it that it must be correct. Then when you present it, and no one accepts it (which is always the case) you dig in your heals and go into attack mode. Unless you can make any valid points there’s no point in discussing this subject further. The whole of ripperology accepts that the ripper took the organs….one man stands alone in opposition. Give it up Trevor. You lost a long time ago.

[Trevor Marriott]

And what a pathetically weak case it is Trevor. Is that really the best that you can do? Do you honestly think that anyone would fall for that response

Let’s get the most simple thing out of the way first. No one, especially me, has claimed that Reid never got anything right. Of course he did. The point is though that he got lots wrong and some of them were glaring mistakes that you would expect from someone that was undoubtedly around at the time. Let’s use Macnaghten as an example again shall we? He got Druitt’s age wrong…41 instead of 31 (hardly a howler) and he said that Druitt was said to have been a Doctor…of course he was a Barrister but his father was a Doctor. For these two errors you repeatedly tell us that we should dismiss anything that he said because he was ‘unreliable.’ Why do you assign different criteria for Inspector Reid who made a long list of errors? Why is he conveniently ‘reliable?’ The fact that he made so many errors renders his power of recall highly suspect. The fact that he got some things right is neither here nor there. No one could get every fact that they ever recalled wrong so of course he would have got some things right. The fact that you completely dismiss/ignore his errors and claim him reliable is one of the worst examples of bias that I’ve ever heard. You ‘trust’ Reid simply because you feel that he supports your theory.

Then you say this:

”He was talking about the Kelly murder you seem to want to interpret his statement in relation to the Kelly murder in a way that it suits you.”

No, I interpret what he said in the way that every other person who has read it interprets it Trevor. Without exception not one single person agrees with your deliberately disingenuous interpretation. As I ever you stand entirely alone but your ego just won’t allow you to consider that you might be wrong.

Your final point is the killer though. This is Reid’s quote again:

“I ought to tell you that the stories of portions of the body having been taken away by the murderer were all untrue. In every instance the body was complete. The mania of the murderer was exclusively for horrible mutilation.”


I said: “Reid was saying that the killer was only ever interested in mutilation and that he never took organs.”

Your response was:

“Well he was right there the killer never took organs“

This response is absolute proof that you know that you are wrong. Everyone at the time, Police officers, Doctors, Coroners, politicians, journalists all…and I do mean all….believed that the killer had taken organs.

So unless you have reason to believe that Reid had secret information that he kept from everyone else in England at the time then we have only one conclusion…..that Inspector Reid mistakenly believed that the killer was only interested in mutilation and hadn’t taken organs from any of the victims.

You are embarrassing yourself on this one Trevor. How can a former police officer think in this way? I guess that it just shows that you aren’t interested in getting to the truth. All that you are interested in is promoting your theories and of course you have the hide of a rhinoceros in that in 8 years or so I’ve never seen one of your theories concurred with by anyone. It’s just you…on your own again…being totally and utterly wrong and yet ploughing on regardless because you are just incapable of admitting that you are wrong.

You are not able to see the truth if it jumped up and slapped you in the face

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I rest my case

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And what a pathetically weak case it is Trevor. Is that really the best that you can do? Do you honestly think that anyone would fall for that response

Let’s get the most simple thing out of the way first. No one, especially me, has claimed that Reid never got anything right. Of course he did. The point is though that he got lots wrong and some of them were glaring mistakes that you would expect from someone that was undoubtedly around at the time. Let’s use Macnaghten as an example again shall we? He got Druitt’s age wrong…41 instead of 31 (hardly a howler) and he said that Druitt was said to have been a Doctor…of course he was a Barrister but his father was a Doctor. For these two errors you repeatedly tell us that we should dismiss anything that he said because he was ‘unreliable.’ Why do you assign different criteria for Inspector Reid who made a long list of errors? Why is he conveniently ‘reliable?’ The fact that he made so many errors renders his power of recall highly suspect. The fact that he got some things right is neither here nor there. No one could get every fact that they ever recalled wrong so of course he would have got some things right. The fact that you completely dismiss/ignore his errors and claim him reliable is one of the worst examples of bias that I’ve ever heard. You ‘trust’ Reid simply because you feel that he supports your theory.

Then you say this:

”He was talking about the Kelly murder you seem to want to interpret his statement in relation to the Kelly murder in a way that it suits you.”

No, I interpret what he said in the way that every other person who has read it interprets it Trevor. Without exception not one single person agrees with your deliberately disingenuous interpretation. As I ever you stand entirely alone but your ego just won’t allow you to consider that you might be wrong.

Your final point is the killer though. This is Reid’s quote again:

“I ought to tell you that the stories of portions of the body having been taken away by the murderer were all untrue. In every instance the body was complete. The mania of the murderer was exclusively for horrible mutilation.”


I said: “Reid was saying that the killer was only ever interested in mutilation and that he never took organs.”

Your response was:

“Well he was right there the killer never took organs“

This response is absolute proof that you know that you are wrong. Everyone at the time, Police officers, Doctors, Coroners, politicians, journalists all…and I do mean all….believed that the killer had taken organs.

So unless you have reason to believe that Reid had secret information that he kept from everyone else in England at the time then we have only one conclusion…..that Inspector Reid mistakenly believed that the killer was only interested in mutilation and hadn’t taken organs from any of the victims.

You are embarrassing yourself on this one Trevor. How can a former police officer think in this way? I guess that it just shows that you aren’t interested in getting to the truth. All that you are interested in is promoting your theories and of course you have the hide of a rhinoceros in that in 8 years or so I’ve never seen one of your theories concurred with by anyone. It’s just you…on your own again…being totally and utterly wrong and yet ploughing on regardless because you are just incapable of admitting that you are wrong.

[Trevor Marriott]

You’ve already tried to con your way past this point in the past with posters on JtRForums and, as ever, every single person told you that you are wrong. Not one single person agreed with you and they were virtually pulling their hair out trying to explain something to you which was glaringly obvious. As ever, because you have a theory, you dug your heals in and completely showed yourself up.

In his News Of The World interview Reid was saying, very clearly and very obviously that no organs were taken from any of the victims and not just Kelly. And before you begin a bit of ‘Christer Holmgren-type manipulation of the English language when it suits you’ let’s recall what he actually said.

“I ought to tell you that the stories of portions of the body having been taken away by the murderer were all untrue. In every instance the body was complete. The mania of the murderer was exclusively for horrible mutilation.”

So “in every instance the body was complete.”

‘In every instance’ of what, if he was just talking about Kelly as you claim? “In every instance” can only mean “in each murder”

He was talking about the Kelly murder you seem to want to interpret his statement in relation to the Kelly murder in a way that it suits you.

Then to cap it off and 100% seal the deal he says “The mania of the murderer was exclusively for horrible mutilation.” This can’t be interpreted in any other way unless you are suggesting that what he’d actually meant was “the killer was only interested in mutilation with Kelly but with Chapman and Eddowes he was interested in removing organs.”

I have said all along that the murders were committed for the sole purpose of murder and mutilation

Reid was saying that the killer was only ever interested in mutilation and that he never took organs.

Well he was right there the killer never took organs

Reid is unreliable. Error after error after error. Yet you desperately rely on his unsafe memory to prop up your comedy theory.

His memory was spot on as far as the Kelly murder was concerned as he visited the Crime Scene, and I notice you have failed to answer my question as to what he has got wrong in the article about not only the murder itself but the background let me remind you and others you have brainwashed by misrepresenting the article of what he actually said in the article regarding the Kelly murder.

“This was a case in which a pretty, fair-haired, blue-eyed, youthful girl was murdered. She rented a room in a house in Dorset-street, or which she paid 4s 6d a week rent. The room was badly furnished for the reason that her class of people always pawn or sell anything decent they ever get into their places. The curtains to the windows were torn and one of the panes of glass was broken.
Kelly was in arrears with her rent and one morning a man known as ‘The Indian’, who was in the employment of the landlord of the house, went round about eight o’clock to see the woman about the money. Receiving no answer to his knock at the door, he peered through the window, and through the torn curtain saw the horrible sight of the woman lying on her bed hacked to pieces and pieces of her flesh placed upon the table.
I ought to tell you that the stories of portions of the body having been taken away by the murderer were all untrue. In every instance the body was complete. The mania of the murderer was exclusively for horrible mutilation. The landlord was brought round to the house by his man, and the sight of the poor mutilated woman turned his brain.
The suggestion having been made that in the eyes of a murdered person a reflection of the murderer might be retained, we had the eyes of Kelly photographed and the photographs magnified, but the effort was fruitless. We tried every possible means of tracing if the woman had been seen with a man, but without avail. An example of the difficulty we had may be found in that women came forward who swore that they saw Kelly standing at the corner of the court at eight o’clock of the morning her body was found, but the evidence of the doctors proved this to be an impossibility. By that hour the woman had been dead not less than four hours

I rest my case

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I know I said that I was not going to reply to your posts but I am relenting on this one occasion as I can just sit back and let you run riot with these posts on this topic and not respond.

So tell me what part of the arcticle about the Kelly murder did Reid get wrong and this all I am concerned with, and this is very relevant and it shows that his memory of all that took place regarding the Kelly murder was as it should have been, and not as you and others suggest fading, and why would he make a statement like that years later when he knew that there were people involved in the Kelly murder that could have rebuuted his statement about no organs were found missing.

Reid attended the crime scene and when he later stated no organs were found missing this statement should be readily accepted and not questioned by you or others who subscribe to the killer taking organs in fact If the killer was harvesting organs, he could have taken any number of organs for Kelly.

www.trevormarriott

You’ve already tried to con your way past this point in the past with posters on JtRForums and, as ever, every single person told you that you are wrong. Not one single person agreed with you and they were virtually pulling their hair out trying to explain something to you which was glaringly obvious. As ever, because you have a theory, you dug your heals in and completely showed yourself up.

In his News Of The World interview Reid was saying, very clearly and very obviously that no organs were taken from any of the victims and not just Kelly. And before you begin a bit of ‘Christer Holmgren-type manipulation of the English language when it suits you’ let’s recall what he actually said.

“I ought to tell you that the stories of portions of the body having been taken away by the murderer were all untrue. In every instance the body was complete. The mania of the murderer was exclusively for horrible mutilation.”

So “in every instance the body was complete.”

‘In every instance’ of what, if he was just talking about Kelly as you claim? “In every instance” can only mean “in each murder”

Then to cap it off and 100% seal the deal he says “The mania of the murderer was exclusively for horrible mutilation.” This can’t be interpreted in any other way unless you are suggesting that what he’d actually meant was “the killer was only interested in mutilation with Kelly but with Chapman and Eddowes he was interested in removing organs.”

Reid was saying that the killer was only ever interested in mutilation and that he never took organs.

Reid is unreliable. Error after error after error. Yet you desperately rely on his unsafe memory to prop up your comedy theory.

[Trevor Marriott]

So, now that we have reviewed the timeline we can now state some things with certainty.


- The body was removed to the mortuary at around 3am with doctors Brown and Sequiera observing it being loaded onto the ambulance.

- A Lloyd’s reporter, after speaking to Dr Brown, left the mortuary at 5.20 with Brown (and I assume Sequiera) still there. Therefore it’s unthinkable that these two doctors would simply have stood around for 2 hours after the body had been stripped with examining the body. And yet Trevor claims that the body wasn’t examined until the post mortem at 2.30.

- The only mortuary official that we know was there was Mr John Davis, the mortuary keeper. Is it at all likely that he would have been in on any organ stealing business? What we do know is that he would have known that the body had been examined and he would have been fully aware of the possibility that they might have seen the uterus still in place.

- We know that Dr. Brown, while in Mitre Square, requested the presence of Dr Phillips due to his knowledge of the Chapman murder.

- We know that PC Long handed the apron piece directly to Dr Phillips at Leman Street Station.

- We also know, from the Lloyd’s reporter who left the mortuary at 5.20 that Dr Brown was expecting Dr Phillips arrival. So Phillips would have arrived at the mortuary after 5.20, given the apron to Brown, and checked the injuries/mutilations as per Brown’s request. So we have another Doctor checking the wounds and who, with an open abdomen, might easily have noted the presence of the uterus. This is despite Trevor claiming that he wouldn’t have seen the body until the post mortem.


To suggest that organ thieves would have risked stealing organs after these events and before a post mortem cannot and should not be taken seriously. Organ thieves would only have taken organs after a post mortem had been carried out and never before. So why in this case would they have been in such a desperate rush that they would have risked their entire operation being exposed? The only answer is that they clearly wouldn’t have. We don’t have to prove that Phillips, Brown and Sequiera had become aware of the uterus being in place. All that we need to know is that organ thieves couldn’t possibly have known that they hadn’t seen the uterus in place.

……

Trevor often quotes the ‘infallible’ Inspector Reid as if his memory is proof that Kelly’s heart wasn’t missing. So was his memory all that is claimed by Trevor. I re-read an article on Reid in Ripperologist #147 by Nick Connell. He quotes from an interview with the News of the World (April 12th, 1896) that Reid gave.

He was asked: “So you never obtained a description of the man from anyone?”

He replied:

“Never. Indeed that the murderer was a man, is only an inference from the fact that no one but a person believed by the women themselves to be a man could have been taken by them to the secret haunts in which the murders were all committed.”


> So he couldn’t remember Joseph Lawende, Joseph Hyam Levy, Harry Harris, Israel Schwartz, Elizabeth Long, George Hutchinson or Mary Ann Cox? Not one of them? What a memory!


Reid began by talking about the first murder, Smith:

“The first Ripper murder was one which is not generally associated with the series. This was the Brick-lane murder, committed on a bank holiday in 1888. A woman named Smith was met by a man in Brick-lane who carried a walking stick, and committed a most terrible outrage upon her.”


> So he forgot that she was assaulted by a gang rather than by a single man with a walking stick (although where he recalled a walking stick from I can’t say)


Hopefully his ‘infallible’ memory is slightly better on events in Bucks Row?

“This was the notorious Buck’s-row murder. In this case the woman was believed to have been murdered about one o’clock in the morning.”

And,

“The mutilation in the Buck’srow case was exactly of the same nature as that inflicted upon the woman who died in the hospital”


> Apparently not. Still, he’s only two hours and forty minutes out. None of us were there but how many of us would claim that Nichols injuries were exactly the same as Smith’s?


Perhaps Reid had better recall of the Tabram murder?


“Her throat was cut and she had been stabbed in 39 places.”


> No, he didn’t.


Let’s try Chapman shall we?

“A resident in one of these houses in Hanbury-street went down at five o’clock in the morning into a yard at the rear of the place and found the body of a woman lying between some stone steps and a wall adjoining the side of the house.”

And,

“No one had seen her, no one had heard a person shout.‘


> Only an hour out this time. It was a fence not a wall. He forgets Elizabeth Long possibly saw her and that Albert Cadosch probably heard the victim and the killer.


We can now have a short celebration in that his short version of the Stride murder passes muster (apart from a mispronunciation of Diemschitz but I’ll happily give that a free pass)


What about Eddowes?


“This woman’s nose and ears had been cut off, and her face slashed. This murder was committed in September 1889 or 90. I forget for the moment which year.”


> Her nose and ears weren’t cut off and he couldn’t remember which of two incorrect years was the correct incorrect one!


Apparently, according to Reid, the chalked message said: “The Jews shall not be blamed for this.“

He continues “..and this was rubbed off before it could be photographed, contrary to my wishes and much to my regret.”


> I can’t find any mention of Reid being in Goulston Street. I’m not saying that he couldn’t have been there but I can see no mention of his presence by anyone.


Reid’s general description of the circumstances of Kelly murder is pretty accurate. But..


“I ought to tell you that the stories of portions of the body having been taken away by the murderer were all untrue. In every instance the body was complete. The mania of the murderer was exclusively for horrible mutilation.”


> We can see clearly from this quote that it was clearly Reid’s opinion, based on memory, that there were no body parts missing from any of the victims. Trevor makes the claim that he was only talking about Kelly but anyone can see that this wasn’t the case. He believed mutilation was all that the killer was interested in with all of the victims. That Reid should have ‘forgotten’ about the missing parts from Chapman and Eddowes should, once and for all, put paid to any claim attributed to his memory about Kelly’s heart not being missing. This was a man who misremembered that body parts had been taken from Chapman and Eddowes. No weight can be placed on Reid on this matter.

Reid also stated that McCarthy became ‘a perfect madman’ after the murder who used to regularly ‘knock up’ Reid to tell him that they had the ripper doesn’t speak of a particularly reliable man. Perhaps a better storyteller that a relater of facts. McCarthy was interviewed by The Times after the murder and testified without issue at the inquest so he wasn’t the gibbering wreck that Reid claimed him to have been.

There are more mistakes made by Reid which could be quoted but I won’t bother going through all of them but it has to be accepted that this man was very fallible and made many errors some memory; some of which would have to be described as real howlers. He certainly got some things right so we can’t state that his memory was uniformly terrible but it certainly wasn’t reliable as Trevor claims. Somewhat ironic from a man who regularly calls people (like Macnaghten as an example for getting a couple of facts wrong) and even objects (the marginalia for eg) ‘unreliable.’ He often accuses people of basing opinions on testimony that is ‘unsafe to rely on,’ and yet here he is relying on someone who is provably unsafe to rely on. Reid got more things wrong that Macnaghten so why is Mac ‘unsafe’ while Reid is ‘safe’?

When we combine the above with the fact that Bond listed all of the body parts found around the room but made no mention of finding the heart we can say that we are on pretty safe ground to say that it had been taken away.

It’s worth adding of course that we are by no means reliant on Kelly’s heart being absent. Trevor always suggests that if the killer was ‘harvesting’ organs why didn’t he take the heart? But ‘harvesting’ is a convenient phrase used by Trevor to manipulate a theory. We cannot claim that the killer was ‘harvesting.’ Who else makes this claim? It’s a suggestion and nothing more. You can’t state a positive by using a posdible. He may have taken organs for shock value and realising what he had time to do in Miller’s Court he knew that he needed no further ‘shock value’ so he didn’t bother with the risk of walking away carry a body part. If he was taking parts as souvenirs to relive his fantasy over again (as we know that some serial killers do) how do we know that he didn’t just take a piece of random flesh. There’s no way that the Doctors would have accounted for every singly inch of flesh. The phrase “If he was harvesting…” carries no weight in this discussion.


Every theory deserves to be looked into thoroughly and this one has. We cannot state, as Trevor repeatedly does, that the killer didn’t have time in Mitre Square to do what is claimed because a) we don’t know how long these actions would have taken, and b) we don’t know exactly how long he had available to him. It really is that simple. We have shown that organ thieves wouldn’t have taken organs away before a post mortem. And we know that no one at the time even suggested, implied or hinted at organs being removed in the mortuary. And we’ve seen from the poll that no one accepts this theory. A glance over on JTRForums reminds us that the theory got the same reception over there from people like Paul Begg, Chris Phillips, Debra Arif, Howard Brown, Gary Barnett etc.


It really is time to place this theory on the ‘refuted’ pile. I know that Trevor will never accept this and there’s nothing that anyone can do about that but this one is dead.

I know I said that I was not going to reply to your posts but I am relenting on this one occasion as I can just sit back and let you run riot with these posts on this topic and not respond.

So tell me what part of the arcticle about the Kelly murder did Reid get wrong and this all I am concerned with, and this is very relevant and it shows that his memory of all that took place regarding the Kelly murder was as it should have been, and not as you and others suggest fading, and why would he make a statement like that years later when he knew that there were people involved in the Kelly murder that could have rebuuted his statement about no organs were found missing.

Reid attended the crime scene and when he later stated no organs were found missing this statement should be readily accepted and not questioned by you or others who subscribe to the killer taking organs in fact If the killer was harvesting organs, he could have taken any number of organs for Kelly.

https://www.trevormarriott

[The Rookie Detective]

One thing we can learn from the evidential circumstances surrounding Eddowes murder; I.e...

minimal timing
poor lighting
relative silence
advanced mutilation...

of a victim...in an open space...with at least 2 policeman within close proximity...is that the killer needed to have been someone who had not only done it all before, but who had some considerable ability and awareness in applying his skills with a long sharp knife.

It is therefore fair to say that a man who was used to cutting things up, is far more likely to have been the killer.

A local butcher, slaughterman, or surgeon would be someone with the necessary skills to carry out the kinds of wounds inflicted on Eddowes, especially when we factor in all of the other parameters that act as supporting evidence.

We aren't talking about some transparent crazed lunatic with a penknife, we are talking about a relatively quiet and unassuming man, with the ability to mask his intentions and charm his way into being trusted by his would be victim, to then suddenly initiate a frenzied blitz attack on his unsuspecting prey, in a matter of seconds.

The Ripper was a professional charmer, manipulator, and killer, whose awareness in dispatching his victim within such restrictive parameters, suggests a man who was meticulous in his application.

A killer suffering a psychotic episode would not have been able to display that much control in retaining a level of continued awareness whilst silently evicerating a victim with such ferocity.

The amount of rage displayed in Eddowes murder is startling, but mainly due to the fact the killer remained silent and aware of his surroundings.

I believe it's almost certian that Pc Harvey was unknowingly looking directly at the Ripper as the killer was in the process of mutilating Eddowes.

The location of the street lamp in relation to Harvey's approximate position, would have made it virtually impossible for Harvey to have seen anyone in the corner of Mitre Square where Eddowes was murdered.

Harvey's eventual dismissal from the police may suggest something about his overall character.

Unless of course, Harvey was the witness who saw the Ripper, and his dismissal was a ruse to protect him as a key witness.
That would apply certainly if the killer was also a police officer.

Pure conjecture of course.

In terms of the kidney removal itself; is that simply a means for the killer to authenticate his intentions laid out in an alleged Ripper correspondence?

The kidney (Eddowes)
The one who "squealed a bit" (Stride)
The double event

It all ties in to the intentions and context of a certain Ripper letter.


Perhaps the kidney was an intended necessity for the killer, rather than a matter of randomly taking organs.

The primary focus of the Ripper was the uterus, and yet with Eddowes he takes a kidney.

It sounds to me like a man bragging about his ability and skills with a knife.

A showman to say the least.

[Doctored Whatsit]

When it comes to the expression of doubts about the ability of JtR to do the deeds in the amount of light and time available, I keep quoting the words of someone who knew - R.Hull, a butcher/slaughterer.

"There has been nothing done yet to these poor women that an expert butcher could not do almost in the dark. ... And as to the time taken by the murderer to do the most difficult deed done as yet, I think it would be reduced to about one third of the time stated by them if done by a practical man."

He went on to explain that an experienced butcher/slaughterer would have no blood or very little on his person, and when he describes the modus opperandi of the slaughterer, it corresponds with that of JtR, except for the probability of strangulation or partial strangulation first. The weapon used as described by the police surgeons corresponds to the slaughterer's sticking knife - very sharp, 6 - 8 inches long and pointed.

There is no problem with time and light - an experienced man says so.

[Patrick Differ]

I do not believe any of the organs from any of the victims would have been harvested in any mortuary or anywhere else. Ripper victims would have had some additional attention and the risk of Police, detectives, inspectors and Doctors coming to see these victims would be unpredictable. Tampering with evidence with these particular women would have not been worth the penalty. No way.

Timing with Eddowes is explainable but it has a gap.

1:28 am Harvey is on Aldgate having passed Church passag
1:30 am Watkins enters Mitre Square and sees nothing.
1:30 am to 1:35 am Eddowes and killer are at passage.
( where Eddowes and her killer were from 1 to 1:35 is unknown but safe to say close to the passage area- a gap)
1:35 am. 3 witnesses see Eddowes and killer
1:44 am. Watkins funds Eddowes mutilated

Dr Brown thought this kill could have been done in 5 minutes or more. He thought it was done in haste. He also thought whoever took the kidney knew what he was about.

Would the killer have learned from mutilating Nichols and Chapman ? Of course.

It takes roughly 10 seconds to render a human unconscious by choking. A powerful man with a weak woman would have no problem at all. These were impoverished women.

This killer knew how to cut a throat and bleed the victim out . So choking, getting the woman on the ground, kneeling next to her and cutting her throat would take all of 1 minute.

Cutting the abdomen open and taking the organs out would have taken the most time. So 3 or 4 minutes. Face mutilation about 30 seconds. +/-

Since PC Harvey had been past Church passage around 1:15 to 1:20 and was at Aldgate by 1:28 am it seems likely that Eddowes and the killer, on the Church passage side , may have watched him pass. The killer would have noted it. Being local he may have already known Watkins beat timing.

The timing here is incredible. But possible. He knew what he wanted and Chapman taught him how fast he could perform it.

Just a thought. Seconds mattered in the case of Eddowes.