The kidney removal of Catherine Eddowes.

[DJA]

Nobody at the scene,especially Brown would have shoved his arm up Eddowes body to check for kidneys,let alone her lady parts.

The descending colon had been excised and was laid beside her.

Majority of one

[FISHY1118]

2. After phillips postem mortem

''Phillips appeared at the inquest after the post mortem, and is discussing what he found at the post mortem.''





Why did the coroner ask this question ?, [Coroner] Was there any anatomical knowledge displayed? if he ''knew'' phillips was describing what the had already seen and examined at the post mortem.

Who would have performed all the things described by phillips other than another Dr , Baxter would have surely known this but he asked a pretty dumb question dont you think ?





[Coroner] You do not think they could have been lost accidentally in the transit of the body to the mortuary? - I was not present at the transit. I carefully closed up the clothes of the woman. Some portions had been excised.




''I carefully closed up the clothes of the woman. Some portions had been excised''. This was at the crime scene , there can be no mistake , we know this because


Coroner] It had not the appearance of having been tied on afterwards? - No. Sarah Simonds, a resident nurse at the Whitechapel Infirmary, stated that, in company of the senior nurse, she went to the mortuary on Saturday, and found the body of the deceased on the ambulance in the yard. It was afterwards taken into the shed, and placed on the table. She was directed by Inspector Chandler to undress it, and she placed the clothes in a corner. She left the handkerchief round the neck. She was sure of this.

Phillips would have to redress chapman after the postem mortem . Also, right after he says he carefully closed up the clothes of the women, he says some portions had been surgically removed [excised] Again crime scene no doubt.

The organs were removed from the crime scene according to the evidence as i see it , if people see if differently george thats entirely up to them. I know im in the majority on this one . cheers .

[GBinOz]

Ok let try this way .

Coroner] Was the whole of the body there?

Exactly ''where'' in your opinion is baxter referring to ? 1 . At The crime scene or 2. After phillips postem mortem

2. After phillips postem mortem

[FISHY1118]

Fishy,

Look at Phillip's on site report - it mentions the flaps and that is what I was pointing out.

Then look at Phillip's post mortem report - he is now talking about the organs. There is no mention of the organs in the on site notes.

Phillips appeared at the inquest after the post mortem, and is discussing what he found at the post mortem. Doctors attend the crime scene only to ascertain if any assistance can be rendered to the victim and, in conjunction with the police, to note all the external circumstances. They do not conduct a crime scene post mortem of the internal organs.

Cheer, George.

Ok let try this way .

Coroner] Was the whole of the body there?

Exactly ''where'' in your opinion is baxter referring to ? 1 . At The crime scene or 2. After phillips postem mortem

[GBinOz]

Hi George .

Thats right its not . The reason is, because baxter [at this point] is talking to Phillips not about the post mortem but about the crime scene . Which ive shown to be about Chapmans organs and not ''Two flaps of skin'' which you yourself suggested below, and i disagreed with .


''When Phillips spoke about "some portions had been excised" (not some organs), it can be seen in the "in situ" description that he was talking about the "2 flaps of skin from the lower abdomen" which were lying next to the body.''


Coroner] Was the whole of the body there? No; the absent portions being from the abdomen.

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


Baxter could only be talking about the crime scene with theses two questions .

The'' absent portions'' phillips is taking about cant be the ''two flaps of skin'' if they were found next to the body they cant be absent ! .. I really do see how this could be misinterpreted to mean anything else other than missing organ parts from Chapmans abdoman .

Fishy,

Look at Phillip's on site report - it mentions the flaps and that is what I was pointing out.

Then look at Phillip's post mortem report - he is now talking about the organs. There is no mention of the organs in the on site notes.

Phillips appeared at the inquest after the post mortem, and is discussing what he found at the post mortem. Doctors attend the crime scene only to ascertain if any assistance can be rendered to the victim and, in conjunction with the police, to note all the external circumstances. They do not conduct a crime scene post mortem of the internal organs.

Cheer, George.

[FISHY1118]

Fishy,

1. None of the above conversation was about flaps.
2. All of the conversation was about the organs, which were discovered to be absent at the autopsy.
3. Phillips did not check whether internal organs were present at the crime scene. That took place at the mortuary.
4. Baxter wanted to know if the organs could have been present at the crime scene but were lost in transit. Phillips couldn't answer that question. If Phillips knew that the organs were missing at the crime scene he would have said so. Baxter posed the same question to Sgt Baugham.

Cheers, George

Hi George .

Thats right its not . The reason is, because baxter [at this point] is talking to Phillips not about the post mortem but about the crime scene . Which ive shown to be about Chapmans organs and not ''Two flaps of skin'' which you yourself suggested below, and i disagreed with .




''When Phillips spoke about "some portions had been excised" (not some organs), it can be seen in the "in situ" description that he was talking about the "2 flaps of skin from the lower abdomen" which were lying next to the body.''



Coroner] Was the whole of the body there? No; the absent portions being from the abdomen.

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


Baxter could only be talking about the crime scene with theses two questions .

The'' absent portions'' phillips is taking about cant be the ''two flaps of skin'' if they were found next to the body they cant be absent ! .. I really do see how this could be misinterpreted to mean anything else other than missing organ parts from Chapmans abdoman .

[GBinOz]

Coroner] Was the whole of the body there? - No; the absent portions being from the abdomen.
[Coroner] Are those portions such as would require anatomical knowledge to extract? -[Dr Phillips] I think the mode in which they were extracted did show some anatomical knowledge.

I dont see the confusion you mentioned at all George . Who would require anatomical knowledge to cut two flaps of skin? Whos ''extracts ''to flaps of skin ? its all about context George .Its clear the discussion is about the missing organs from the abdoman .

This whole conversation isnt about Two flaps of skin , no way , especially when the two flaps of skin were right there next to Chapmans body . It makes no sense at all .

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

If Phillips was talking about the two flaps of skin being absent , why did baxter feel the need to ask this question if they were beside the body ???

Maybe a poll by our resident pollster H ,as to what Baxter and Phillips were referring to in this exchange is required ? Organs or Skin flaps.

Fishy,

1. None of the above conversation was about flaps.
2. All of the conversation was about the organs, which were discovered to be absent at the autopsy.
3. Phillips did not check whether internal organs were present at the crime scene. That took place at the mortuary.
4. Baxter wanted to know if the organs could have been present at the crime scene but were lost in transit. Phillips couldn't answer that question. If Phillips knew that the organs were missing at the crime scene he would have said so. Baxter posed the same question to Sgt Baugham.

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

Hi Fishy,

From Phillip's post mortem report conducted at the mortuary:

Missing were the womb, upper part of vagina, greater part of bladder, and part of the belly wall that included the navel.

They were not noted as missing or absent at the crime scene. Hope that clarifies the confusion.

Cheers, George

Coroner] Was the whole of the body there? - No; the absent portions being from the abdomen.
[Coroner] Are those portions such as would require anatomical knowledge to extract? -[Dr Phillips] I think the mode in which they were extracted did show some anatomical knowledge.

I dont see the confusion you mentioned at all George . Who would require anatomical knowledge to cut two flaps of skin? Whos ''extracts ''to flaps of skin ? its all about context George .Its clear the discussion is about the missing organs from the abdoman .

This whole conversation isnt about Two flaps of skin , no way , especially when the two flaps of skin were right there next to Chapmans body . It makes no sense at all .

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

If Phillips was talking about the two flaps of skin being absent , why did baxter feel the need to ask this question if they were beside the body ???




Maybe a poll by our resident pollster H ,as to what Baxter and Phillips were referring to in this exchange is required ? Organs or Skin flaps.

[GBinOz]

Hi George

But he did say they were Absent [again, surely you cant mean absent from the abdoman but lying next to her body] when asked by Baxter ? ,otherwise he would have mentioned the Two flaps of skin that were ''present and externally visible'' in his response. He must therefor in my opinion be talking about the missing organs from the abdoman.


I should think in the exchange between Phillips and Baxter, that if read correctly 98 out of 100 people would agree the what was being discussed was the missing organs from the abdoman of Chapman . Imo .

Hi Fishy,

From Phillip's post mortem report conducted at the mortuary:

Missing were the womb, upper part of vagina, greater part of bladder, and part of the belly wall that included the navel.

They were not noted as missing or absent at the crime scene. Hope that clarifies the confusion.

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

This is the crux of the argument.

What kind of man had the ability and capability to carry out those wounds inflicted on each of the known victims, within a relatively small time frame, in near darkness, in virtual silence, and then escape the scene without being heard or seen?

When we combine all of those proven factors, it really is quite remarkable how it was achieved multiple times.

The answer may rest in areas of the case that we believe are true; that may indeed be false.

For example...multiple assailants, a different kill site to the deposition site, use of a cart to move and then place the body, someone who would not be stopped and questioned; a policeman, a vicar, a child, a woman etc...


There must be something that we are all missing that would go some way to explain how the Ripper managed to achieve what he did.

A very good post R.D . Something out of the ordinary that were not seeing, or even willing to entertain happened with these murders. Imo .

[FISHY1118]

Hi Fishy,

"If the two ''flaps of skin'' from the lower abdoman were lying next to the body, why did Dr Phillips reply they were Absent ?" He didn't, they were excised but present and externally visible - see the "body in situ" report

I was always talking about Baxter referring to organs - he wanted to know when the organ and body parts went missing. Phillips could have replied to Baxter's question by saying that they were present at the crime scene but he had no way of telling how they disappeared. He just said he wasn't present at the transit, avoiding the question as to if they were present at the crime scene, because he didn't know, because that was the function of the post mortem to examine the inner body.

Then the body, which was supposed to be guarded in the mortuary, was found in the yard by the nurses who then washed the body without appropriate authorisation.

Cheers, George

Hi George

But he did say they were Absent [again, surely you cant mean absent from the abdoman but lying next to her body] when asked by Baxter ? ,otherwise he would have mentioned the Two flaps of skin that were ''present and externally visible'' in his response. He must therefor in my opinion be talking about the missing organs from the abdoman.


I should think in the exchange between Phillips and Baxter, that if read correctly 98 out of 100 people would agree the what was being discussed was the missing organs from the abdoman of Chapman . Imo .

[DJA]

[Coroner] Would it have been such an instrument as a medical man uses for post-mortem examinations? - The ordinary post-mortem case perhaps does not contain such a weapon.
[Coroner] Would any instrument that slaughterers employ have caused the injuries? - Yes; well ground down.

The Liston knife is not present in an "ordinary post-mortem case". I think that was the point he was making . I also think that he was suggesting that a slaughter's knife would have been possible only if it was ground down.

Cheers, George

Before moving to SevenOaks,Sutton resided at Finsbury Square and passed through Spital Square where Phillips lived, on a daily/nightly basis.
'Medically',they were peers and most likely knew each other.

[GBinOz]

I do get back pain but nowhere near as bad as you must do George but I live with a born pessimist’s concern that one day it might get worse.

And the voice from the gloom saithe " Smile and be happy, for things could be much worse". So I smiled and was happy and lo, things became much worse.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No problem Herlock. It was just my apparently unsuccessful attempt at humour. When back pain robs me of sleep I become a little cranky. Plus, my wife informs me, I am a grumpy old b*****d to begin with.

I’m like that without any pain George.

I do get back pain but nowhere near as bad as you must do George but I live with a born pessimist’s concern that one day it might get worse. My brother suffers badly with Sciatica and even strong painkillers don’t fully wipe away the pain. I remember when I was a teenager my dad slipped a disk working in a foundry carrying a pot of molten aluminium with another man using a shank. He trod on something and went over; the other guy got a minor burn. He was was no lightweight when it came to pain but I saw him lying on his back on our living room floor in tears asking me to talk to him to try and take his mind of it. It’s one of the most vivid memories of my childhood.

I hope yours eases up George.

[GBinOz]

I’m not really disagreeing with you George but I’d just say that there are unknowns and differences of opinion which make it difficult to achieve any level confidence. We’ve heard ‘great skill’ ‘no skill’ ‘butchers knowledge’ ‘anatomical knowledge’ ‘skilled with a knife’ ‘not particularly skilled.’ Those aren’t direct quotes by the way but just my attempt to illustrate the divergence of opinion that have been put forward since October 1888. Then we have the range of times available to the killer. Then we might ‘suggest’ that if ‘anatomical knowledge’ was required then can we be sure that Bury hadn’t acquired it somehow? Couldn’t Druitt easily have gained such knowledge being the sun of a surgeon in a house full of books? (Jon Hainsworth has even suggested the possibility of Druitt doing a year of medical training as there is a ‘missing year’ in his early biog and it can’t be impossible that his father might have pushed him into following him in the medical profession - absolute speculation of course George)

Unknowns everywhere George. The odds probably favour an as yet unnamed killer. Unless….

No problem Herlock. It was just my apparently unsuccessful attempt at humour. When back pain robs me of sleep I become a little cranky. Plus, my wife informs me, I am a grumpy old b*****d to begin with.