The kidney removal of Catherine Eddowes.

[FISHY1118]

We all know the answer to that question but what relevance has that in relation to my previous post ?

I think I know what you are trying to infer but I will say that the organs were simply hacked out of Kelly and no anatomical knowledge was shown in their removal whereas with the previous murders some degree of anatomical knowledge was shown in their removal, and the killer if harvesting Kellys organs could have emptied the body of all the internal organs.

I am glad you mentioned mutilation because in my opinion in all of these murders, the motive was murder and mutilation and not organ harvesting

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Good, ive got you on record as ""YES to that question.

Its relevant simply because you have no way of knowing or proving that kellys organs were "hacked " out and were indeed mutilated in the removal process . The killer could have removed them in much the same way as he did in the other murders . That fact is you don't know , which means the killer could just as easily performed the same technique in the same time frame as Eddowes and Chapman.

You also go on about two different techniques for the organ removal. Again how do you know the killer didn't just experiment in different ways on different victims ? . You can't possibly know that .

Your whole theory Trevor is based on to much guesswork and circumstantial evidence to be taken seriously .

The murder , mutilation and organ removal of Mary Kelly will alway be the Achilles heal to your theory.

Now tell me your answer to my other question regarding Dr Phillips and his post mortem comments .?

[Trevor Marriott]

No !!! The fact that the organs were removed in different ways - and very crudely and messily at that - points in precisely the opposite direction from which which you're arguing. In each and every case, the evidence points overwhelmingly to someone improvising as he went along, in poor light and under time-pressure. This isn't remotely what one would expect from practised hand of a butcher, slaughterman or even a mortuary attendant.

But the uterus and the fallopian tubes were removed intact from Chapman that doesn't indicate someone improvising as he went along and under time pressure, so if the same killer killed Eddowes why does he then change to a totally different method of extraction and why would he take the same organ a second time?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Ok once more with the intent to get a proper and straight forward ,less running around and around the mulberry bush answer trevor , did the killer remove the organs from mary kellys body and place them around the room and around her mutilated corps ????? YES OR NO ?

We all know the answer to that question but what relevance has that in relation to my previous post ?

I think I know what you are trying to infer but I will say that the organs were simply hacked out of Kelly and no anatomical knowledge was shown in their removal whereas with the previous murders some degree of anatomical knowledge was shown in their removal, and the killer if harvesting Kellys organs could have emptied the body of all the internal organs.

I am glad you mentioned mutilation because in my opinion in all of these murders, the motive was murder and mutilation and not organ harvesting

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

I have no idea of the level of skill or anatomical knowledge a body dealer or a mortuary attendant would have had but it goes to show that if the killer removed the organs at the crime scenes then we should have seen the organ extractions carried out the same way

No !!! The fact that the organs were removed in different ways - and very crudely and messily at that - points in precisely the opposite direction from which which you're arguing. In each and every case, the evidence points overwhelmingly to someone improvising as he went along, in poor light and under time-pressure. This isn't remotely what one would expect from practised hand of a butcher, slaughterman or even a mortuary attendant.

[FISHY1118]

I don't ignore that fact, but what point are you trying to make? I know what the doctor's report says that the heart was absent from the pericardium it doesnt say the heart was missing from the room having been taken away by the killer. Insp Reid in his interview can now clarify that ambiguous statement by the doctor by saying the body was complete and no organs were missing.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Ok once more with the intent to get a proper and straight forward ,less running around and around the mulberry bush answer trevor , did the killer remove the organs from mary kellys body and place them around the room and around her mutilated corps ????? YES OR NO ?

[Trevor Marriott]

Again you deflect trevor , im not taking about whether the organs were taken out of the room, only that they were taken out of mary kellys body !!!!! which is a fact you want to ignore . Your the one doing the huffing and puffing not i .

I don't ignore that fact, but what point are you trying to make? I know what the doctor's report says that the heart was absent from the pericardium it doesnt say the heart was missing from the room having been taken away by the killer. Insp Reid in his interview can now clarify that ambiguous statement by the doctor by saying the body was complete and no organs were missing.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FISHY1118]

You keep quoting the post mortem reports and we know that the organs were not found missing until then !!!!!!!!!!!!!

In January 2016, a News of the World newspaper article dated 1896 was published in an online Ripper magazine. The paper featured an interview with Detective Inspector Reid who had retired that same year.

The News of the World journalist conducting the interview justifiably described Inspector Reid as ‘one of the most remarkable men ever engaged in the business of detecting crime.’ They met at Reid’s home and when sat at the drawing-room table the journalist bluntly asked the Reid ‘Tell me all about the Ripper murders.’ Reid responded by opening a cabinet drawer that contained ‘assassin’s knives, portraits, and a thousand and one curiosities of criminal association.’ Among the criminological ephemera was ‘probably the most remarkable photographic chamber of horrors in existence.’ Reid owned a set of Jack the Ripper victim photographs which he spread out on the table before telling the tale of the Whitechapel murders. Part of this interview would turn out to be the corroboration I was seeking, to negate the killer taking organs.

Set out below is part of that interview, which solely relates to Reid discussing the Mary Kelly Murder in which as can be seen, Reid does not refer to any other murder.

“This was a case in which a pretty, fair-haired, blue-eyed, youthful girl was murdered. She rented a room in a house in Dorset-street, for 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

All the evidence in all of the murders clearly points to the motive being nothing more than murder and mutilation

Now you can huff and puff all you like but it is not going to change the facts or the evidence to suggest that the killer of these women did not remove their organs

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

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.

Either the killer did this at Chapmans crime scene, or a someone performed it at the mortuary ... Wow they sure fooled Dr. George Bagster Phillips.


I only mention the part in red for those whose believe the killer had no, or may not needed any anatomical knowledge .



Either the killer did this at Chapmans crime scene, or a someone performed it at the mortuary

' Answer the question trevor .

[FISHY1118]

You keep quoting the post mortem reports and we know that the organs were not found missing until then !!!!!!!!!!!!!

In January 2016, a News of the World newspaper article dated 1896 was published in an online Ripper magazine. The paper featured an interview with Detective Inspector Reid who had retired that same year.

The News of the World journalist conducting the interview justifiably described Inspector Reid as ‘one of the most remarkable men ever engaged in the business of detecting crime.’ They met at Reid’s home and when sat at the drawing-room table the journalist bluntly asked the Reid ‘Tell me all about the Ripper murders.’ Reid responded by opening a cabinet drawer that contained ‘assassin’s knives, portraits, and a thousand and one curiosities of criminal association.’ Among the criminological ephemera was ‘probably the most remarkable photographic chamber of horrors in existence.’ Reid owned a set of Jack the Ripper victim photographs which he spread out on the table before telling the tale of the Whitechapel murders. Part of this interview would turn out to be the corroboration I was seeking, to negate the killer taking organs.

Set out below is part of that interview, which solely relates to Reid discussing the Mary Kelly Murder in which as can be seen, Reid does not refer to any other murder.

“This was a case in which a pretty, fair-haired, blue-eyed, youthful girl was murdered. She rented a room in a house in Dorset-street, for 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

All the evidence in all of the murders clearly points to the motive being nothing more than murder and mutilation

Now you can huff and puff all you like but it is not going to change the facts or the evidence to suggest that the killer of these women did not remove their organs

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Again you deflect trevor , im not taking about whether the organs were taken out of the room, only that they were taken out of mary kellys body !!!!! which is a fact you want to ignore . Your the one doing the huffing and puffing not i .

[Doctored Whatsit]

Thank you for this. If it's true that the killer didn't remove any organs, the 'From Hell' letter/kidney has to be a hoax? Apologies if you've been through this before.

A very important point. At no time, as far as I am aware, did the police say that the alleged Eddowes' kidney could not have been hers because no organs were ever removed.

[Patrick Differ]

My point is it seems unlikely that the Doctors would not be aware of any shenanigans by mortuary assistants since the result is tampering with evidence in an investigation. It would also put their own reputations at risk. I suppose it could happen in the case of Eddowes since her body was not examined for close to 12 hours after her death. These victims were not the same however as those poor who died and required autopsy because the family requested it. Most poor were just buried without any post mortem at all. The mortuary assistants would have known that these were Ripper victims so the probability of extraction by them in my estimation would be very low. Reids claim, for the time in which he lived, is not unexpected.

[Sam Flynn]

When all the post mortems were carried out some 12 hours after the bodies had been left at the mortuary there is no evidence to show any of the victims organs were found to be missing

1. There is no evidence that says those organs were all present and accounted for, either.

2. Dr Brown's detailed autopsy report definitely states that her kidney and uterus were missing.

3. The colon is an organ, and there was a large chunk of it missing from Eddowes' body. It was lying on the pavement at Mitre Square, as recorded in crime-scene drawings.

4. It's pretty obvious from the crime-scene photographs that Kelly's internal organs had been cut out of her body at the scene of her death.

[Trevor Marriott]

If Reid is correct it assumes he was at the post mortem of Chapman and Eddowes. This makes one wonder why any Doctor worth his salt would draw attention to a fellow surgeon as a possible Ripper suspect. That does not make much sense to me. Eddowes was in London Cities jurisdiction so it's not clear Reid would have been at that post mortem. There is little doubt, based on the anatomy itself and it's locations, that the killer could have easily removed the Uterus. In Chapman's case it was also part of the Vagina and bladder. In retrospect it might be that the kidney of Eddowes was taken by the mortuary assistant but would they not be investigated to ensure there were no shenanigans? It could also be that this mortuary assistant perpetrated the Lusk kidney hoax. That might actually make sense. My guess is mortuary assistants had to be a little twisted to hang out with dead bodies all day.
Without the kidney there was less escalation between Nichols and Kelly but Kelly negates that anyway. Kelly also destroys the idea that the killer was a Surgeon. Her body outraged the medical community.

I think you have misread the post. Reid was one of the officers directly involved in The Murders that occurred within the Met Jurisdiction, Eddowes came under the City Police jurisdiction and he did not attend the Eddowes Post mortem and in the part of the article I posted he only refers to Kelly.

When all the post mortems were carried out some 12 hours after the bodies had been left at the mortuary there is no evidence to show any of the victims organs were found to be missing

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Patrick Differ]

If Reid is correct it assumes he was at the post mortem of Chapman and Eddowes. This makes one wonder why any Doctor worth his salt would draw attention to a fellow surgeon as a possible Ripper suspect. That does not make much sense to me. Eddowes was in London Cities jurisdiction so it's not clear Reid would have been at that post mortem. There is little doubt, based on the anatomy itself and it's locations, that the killer could have easily removed the Uterus. In Chapman's case it was also part of the Vagina and bladder. In retrospect it might be that the kidney of Eddowes was taken by the mortuary assistant but would they not be investigated to ensure there were no shenanigans? It could also be that this mortuary assistant perpetrated the Lusk kidney hoax. That might actually make sense. My guess is mortuary assistants had to be a little twisted to hang out with dead bodies all day.
Without the kidney there was less escalation between Nichols and Kelly but Kelly negates that anyway. Kelly also destroys the idea that the killer was a Surgeon. Her body outraged the medical community.

[chubbs]

You keep quoting the post mortem reports and we know that the organs were not found missing until then !!!!!!!!!!!!!

In January 2016, a News of the World newspaper article dated 1896 was published in an online Ripper magazine. The paper featured an interview with Detective Inspector Reid who had retired that same year.

The News of the World journalist conducting the interview justifiably described Inspector Reid as ‘one of the most remarkable men ever engaged in the business of detecting crime.’ They met at Reid’s home and when sat at the drawing-room table the journalist bluntly asked the Reid ‘Tell me all about the Ripper murders.’ Reid responded by opening a cabinet drawer that contained ‘assassin’s knives, portraits, and a thousand and one curiosities of criminal association.’ Among the criminological ephemera was ‘probably the most remarkable photographic chamber of horrors in existence.’ Reid owned a set of Jack the Ripper victim photographs which he spread out on the table before telling the tale of the Whitechapel murders. Part of this interview would turn out to be the corroboration I was seeking, to negate the killer taking organs.

Set out below is part of that interview, which solely relates to Reid discussing the Mary Kelly Murder in which as can be seen, Reid does not refer to any other murder.

“This was a case in which a pretty, fair-haired, blue-eyed, youthful girl was murdered. She rented a room in a house in Dorset-street, for 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

All the evidence in all of the murders clearly points to the motive being nothing more than murder and mutilation

Now you can huff and puff all you like but it is not going to change the facts or the evidence to suggest that the killer of these women did not remove their organs

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Thank you for this. If it's true that the killer didn't remove any organs, the 'From Hell' letter/kidney has to be a hoax? Apologies if you've been through this before.

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

I think Dr Phillipps opinion is often overlooked .

You keep quoting the post mortem reports and we know that the organs were not found missing until then !!!!!!!!!!!!!

In January 2016, a News of the World newspaper article dated 1896 was published in an online Ripper magazine. The paper featured an interview with Detective Inspector Reid who had retired that same year.

The News of the World journalist conducting the interview justifiably described Inspector Reid as ‘one of the most remarkable men ever engaged in the business of detecting crime.’ They met at Reid’s home and when sat at the drawing-room table the journalist bluntly asked the Reid ‘Tell me all about the Ripper murders.’ Reid responded by opening a cabinet drawer that contained ‘assassin’s knives, portraits, and a thousand and one curiosities of criminal association.’ Among the criminological ephemera was ‘probably the most remarkable photographic chamber of horrors in existence.’ Reid owned a set of Jack the Ripper victim photographs which he spread out on the table before telling the tale of the Whitechapel murders. Part of this interview would turn out to be the corroboration I was seeking, to negate the killer taking organs.

Set out below is part of that interview, which solely relates to Reid discussing the Mary Kelly Murder in which as can be seen, Reid does not refer to any other murder.

“This was a case in which a pretty, fair-haired, blue-eyed, youthful girl was murdered. She rented a room in a house in Dorset-street, for 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

All the evidence in all of the murders clearly points to the motive being nothing more than murder and mutilation

Now you can huff and puff all you like but it is not going to change the facts or the evidence to suggest that the killer of these women did not remove their organs

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk