The kidney removal of Catherine Eddowes.

[Trevor Marriott]

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

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

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

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

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

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Doctored Whatsit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

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

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

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

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

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

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No, it’s you that needs to stop inventing things simply to make a theory ‘work’ Trevor. You also need to ask yourself why none of the doctors or police officers at the time had any issue with the obvious fact that the killer took organs. None of the doctors saw this as impossible or even unlikely. Again, this is your own invention.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

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

You know that you are wrong.

[Patrick Differ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

Chapman Inquest


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

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


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


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

[Doctored Whatsit]

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

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

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

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

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

Eddowes was not seen negotiating, a back view of a woman who might have been her was seen briefly, in a dark street, by a man merely walking past her.

Swanson's marginalia has caused numerous problems, including the fact that no other serving officers seem to have been aware of any of his information. One thing is very clear, he talks about a Jew whose evidence would have convicted JtR. The evidence of Lawende and Levy could not possibly have convicted anyone. Unless they were lying on oath, they could not identify that the woman they saw was Eddowes. Eddowes could have been somewhere else nearby, and Lawende said he didn't believe that he would recognise the man if he saw him again. Hopeless witnesses if you want a conviction!

Schwartz would be a better witness, but even his evidence is a bit short of conclusive, and from his version of events, nothing he said suggests that BS man was a Jew.

[Trevor Marriott]

Chapman Inquest


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

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


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


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

No it doesnt mean cut out it means that the organs were found missing at the post-mortem.

Now, whose ducking and diving? There is a hint of desperation in your posts

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

No it doesnt mean cut out it means that the organs were found missing at the post-mortem.

Now, whose ducking and diving? There is a hint of desperation in your posts

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But I thought that ducking and diving and interpreting evidence any way that suited a point of view was the norm Trevor?

[Herlock Sholmes]

By the way….no answers to the other posts I see.

Have you found those organ thieves yet?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Eight Questions That Trevor Refuses To Answer Properly (Or At All)


1. Why won’t you accept this most basic piece of reasoning - that it’s impossible to state that someone didn’t have time to do something if the ‘time required’ and the ‘time available’ are unknowns? (Find me one single human being who disagrees with me on this particular point)

2. Where is your documented evidence that such a thing as ‘organ thieves’ who stole internal organs from corpses in mortuaries actually existed? And no, just you saying it isn’t evidence.

3. Why would organ thieves (if such people ever existed) have only taken two organs when they had ample opportunity to have taken more and therefore made more money?

4. Why would they have taken the absolutely massive and pointless risk of discovery by stealing organs prior to a Post Mortem when they could easily have waited until after the PM when they would have known that there would have been no further official interest in the body? Especially considering that, if organ thieves existed, they would have always taken organs after a PM.

5. How could a practiced organ thief, with the body on a table, in a lit room and not in the open where they could be disturbed from three directions still botch the removal of the uterus rendering it useless (as Dr Brown said)?

6. How is it that not one single Doctor, Surgeon or Police Officer at the time of the murder expressed the slightest doubt that the killer was quite capable of removing organs?

7. Why do you dismiss the Doctors who saw Kelly’s body and stated that the heart was missing?

8. As we know that the Doctors were still at the mortuary at 5.20 awaiting Dr Phillips arrival we can reasonably estimate that they didn’t vacate until around 6.00am or later. So do you really think it remotely likely that organ thieves (if they existed) would have entered the mortuary in broad daylight and started illegally removing internal organs from the most high profile corpse that Golden Lane Mortuary ever had? Do you think that they were so stupid that they wouldn’t have been aware of the extent police interest and that at any time a police officers or doctors might have shown up?

[Doctored Whatsit]

No it doesnt mean cut out it means that the organs were found missing at the post-mortem.

Now, whose ducking and diving? There is a hint of desperation in your posts

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Oh Trevor really, it clearly means nothing of the kind.

"I carefully closed up the clothes of the woman. Some portions had been excised." That is a clear statement that portions had already been excised before he closed up the clothes. It can mean nothing else. We all understand the obvious difference between "had been excised", which he said, and "have now been excised", which you want him to have said.

Desperation is, as you suggest, evident, but it is from you not others.

[Trevor Marriott]

Eight Questions That Trevor Refuses To Answer Properly (Or At All)


1. Why won’t you accept this most basic piece of reasoning - that it’s impossible to state that someone didn’t have time to do something if the ‘time required’ and the ‘time available’ are unknowns? (Find me one single human being who disagrees with me on this particular point)

For the last time I will answer your loaded questions, many of which I have previously answered on this topic.

With all of the murders, there is no accurate time scale to show how long the killer had with each of the victims however, with the Eddowes murder we do have a time scale, assuming that the couple seen by Lawende were Eddowes and her killer we know the time they were seen but what we dont know is how long after being seen before they moved into the square, the longer they remained talking the less time the killer had to do all that he is alleged to have done at the crime scene.

2. Where is your documented evidence that such a thing as ‘organ thieves’ who stole internal organs from corpses in mortuaries actually existed? And no, just you saying it isn’t evidence.

Prof Hurren in her various books has documented how body dealers operated in conjunction with corrupt mortuary attendants operated so do your own research and then prove me wrong

3. Why would organ thieves (if such people ever existed) have only taken two organs when they had ample opportunity to have taken more and therefore made more money?

It is obvious take too many organs and the likelihood of detection becomes an issue

4. Why would they have taken the absolutely massive and pointless risk of discovery by stealing organs prior to a Post Mortem when they could easily have waited until after the PM when they would have known that there would have been no further official interest in the body? Especially considering that, if organ thieves existed, they would have always taken organs after a PM.

Following any post-mortem the abdomens are sewn back up, so it would be impossible to remove organs

5. How could a practiced organ thief, with the body on a table, in a lit room and not in the open where they could be disturbed from three directions still botch the removal of the uterus rendering it useless (as Dr Brown said)?

As I have said previously, the bodies of Eddowes and Chapman were taken to 2 different mortuaries and 2 methods of extraction used. It is clear by that 2 different people were responsible for the removal one more experienced than the other

6. How is it that not one single Doctor, Surgeon or Police Officer at the time of the murder expressed the slightest doubt that the killer was quite capable of removing organs?

The Police had never encountered these type of murders before and in my opinion, after the Chapman murder, where her uterus and the fallopian tube, still attached were removed intact and the length of time the doctor stated it would have taken him to remove the organs, the warning bells should have sounded or perhaps they did and it was decided to keep the full destails of the crimes out of the public domain

7. Why do you dismiss the Doctors who saw Kelly’s body and stated that the heart was missing?

The doctor only states that the heart was absent for the pericardium, he doesn't state it was never found, and we have 2 senior police officers who were at the crime scene state that no organs were taken away by the killer

8. As we know that the Doctors were still at the mortuary at 5.20 awaiting Dr Phillips arrival we can reasonably estimate that they didn’t vacate until around 6.00am or later. So do you really think it remotely likely that organ thieves (if they existed) would have entered the mortuary in broad daylight and started illegally removing internal organs from the most high profile corpse that Golden Lane Mortuary ever had? Do you think that they were so stupid that they wouldn’t have been aware of the extent police interest and that at any time a police officers or doctors might have shown up?

There was an 8-hour gap between them leaving and returning to carry out the post-mortem, and the mortuary attendant would have been aware that no cursory examination had been conducted on the body so ample opportunity

[Herlock Sholmes]

Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

Eight Questions That Trevor Refuses To Answer Properly (Or At All)



1. Why won’t you accept this most basic piece of reasoning - that it’s impossible to state that someone didn’t have time to do something if the ‘time required’ and the ‘time available’ are unknowns? (Find me one single human being who disagrees with me on this particular point)

For the last time I will answer your loaded questions, many of which I have previously answered on this topic.

With all of the murders, there is no accurate time scale to show how long the killer had with each of the victims however, with the Eddowes murder we do have a time scale, assuming that the couple seen by Lawende were Eddowes and her killer we know the time they were seen but what we dont know is how long after being seen before they moved into the square, the longer they remained talking the less time the killer had to do all that he is alleged to have done at the crime scene.

If you had provided valid answers I wouldn’t waste time repeatedly asking the same questions. As I’ve said before Trevor, the simple act of adding words after a question does not equate to an answer and you STILL haven’t answered this question properly and the fact that you call them “loaded” proves that you are deliberately avoiding a proper answer because you know what that answer is.

We don’t have an accurate timescale for Eddowes because to have an accurate timescale it would be imperative to know how Lawende and Watkins ‘clocks’ were synchronised. I’m not explaining this again to you. Your point about how long they might have stood there is one that you keep desperately repeating even though it’s obvious. So it is a FACT, an absolute FACT that we don’t know how long they might have killer had available to him. It’s also a FACT that we don’t know how long it took. Therefore it is an absolute FACT that we cannot state that the killer didn’t have time. That you won’t accept this fundamental point proves that you aren’t discussing this in good faith.


2. Where is your documented evidence that such a thing as ‘organ thieves’ who stole internal organs from corpses in mortuaries actually existed? And no, just you saying it isn’t evidence.

Prof Hurren in her various books has documented how body dealers operated in conjunction with corrupt mortuary attendants operated so do your own research and then prove me wrong.

As I pointed out in the previous post Trevor, and as everyone can see, I asked you about ORGAN THIEVES and not body dealers. And I’ve never doubted the existence of corrupt mortuary attendant or body dealers. Stop wriggling and answer the question. Where is the evidence for people stealing organs from bodies in mortuaries as opposed to people taking the actual body itself?

You have made the claim Trevor therefore the onus is on you to provide the evidence. That you can’t provide evidence leaves us with only one conclusion - that you have made it up to suit your theory. Prove me wrong and of course I’ll accept their existence.


3. Why would organ thieves (if such people ever existed) have only taken two organs when they had ample opportunity to have taken more and therefore made more money?

It is obvious take too many organs and the likelihood of detection becomes an issue.

So doctors wouldn’t think it strange that 2 organs were missing (because internal organs often evaporate or get mislaid) but they would have noticed 3 or 4 being missing. How can anyone even consider this?!


4. Why would they have taken the absolutely massive and pointless risk of discovery by stealing organs prior to a Post Mortem when they could easily have waited until after the PM when they would have known that there would have been no further official interest in the body? Especially considering that, if organ thieves existed, they would have always taken organs after a PM.

Following any post-mortem the abdomens are sewn back up, so it would be impossible to remove organs.

Unbelievable! 99.999% of bodies in mortuaries wouldn’t have had opened abdomens Trevor, so how would they have stolen organs from other bodies (or are you suggesting that they only leapt into actions in cases of abdominal mutilations?) Basically Trevor you are saying that an ‘organ thief’ could open up an abdomen and steal body parts but he was incapable of cutting some stitches? These answers are so weak Trevor. Why can’t you see this?


5. How could a practiced organ thief, with the body on a table, in a lit room and not in the open where they could be disturbed from three directions still botch the removal of the uterus rendering it useless (as Dr Brown said)?

I have said previously, the bodies of Eddowes and Chapman were taken to 2 different mortuaries and 2 methods of extraction used. It is clear by that 2 different people were responsible for the removal one more experienced than the other

And, as everyone can see, that isn’t an answer to the question. You’ve just changed the subject and made another ‘point.’ I’ve asked how he could have botched the removal of the uterus when he had ideal conditions to do it? So who does a botched removal point toward? A guy in a well lit mortuary with ample time or a man in a dark square constantly wary of being interrupted? Not hard is it Trevor?


6. How is it that not one single Doctor, Surgeon or Police Officer at the time of the murder expressed the slightest doubt that the killer was quite capable of removing organs.

The Police had never encountered these type of murders before and in my opinion, after the Chapman murder, where her uterus and the fallopian tube, still attached were removed intact and the length of time the doctor stated it would have taken him to remove the organs, the warning bells should have sounded or perhaps they did and it was decided to keep the full destails of the crimes out of the public domain

Phillips estimated that it would have taken 15 minutes. How is that an issue?

How could they have kept the ‘full’ details out of the public domain?What else could there have been? You are just desperately inventing things Trevor.


7. Why do you dismiss the Doctors who saw Kelly’s body and stated that the heart was missing?

The doctor only states that the heart was absent for the pericardium, he doesn't state it was never found, and we have 2 senior police officers who were at the crime scene state that no organs were taken away by the killer

Dr Hebbert (Bond’s assistant) - "In this case, to be sure, all the organs except the heart were found scattered around the room..."

Dr Gabe, also present in the room - ““… a certain organ was missing".


8. As we know that the Doctors were still at the mortuary at 5.20 awaiting Dr Phillips arrival we can reasonably estimate that they didn’t vacate until around 6.00am or later. So do you really think it remotely likely that organ thieves (if they existed) would have entered the mortuary in broad daylight and started illegally removing internal organs from the most high profile corpse that Golden Lane Mortuary ever had? Do you think that they were so stupid that they wouldn’t have been aware of the extent police interest and that at any time a police officers or doctors might have shown up?

There was an 8-hour gap between them leaving and returning to carry out the post-mortem, and the mortuary attendant would have been aware that no cursory examination had been conducted on the body so ample opportunity

Unbelievable! Drs Brown and Sequiera went to the mortuary just after 3.00. They were still there two hours later. What do you suppose that they were doing Trevor. Playing dominoes? Chatting about cricket? Or examining the body? Then we have the fact that Brown was waiting for Phillips arrival. And why did Brown request Phillips presence - to examine the body and compare it to Chapman. You know this…so why are you dodging the obvious?

I answer every one of your questions specifically. You are still ducking and diving.