The kidney removal of Catherine Eddowes.

[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]

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.

[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]

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.

[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]

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

Error..pure and simple Trevor.

Was the heart placed on the table? No. So you’re articles are clearly in error.

[Trevor Marriott]

Error..pure and simple Trevor.

Was the heart placed on the table? No. So you’re articles are clearly in error.

I am only providing the articles, but as I have stated, two senior police officers who were at the crime scene report the heart was not taken away by the killer which I know you seem to have difficulty in accepting that overwhelming fact

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I am only providing the articles, but as I have stated, two senior police officers who were at the crime scene report the heart was not taken away by the killer which I know you seem to have difficulty in accepting that overwhelming fact

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I’m not refuting the fact that they said it, I’m refuting that it’s a fact that they were correct. Why does Reid (who was at the scene) trump a Doctor (who was at the scene)? Also Trevor, and I’ll make no apologies for repeating this, why is Macnaghten deemed ‘unsafe’ by you because he made two minor errors (and you’ve said the same of other officers whose words you don’t like, and yet Reid is apparently totally ‘safe’ even though his piece in the Press was an absolute litany of inaccuracies and errors. He couldn’t even name the year that Eddowes was killed (even naming two years which were both wrong!) And this was only 8 years after the event! And please don’t just do your usual trick and point out that he got ‘some’ things right because he could hardly have got every single fact wrong. This is another example of having a double standard for testimony. One for those that disagree with your theories and one for those that appear to agree. It’s cherrypicking.

[Trevor Marriott]

I’m not refuting the fact that they said it, I’m refuting that it’s a fact that they were correct. Why does Reid (who was at the scene) trump a Doctor (who was at the scene)? Also Trevor, and I’ll make no apologies for repeating this, why is Macnaghten deemed ‘unsafe’ by you because he made two minor errors (and you’ve said the same of other officers whose words you don’t like, and yet Reid is apparently totally ‘safe’ even though his piece in the Press was an absolute litany of inaccuracies and errors. He couldn’t even name the year that Eddowes was killed (even naming two years which were both wrong!) And this was only 8 years after the event! And please don’t just do your usual trick and point out that he got ‘some’ things right because he could hardly have got every single fact wrong. This is another example of having a double standard for testimony. One for those that disagree with your theories and one for those that appear to agree. It’s cherrypicking.

It's not cherry picking, and it's not just about Reid, another senior officer who attended the crime scene, corroborates what Reid said that no organs were found missing so you don't have any argument. And I would not call the errors in the MM minor

Just for your info Reid was not directly involved in all the murders so he can be excused for some memory lapses in some of the other reports and as far as the the Kelly murder is concerned, he was spot on with everything even to the last detail I have highligted in red the points he got right and I notice despite all your huffing ad puffing you cannot dispute what he said.

Staying with Reids article, he states the motive was murder and mutilation, and I concur, as i have said that about all the other murders

“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

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's not cherry picking, and it's not just about Reid, another senior officer who attended the crime scene, corroborates what Reid said that no organs were found missing so you don't have any argument. And I would not call the errors in the MM minor

Just for your info Reid was not directly involved in all the murders so he can be excused for some memory lapses in some of the other reports and as far as the the Kelly murder is concerned, he was spot on with everything even to the last detail I have highligted in red the points he got right and I notice despite all your huffing ad puffing you cannot dispute what he said.

Staying with Reids article, he states the motive was murder and mutilation, and I concur, as i have said that about all the other murders

“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

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

More proof that Reid was unreliable and that you ‘concur’ with him speaks volumes. No matter how you have been proven wrong you are still dogmatically attached to your theory.

First…you state that he wasn’t directly involved in all of the murders which you allow as an excuse for his howlers. Ok, Macnaghten wasn’t there when they pulled Druitt out of the Thames six years previous to the memorandum. Again, why is him mistaking 31 for 41 and Doctor for son of one utterly unforgivable and yet Reid’s mistakes aren’t? Cherrypicking.

Reid is clearly stating that the killer took no organs in any of the murders. No one at the time believed that. So as a ‘get out’ clause you are suggesting that years after the murder former Inspector Reid became the only person in England who thought that the killer hadn’t taken organs. You’d have thought that he’d have mentioned this earth-shattering theory somewhere wouldn’t you? No Trevor, all of the evidence tells us that Reid simply wasn’t reliable.

Dr Bond stated “The Pericardium was open below & the Heart absent.”

He then went on to say ”The viscera were found in various parts viz: the uterus & Kidneys with one breast under the head, the other breast by the Rt foot, the Liver between the feet, the intestines by the right side & the spleen by the left side of the body. The flaps removed from the abdomen and thighs were on a table.”

The heart is the ‘biggie’ when it comes to internal organs and yet….Dr Bond ‘forgets’ to mention it.

[GBinOz]

Dr Bond stated “The Pericardium was open below & the Heart absent.”

The heart is the ‘biggie’ when it comes to internal organs and yet….Dr Bond ‘forgets’ to mention it.

Hi Herlock,

I have no wish to involve myself in the interchange between Trevor and yourself, but I would like to presume to offer an opinion on the boldened statement.

As you would know the Pericardium is the fibrous sheath that surrounds the heart. The traditional means of accessing the pericardium, and the enclosed heart, was via a spreading of the rib cage. However there was at the time a recently developed technique taught by Virchow that involved access via the abdominal cavity and opening the pericardium from below, to which technique Bond is referring. So the sequence is to first open the pericardium from below. The next procedure is to remove the heart from the pericardium.

IMHO, which can only amount to speculation on my part, and by all concerned, is that Bond was stating that the heart had been removed from the pericardium from below, and was therefore absent from its usual location,in the pericardium. I don't believe that he was suggesting that it was absent from the room. JMO.

Virchow's technique was cutting edge at the time and had been taught to very few of his students....one of whom was Francis Thompson.

Wait....isn't this an Eddowes thread??

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I have no wish to involve myself in the interchange between Trevor and yourself, but I would like to presume to offer an opinion on the boldened statement.

As you would know the Pericardium is the fibrous sheath that surrounds the heart. The traditional means of accessing the pericardium, and the enclosed heart, was via a spreading of the rib cage. However there was at the time a recently developed technique taught by Virchow that involved access via the abdominal cavity and opening the pericardium from below, to which technique Bond is referring. So the sequence is to first open the pericardium from below. The next procedure is to remove the heart from the pericardium.

IMHO, which can only amount to speculation on my part, and by all concerned, is that Bond was stating that the heart had been removed from the pericardium from below, and was therefore absent from its usual location,in the pericardium. I don't believe that he was suggesting that it was absent from the room. JMO.

Virchow's technique was cutting edge at the time and had been taught to very few of his students....one of whom was Francis Thompson.

Wait....isn't this an Eddowes thread??

Hello George,

I take your point about the interpretation of the phrase but I can’t see him listing the location of the other organs and yet he neglects to mention the heart. And when we add that to that Gabe’s “"a certain organ was missing.” Then we get Hebbert (who was Bond’s assistant and who attended the inquest) saying “ all the organs except the heart were found scattered around the room..."

[Trevor Marriott]

More proof that Reid was unreliable and that you ‘concur’ with him speaks volumes. No matter how you have been proven wrong you are still dogmatically attached to your theory.

Too right I am-----Take the blinkers off for a change Supt Arnold also states the heart was found in the room, and corroborates Reid or are you suggesting he was also mistaken.

As far as the errors in the MM they are not minor as you suggest

, I found many discrepancies in Macnaghten’s notes regarding Druitt. He stated that Druitt lived with his family, but records show that he lived alone at 9, Elliot Place. He stated that Druitt had committed suicide around the 10th of November, three weeks before he committed suicide. Although this is not confirmed, when the body was examined only an approximate time of the suicide was given due to the effects of decomposition due to it being in the water for a long period of time. He also stated that Druitt was about 41 at the time of his death, when in fact he was only 31. Finally, he mentions Druitt as being a doctor, when he was a barrister and schoolmaster.

Further questions surround another entry found in The Aberconway Version, which relates to another Ripper suspect Michael Ostrog. In the original Scotland Yard Version dated February 23rd 1894. Macnaghten describes Ostrog as follows: “Michael Ostrog, a Russian doctor, and a convict, who was subsequently detained in a lunatic asylum as a homicidal maniac. This man’s antecedents were of the worst possible type, and his whereabouts at the time of the murders could never be ascertained.”
In the handwritten part of The Aberconway Version, Ostrog is described as: “Michael Ostrog. A mad Russian doctor & a convict & unquestionably a homicidal maniac. This man was said to have been habitually cruel to women, & for a long time was known to have carried out with him surgical knives & other instruments; his antecedents were of the very worst & his whereabouts at the time of the Whitechapel murders could never be satisfactory accounted for. He is still alive.” Note the absence of any mention of a lunatic asylum.
The relevant part here is in the last line of the Aberconway handwritten notes, which reads, “He is still alive”. As can be seen above in the original version Macnaghten stated Ostrog had been subsequently detained in a lunatic asylum. However, further research showed that at the time of the Whitechapel murders Ostrog was in prison in France. Additional research shows that in June 1894 four months after the original version in which Macnaghten states Ostrog was detained in a lunatic asylum; Ostrog was arrested in Slough for an offence of theft and remanded in custody. There is evidence to show that between September 1887 and March 1888 Ostrog was detained in a lunatic asylum.

Its clearly unsafe !!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


First…you state that he wasn’t directly involved in all of the murders which you allow as an excuse for his howlers. Ok, Macnaghten wasn’t there when they pulled Druitt out of the Thames six years previous to the memorandum. Again, why is him mistaking 31 for 41 and Doctor for son of one utterly unforgivable and yet Reid’s mistakes aren’t? Cherrypicking.

Reid is clearly stating that the killer took no organs in any of the murders. No one at the time believed that. So as a ‘get out’ clause you are suggesting that years after the murder former Inspector Reid became the only person in England who thought that the killer hadn’t taken organs. You’d have thought that he’d have mentioned this earth-shattering theory somewhere wouldn’t you? No Trevor, all of the evidence tells us that Reid simply wasn’t reliable.

No he doesnt he is specifiacally talking about the Kelly murder in the extract I posted

Dr Bond stated “The Pericardium was open below & the Heart absent.” But he doesnt ever state that it was never found

He then went on to say ”The viscera were found in various parts viz: the uterus & Kidneys with one breast under the head, the other breast by the Rt foot, the Liver between the feet, the intestines by the right side & the spleen by the left side of the body. The flaps removed from the abdomen and thighs were on a table.”

The heart is the ‘biggie’ when it comes to internal organs and yet….Dr Bond ‘forgets’ to mention it.

I dont believe in Bonds report to Anderson he mentions the heart being missing, and Dr Hebbert who you quote took no further part after the initial crime scene examination

[/QUOTE]

[Herlock Sholmes]

Too right I am-----Take the blinkers off for a change Supt Arnold also states the heart was found in the room, and corroborates Reid or are you suggesting he was also mistaken.

As far as the errors in the MM they are not minor as you suggest

, I found many discrepancies in Macnaghten’s notes regarding Druitt. He stated that Druitt lived with his family, but records show that he lived alone at 9, Elliot Place. He stated that Druitt had committed suicide around the 10th of November, three weeks before he committed suicide. Although this is not confirmed, when the body was examined only an approximate time of the suicide was given due to the effects of decomposition due to it being in the water for a long period of time. He also stated that Druitt was about 41 at the time of his death, when in fact he was only 31. Finally, he mentions Druitt as being a doctor, when he was a barrister and schoolmaster.

Further questions surround another entry found in The Aberconway Version, which relates to another Ripper suspect Michael Ostrog. In the original Scotland Yard Version dated February 23rd 1894. Macnaghten describes Ostrog as follows: “Michael Ostrog, a Russian doctor, and a convict, who was subsequently detained in a lunatic asylum as a homicidal maniac. This man’s antecedents were of the worst possible type, and his whereabouts at the time of the murders could never be ascertained.”
In the handwritten part of The Aberconway Version, Ostrog is described as: “Michael Ostrog. A mad Russian doctor & a convict & unquestionably a homicidal maniac. This man was said to have been habitually cruel to women, & for a long time was known to have carried out with him surgical knives & other instruments; his antecedents were of the very worst & his whereabouts at the time of the Whitechapel murders could never be satisfactory accounted for. He is still alive.” Note the absence of any mention of a lunatic asylum.
The relevant part here is in the last line of the Aberconway handwritten notes, which reads, “He is still alive”. As can be seen above in the original version Macnaghten stated Ostrog had been subsequently detained in a lunatic asylum. However, further research showed that at the time of the Whitechapel murders Ostrog was in prison in France. Additional research shows that in June 1894 four months after the original version in which Macnaghten states Ostrog was detained in a lunatic asylum; Ostrog was arrested in Slough for an offence of theft and remanded in custody. There is evidence to show that between September 1887 and March 1888 Ostrog was detained in a lunatic asylum.

Its clearly unsafe !!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


First…you state that he wasn’t directly involved in all of the murders which you allow as an excuse for his howlers. Ok, Macnaghten wasn’t there when they pulled Druitt out of the Thames six years previous to the memorandum. Again, why is him mistaking 31 for 41 and Doctor for son of one utterly unforgivable and yet Reid’s mistakes aren’t? Cherrypicking.

Reid is clearly stating that the killer took no organs in any of the murders. No one at the time believed that. So as a ‘get out’ clause you are suggesting that years after the murder former Inspector Reid became the only person in England who thought that the killer hadn’t taken organs. You’d have thought that he’d have mentioned this earth-shattering theory somewhere wouldn’t you? No Trevor, all of the evidence tells us that Reid simply wasn’t reliable.

No he doesnt he is specifiacally talking about the Kelly murder in the extract I posted

Dr Bond stated “The Pericardium was open below & the Heart absent.” But he doesnt ever state that it was never found

He clearly does. It’s in English.

He then went on to say ”The viscera were found in various parts viz: the uterus & Kidneys with one breast under the head, the other breast by the Rt foot, the Liver between the feet, the intestines by the right side & the spleen by the left side of the body. The flaps removed from the abdomen and thighs were on a table.”

The heart is the ‘biggie’ when it comes to internal organs and yet….Dr Bond ‘forgets’ to mention it.

I dont believe in Bonds report to Anderson he mentions the heart being missing, and Dr Hebbert who you quote took no further part after the initial crime scene examination

He took more of part the Reid?

[/QUOTE]

Your silly theory has been thoroughly dismissed. Only you believe it. I can’t recall hearing such desperate stuff. That an organ thief wouldn’t have taken organs from a body before a post mortem is such an obvious fact that you should be utterly ashamed that you, a former police officer, can’t understand the point and its significance. For once in your life admit that you got it wrong. How anyone can go on and on with a theory despite absolutely no one agreeing with him is excruciating to watch and be a part of.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Nick Connell wrote a book on Reid:

"As in other interviews given by Reid on the Whitechapel murders, this contains glaring and obvious errors, including getting the year of the Mitre Square murder wrong, saying that Emma Smith was killed by one man when she had described three attackers, claiming that no body parts had been removed and saying that nobody saw a man with any of the victims on the nights they were killed are just a few examples.
...
It is perplexing to read the remarks of a police officer who had worked so closely on the Whitechapel murders investigation for so long, making numerous errors just a few years after the crimes had been committed. Yet on other occasions Reid was accurate, such as still being able to remember exactly how much weekly rent Mary Kelly had to pay. Disappointingly, Edmund Reid has not proved to be the most reliable source on the subject of the Whitechapel murders.


But hold on……Trevor takes his word as gospel…….why……clearly because it suits him to do so. He’s doing what he always does…applies different standards to different people…..the people who don’t favour his arguments are unreliable….those that might favour are paragons of rectitude.

Its an ongoing joke.