The kidney removal of Catherine Eddowes.

[Herlock Sholmes]

What about done in haste ?

and not forgetting Chapmans uterus complete with the fallopian tubes still attached was removed intact from one mortuary yet we see damaged organs removed from a second mortuary. So if Chapman and Edowes were killed by the same hand why do we not see the same methods of extraction of the uterus after all the killer got it right the first time.

and why would the killer take a second uterus when he had secured a perfect good specimen from Chapman

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Who would be more in haste - a killer at a crime scene or a thief in mortuary. Obviously the former.

You keep making this same point Trevor. This was a serial killer, he wasn’t kneeling there with a surgery handbook; he wasn’t concerned with methodology. If the killer had killed one woman from the front cutting her throat from right to left, but he killed the next from behind cutting her throat from left to right, would you insist that this was the work of two different killers. Or would you accept that a killer wasn’t compelled to use the same method every time?

I can’t fail to notice that you haven’t addressed my post number 90. I know why not of course.

[Trevor Marriott]

This is quite clear, the doctor is saying that he "carefully closed up the clothes of the woman" before the body was moved, and that "some portions had been excised". That is beyond doubt, a statement that excisions had already been made and noted by him. The use of the tense, "had been" make it clear that the excisions had already been made, and were not done later.

He was referring to the intestines not the organs !!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

How many times do you need telling that no organs were found missing at any of the crime scenes !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And here we see it again Trevor. You say things like this all the time. “How many times do you need telling…” it doesn’t matter how many times you tell us things…you could tell us a thousand times…it still doesn’t change the fact that what you are telling us is wrong.

1. The heart was absent from the pericardium.
2. An extensive list of all the organs found in the room was made.
3. When it come to internal organs the heart is the biggie.
4. The heart wasn’t on that list.
5. The absolutely INESCAPABLE conclusion is that the heart wasn’t found anywhere in the room.

Therefore the KILLER to the heart away.

End of story, Trevor.

[Doctored Whatsit]

[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.

This is quite clear, the doctor is saying that he "carefully closed up the clothes of the woman" before the body was moved, and that "some portions had been excised". That is beyond doubt, a statement that excisions had already been made and noted by him. The use of the tense, "had been" make it clear that the excisions had already been made, and were not done later.

[Trevor Marriott]

Would an organ thief really botch the removal of Eddowes' uterus? Would they have cut Annie's bladder? I mean, they're trained, have light, the body is on a table, etc. It seems to me the proposed organ thieves seem to have less skill than what JtR would require, given they have everything in their favour and still can't seem to do it right.

- Jeff

What about done in haste ?

and not forgetting Chapmans uterus complete with the fallopian tubes still attached was removed intact from one mortuary yet we see damaged organs removed from a second mortuary. So if Chapman and Edowes were killed by the same hand why do we not see the same methods of extraction of the uterus after all the killer got it right the first time.

and why would the killer take a second uterus when he had secured a perfect good specimen from Chapman

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

Would an organ thief really have stolen organ before a post Mortem had been carried out?

1. He wouldn’t have known what any Doctor that had already examined the corpse had or hadn’t seen - so there would have existed a chance that of an organ being stolen that a Doctor had already noted as present.
2. With a post mortem still to do how could an organ thief have confidence that, at some point a police officer or a doctor might not show up for some reason connected to the ongoing investigation.
3. Surely any organ thieving would have been done after a post mortem when the thief could have absolute confidence that the doctors and police had no further use for the corpse.
4. Would organ thieves operate in broad daylight, especially at a mortuary like Golden Lane which, at that time, could probably have been described as state of the art.

These so called (non-existent) thieves had a choice. a) Wait until after the PM when all was quiet and risks were massively reduced, or b) Do it in broad daylight with more than one risk of discovery leading to the scuppering of their ‘earner.’
Why would they be so stupid? Remember Trevor….


Herlock’s Maxim No 2 - “ A theory is usually weakened if it relies on the suggestion of acts of egregious stupidity by those involved at the time.”

Would an organ thief really botch the removal of Eddowes' uterus? Would they have cut Annie's bladder? I mean, they're trained, have light, the body is on a table, etc. It seems to me the proposed organ thieves seem to have less skill than what JtR would require, given they have everything in their favour and still can't seem to do it right.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

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? - I think the mode in which they were extracted did show some anatomical knowledge.
[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.


Excised.


adjective

• 1.having been cut out surgically:"excised tissue"

Clearly Dr Phillips is talking about the crime scene and not the Post Mortem.


Its looking more and more likely the organs were removed by the killer at the crime scene .

How many times do you need telling that no organs were found missing at any of the crime scenes !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, what your asking everyone to believe is [and you still havent come up with an answer to my question] this.

Dr Phillips having been in the yard of 29 hanbury street in what was then daylight all around , whose close up inspection of Annie Chapman was well reported , yet at the post mortem which he himself conducted , was actually describing a post mortem already performed by an mortuary attendant stealing organs that he or someone else intended to sell ?

You are clearly not grasping the full facts in your feeble attempt to prop up your belief that the killer took the organs and you have the nerve to our scorn on my theory with a reply like this !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Because, according to your theory, all this [see below] was not done by the killer ,but in the post mortem room ''after'' the body had been transported to the mortuary!! .

Bingo you have at last got something right

Dr. George Bagster Phillips Report following the post mortem examination:

''The abdomen had been entirely laid open: the intestines, severed from their mesenteric attachments, had been lifted out of the body and placed on the shoulder of the corpse; whilst from the pelvis, the uterus and its appendages with the upper portion of the vagina and the posterior two thirds of the bladder, had been entirely removed. No trace of these parts could be found and the incisions were cleanly cut, avoiding the rectum, and dividing the vagina low enough to avoid injury to the cervix uteri. Obviously the work was that of an expert- of one, at least, who had such knowledge of anatomical or pathological examinations as to be enabled to secure the pelvic organs with one sweep of the knife, which must therefore must have at least 5 or 6 inches in length, probably more. The appearance of the cuts confirmed him in the opinion that the instrument, like the one which divided the neck, had been of a very sharp character. The mode in which the knife had been used seemed to indicate great anatomical knowledge''.

This already known and your point is ?

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

and your point is?

Where were Chapmans intestines at this point in time ? Were they back in her stomach cavity ? Did the Phantom organ harverster then remove them on the table to expose her organs he removed, then place them bac

They were placed back in the abdominal cavity for the purposes of transportation to the mortuary

How did the whole episode take place Trevor , id really like to know ? Its one thing to have a theory ,its another to make it work in practice.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work it out

You clearly don't subscribe to my theory which you are fully entitled to do but the way your posts are formulated leaves much to be desired.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FISHY1118]

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? - I think the mode in which they were extracted did show some anatomical knowledge.
[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.


Excised.


adjective

• 1.having been cut out surgically:"excised tissue"

Clearly Dr Phillips is talking about the crime scene and not the Post Mortem.


Its looking more and more likely the organs were removed by the killer at the crime scene .

[FISHY1118]

Trevor, what your asking everyone to believe is [and you still havent come up with an answer to my question] this.

Dr Phillips having been in the yard of 29 hanbury street in what was then daylight all around , whose close up inspection of Annie Chapman was well reported , yet at the post mortem which he himself conducted , was actually describing a post mortem already performed by an mortuary attendant stealing organs that he or someone else intended to sell ?


Because, according to your theory, all this [see below] was not done by the killer ,but in the post mortem room ''after'' the body had been transported to the mortuary!! .



Dr. George Bagster Phillips Report following the post mortem examination:

''The abdomen had been entirely laid open: the intestines, severed from their mesenteric attachments, had been lifted out of the body and placed on the shoulder of the corpse; whilst from the pelvis, the uterus and its appendages with the upper portion of the vagina and the posterior two thirds of the bladder, had been entirely removed. No trace of these parts could be found and the incisions were cleanly cut, avoiding the rectum, and dividing the vagina low enough to avoid injury to the cervix uteri. Obviously the work was that of an expert- of one, at least, who had such knowledge of anatomical or pathological examinations as to be enabled to secure the pelvic organs with one sweep of the knife, which must therefore must have at least 5 or 6 inches in length, probably more. The appearance of the cuts confirmed him in the opinion that the instrument, like the one which divided the neck, had been of a very sharp character. The mode in which the knife had been used seemed to indicate great anatomical knowledge''.


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



Where were Chapmans intestines at this point in time ? Were they back in her stomach cavity ? Did the Phantom organ harverster then remove them on the table to expose her organs he removed, then place them back ?

How did the whole episode take place Trevor , id really like to know ? Its one thing to have a theory ,its another to make it work in practice.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Would an organ thief really have stolen organ before a post Mortem had been carried out?

1. He wouldn’t have known what any Doctor that had already examined the corpse had or hadn’t seen - so there would have existed a chance that of an organ being stolen that a Doctor had already noted as present.
2. With a post mortem still to do how could an organ thief have confidence that, at some point a police officer or a doctor might not show up for some reason connected to the ongoing investigation.
3. Surely any organ thieving would have been done after a post mortem when the thief could have absolute confidence that the doctors and police had no further use for the corpse.
4. Would organ thieves operate in broad daylight, especially at a mortuary like Golden Lane which, at that time, could probably have been described as state of the art.

These so called (non-existent) thieves had a choice. a) Wait until after the PM when all was quiet and risks were massively reduced, or b) Do it in broad daylight with more than one risk of discovery leading to the scuppering of their ‘earner.’
Why would they be so stupid? Remember Trevor….


Herlock’s Maxim No 2 - “ A theory is usually weakened if it relies on the suggestion of acts of egregious stupidity by those involved at the time.”

[Herlock Sholmes]

But that's the point no one checked the bodies for missing organs before the post mortems and you have no evidence to the contrary

Did you not look at the pics I posted earlier in this thread, I was present at those post mortems and took the pics and I saw and had explained to me by modern medical experts the degree of difficulty involved in a killer trying to remove these organs in almost total darkness

You really do need to take a fresh look at how these organs went missing and who took them because you are clearly blinkered in your misguided belief that the killer took them.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So Dr. Brown asked Dr. Phillips to view the body just for fun? He asked him because he had seen the mutilations and missing organs in Chapman and he wanted his opinion. But the point that you are deliberately missing Trevor is that the organ thief wouldn’t have known that Phillips or Brown hadn’t looked into the abdomen unless they had invited him along. So he was taking a massive risk in stealing an organ that for all he knew might have been seen by a doctor. Why would they jeopardise their whole operation rather than simply wait until after the post mortem, when they knew that there would be no further interest in the body and that they would have had the cover of darkness. The points against are too many.

The organs were taken by the killer, however long it took, they were taken. Why we keep having to waste time over these tiresome theories? Over and over and over again. They don’t add up.

[Trevor Marriott]

There’s not one single piece of evidence that even vaguely points to that conclusion. It’s the usual case Trevor of you coming up with an idea and thinking that just because you thought of it then it must be true. The body of Eddowes got to the mortuary in the early hours (I can’t recall the time but I’m guessing at some time around 3ish?) and the inquest took place at 2.30 in the afternoon. At some point after its arrival Dr. Phillips checked the mutilations at the request of Dr. Brown. So he would have checked for missing organs in the open abdomen. This was the highest profile murder that the police had ever had. The mortuary, which wasn’t an old shed, but was described as “the best building of the kind in London,” would I would have assumed been fairly secure. Maybe even with a Constable on guard (which I seem to recall occurring with one of the other victims?) Any potential organ thieves would have been only too aware of the attention that this body would get and of the possibility of police and doctors visiting at any time. You are suggesting that, in broad daylight, someone just took the risk of swiping organs without caring that someone like Phillips or Brown might have said “hold on, those organs were there when we checked earlier.”

I wish you’d give this one up Trevor.

But that's the point no one checked the bodies for missing organs before the post mortems and you have no evidence to the contrary

Did you not look at the pics I posted earlier in this thread, I was present at those post mortems and took the pics and I saw and had explained to me by modern medical experts the degree of difficulty involved in a killer trying to remove these organs in almost total darkness

You really do need to take a fresh look at how these organs went missing and who took them because you are clearly blinkered in your misguided belief that the killer took them.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well, all the facts and the evidence points to that theory being correct !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

There’s not one single piece of evidence that even vaguely points to that conclusion. It’s the usual case Trevor of you coming up with an idea and thinking that just because you thought of it then it must be true. The body of Eddowes got to the mortuary in the early hours (I can’t recall the time but I’m guessing at some time around 3ish?) and the inquest took place at 2.30 in the afternoon. At some point after its arrival Dr. Phillips checked the mutilations at the request of Dr. Brown. So he would have checked for missing organs in the open abdomen. This was the highest profile murder that the police had ever had. The mortuary, which wasn’t an old shed, but was described as “the best building of the kind in London,” would I would have assumed been fairly secure. Maybe even with a Constable on guard (which I seem to recall occurring with one of the other victims?) Any potential organ thieves would have been only too aware of the attention that this body would get and of the possibility of police and doctors visiting at any time. You are suggesting that, in broad daylight, someone just took the risk of swiping organs without caring that someone like Phillips or Brown might have said “hold on, those organs were there when we checked earlier.”

I wish you’d give this one up Trevor.

[Trevor Marriott]

Not this yet again. The organs were taken by the killer. The idea that they were taken in the mortuary is a theory invented for the sake of having a theory.

Well, all the facts and the evidence points to that theory being correct !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk