The kidney removal of Catherine Eddowes.

[FISHY1118]

Please note that it was the Coroner (a lawyer with no medical qualifications) who said all these things. What Phillips actually said was "there were indications of anatomical KNOWLEDGE" - not skill, and certainly not "considerable skill". If one reads Phillips' description of how Chapman was cut up, there were plenty of meaningless cuts to her body and collageral damage to the internal organs. As I see it, Baxter grossly exaggerated what was actually presented in testimony and, in keeping with his flamboyant and larger-than-life personality, was rather dramatic in how he said it.

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 .

[FISHY1118]

Dr. George Bagster Phillips describes the body of Annie Chapman as he saw it at 6:30 AM in the back yard of the house at 29 Hanbury Street. This is inquest testimony.

"The left arm was placed across the left breast. The legs were drawn up, the feet resting on the ground, and the knees turned outwards. The face was swollen and turned on the right side. The tongue protruded between the front teeth, but not beyond the lips. The tongue was evidently much swollen. The front teeth were perfect as far as the first molar, top and bottom and very fine teeth they were. The body was terribly mutilated...the stiffness of the limbs was not marked, but was evidently commencing. He noticed that the throat was dissevered deeply.; that the incision through the skin were jagged and reached right round the neck...On the wooden paling between the yard in question and the next, smears of blood, corresponding to where the head of the deceased lay, were to be seen. These were about 14 inches from the ground, and immediately above the part where the blood from the neck lay.

He should say that the instrument used at the throat and abdomen was the same. It must have been a very sharp knife with a thin narrow blade, and must have been at least 6 in. to 8 in. in length, probably longer. He should say that the injuries could not have been inflicted by a bayonet or a sword bayonet. They could have been done by such an instrument as a medical man used for post-mortem purposes, but the ordinary surgical cases might not contain such an instrument. Those used by the slaughtermen, well ground down, might have caused them. He thought the knives used by those in the leather trade would not be long enough in the blade. There were indications of anatomical knowledge...he should say that the deceased had been dead at least two hours, and probably more, when he first saw her; but it was right to mention that it was a fairly cool morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost a great quantity of blood. There was no evidence...of a struggle having taken place. He was positive the deceased entered the yard alive...

A handkerchief was round the throat of the deceased when he saw it early in the morning. He should say it was not tied on after the throat was cut."

Report following the post mortem examination:

"He noticed the same protrusion of the tongue. There was a bruise over the right temple. On the upper eyelid there was a bruise, and there were two distinct bruises, each the size of a man's thumb, on the forepart of the top of the chest. The stiffness of the limbs was now well marked. There was a bruise over the middle part of the bone of the right hand. There was an old scar on the left of the frontal bone. The stiffness was more noticeable on the left side, especially in the fingers, which were partly closed. There was an abrasion over the ring finger, with distinct markings of a ring or rings. The throat had been severed as before described. the incisions into the skin indicated that they had been made from the left side of the neck. There were two distinct clean cuts on the left side of the spine. They were parallel with each other and separated by about half an inch. The muscular structures appeared as though an attempt had made to separate the bones of the neck. There were various other mutilations to the body, but he was of the opinion that they occurred subsequent to the death of the woman, and to the large escape of blood from the division of the neck.

The deceased was far advanced in disease of the lungs and membranes of the brain, but they had nothing to do with the cause of death. The stomach contained little food, but there was not any sign of fluid. There was no appearance of the deceased having taken alcohol, but there were signs of great deprivation and he should say she had been badly fed. He was convinced she had not taken any strong alcohol for some hours before her death. The injuries were certainly not self-inflicted. The bruises on the face were evidently recent, especially about the chin and side of the jaw, but the bruises in front of the chest and temple were of longer standing - probably of days. He was of the opinion that the person who cut the deceased throat took hold of her by the chin, and then commenced the incision from left to right. He thought it was highly probable that a person could call out, but with regard to an idea that she might have been gagged he could only point to the swollen face and the protruding tongue, both of which were signs of suffocation.

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 .

[FISHY1118]

''According to Insp Reid no organs were taken from Mary Kelly, and after all he should know he was directly involved.''





But were not talking about '''organs being taken '' only the fact that the / a killer ''removed'' them from Mary Kelly!! . Which he did ,thats just a fact. .


Post-mortem

Dr. Thomas Bond, a distinguished police surgeon from A-Division, was called in on the Mary Kelly murder. His report is as follows:



The viscera were found in various parts viz: the uterus and kidneys with one breast under the head, the other breast by the right foot, the liver between the feet, the intestines by the right side and the spleen by the left side of the body. The flaps removed from the abdomen and thighs were on a table.





Notice how Dr Bond doesnt mention that any of the organs were damaged or muilated in any way ?




After all he should know '' he was in the room and saw the body...... and the organs.

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=FISHY1118;n845909]

Its tru because that's what happened .

We have doctors and police officers and eye witnesses whos testimony confirmed that to be the case

We have no evidence from any of the crime scenes that any of the outdoor crime scenes that any organs had been removed by the killer

What we dont have is any evidence in the slightest way that suggest the "organ harvesting theory" took place with the C5 victims , and that really should be the end of it

We have two different methods of extraction of organs from two different mortuaries

Mary kellys organ removal at the crime scene, totally blows a certain posters theory out of the water. He will argue that her body was mutilated beyond recognition and that included her internal organs , so somehow it is different because they were destroyed in the process .

According to Insp Reid no organs were taken from Mary Kelly, and after all he should know he was directly involved.

What he fails to provide and hasn't done each time when asked is to show evidence how he knows the organs where not removed prior to the mutilation ?, or offer up any official evidence that was reported at the time that confirms they were also mutilated beyond recognition?,and not removed and placed around different areas of her body and the room fully intact, as reported.

See above answer

Now having said that , I don't mind anyone having a theory as to the murders , and I'm sure we've all seen and heard some weird and wonderful ones .

Circumstantial evidence is admissible in a court of law

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FISHY1118]

This may be true, but if there was an illegal trade in body parts from mortuaries, being presented in the morgue with a partially disembowelled murder victim might be a good opportunity for someone to nick an organ or two? A dodgy morgue worker might be able to remove an organ very efficiently.

Its tru because that's what happened .

We have doctors and police officers and eye witnesses whos testimony confirmed that to be the case .

What we dont have is any evidence in the slightest way that suggest the "organ harvesting theory" took place with the C5 victims , and that really should be the end of it .

Mary kellys organ removal at the crime scene, totally blows a certain posters theory out of the water. He will argue that her body was mutilated beyond recognition and that included her internal organs , so somehow it is different because they were destroyed in the process .

What he fails to provide and hasn't done each time when asked is to show evidence how he knows the organs where not removed prior to the mutilation ?, or offer up any official evidence that was reported at the time that confirms they were also mutilated beyond recognition?,and not removed and placed around different areas of her body and the room fully intact, as reported. .

Now having said that , I don't mind anyone having a theory as to the murders , and I'm sure we've all seen and heard some weird and wonderful ones .

But anyone whose tries to convince people their theory is indeed a fact by providing mountains of circumstantial evidence and too many unanswered questions, is in my view is simply preposterous.

[chubbs]

There is no evidence whatsoever , that anyone other than the killer himself, removed any organs from any victim other than at the crime scene.

This may be true, but if there was an illegal trade in body parts from mortuaries, being presented in the morgue with a partially disembowelled murder victim might be a good opportunity for someone to nick an organ or two? A dodgy morgue worker might be able to remove an organ very efficiently.

[Trevor Marriott]

Well, that's precisely what happened... except that it wasn't quite "in the dark" and the abdomens weren't filled with blood.

Of course they were filled with blood the abdomens had been stabbed and ripped open what do you think happen when that occurs blood vessels and arteries bleed

Too bad the killer only managed to cut away part of the uterus this time, not to mention the cut length of colon he left on the pavement at the scene of the crime

Murder and mutilation only

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 but that is not the case, What we see is two different methods of extraction on bodies that were taken to two different mortuaries do you not find that a little suspicious? Because I do !!!!!!!!!!!!

For the benefit of posters who may still have doubts I have posted below an article from the star newspaper

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

ORGAN PRICES.doc

[Trevor Marriott]

so the killer subdued them, cut their throats, killed them, ripped open the midsection, pulled out intestines, did other extensive mutilations to the body.... but wast the one who removed the internal organs. lol yeah right.

One thing you have got right is that the killer murdered and mutilated, there is no way the killer could have removed these organs at the crime scenes and if you keep believing that then you need a reality check so I would suggest you go back and review all the medical evidence both past and present.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Patrick Differ]

I first mentioned Grays Anatomy because that was the Standard textbook used by Surgeons at the time. It illustrates exposure of both the Uterus and Left Kidney. Why not the right kidney? Because it was covered by the Liver. The veins holding both the Uterus and Kidney were not difficult to detach from a very sharp knife. When these Doctors stated , " the intestines " were removed they did not state large and small which they were trained to do. I do not believe that was semantics or a mistake on their part. Not when they were specific about all other medical terminology. The killers target appeared to be the Uterus first. Taking Eddowes Kidney just added to the horror he was creating. This killer was cunning and sending messages in the process and getting off on the attention. Mary Kelly tells me he had a goal and planned. I believe he knew she entertained indoors. He waited 6 weeks not just because there was a police surge, he needed to satisfy his need for total mutilation of a woman. Kelly was young and beautiful an entertained indoors. And I think he knew.

[The Baron]

so the killer subdued them, cut their throats, killed them, ripped open the midsection, pulled out intestines, did other extensive mutilations to the body.... but wast the one who removed the internal organs. lol yeah right.

Because that’s the part where he thought, ‘Better not overdo it. Like.. Nah, intestines are fine, but kidneys? Too far!'

Or suddenly he thought, 'You know what? I'm not touching the internal organs. That’s where I draw the line.'



The Baron

[Abby Normal]

so the killer subdued them, cut their throats, killed them, ripped open the midsection, pulled out intestines, did other extensive mutilations to the body.... but wast the one who removed the internal organs. lol yeah right.

[GBinOz]

No more ridiculous than the suggestion that the killer removed these organs from blood-filled abdomens in the dark

Quote from Dr Brown re Edowes Murder

“Dr Brown—“The bladder was in no way injured in the body, and I may mention that a man accustomed to remove the portions removed was asked by me to do so as quickly as possible. He accomplished the task in three minutes, but not without injuring the bladder”

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

I wonder if this experiment was conducted while kneeling beside a body on the ground in the dark. Presumably it was conducted on a cadaver, so there would be no blood in the abdominal cavity. If it was conducted on an autopsy table with theatre lighting, and the bladder was still damaged, I think your point is made. My daughter tells me that she has attended abdominal hysterectomies conducted under modern theatre conditions by surgeons of highest repute who have nicked the bladder.

Cheers, George

[Sam Flynn]

No more ridiculous than the suggestion that the killer removed these organs from blood-filled abdomens in the dark

Well, that's precisely what happened... except that it wasn't quite "in the dark" and the abdomens weren't filled with blood.

Dr Brown—“The bladder was in no way injured in the body

Too bad the killer only managed to cut away part of the uterus this time, not to mention the cut length of colon he left on the pavement at the scene of the crime.

[Patrick Differ]

Some other organ...not argument..

[Patrick Differ]

There was a demand for cadavers and evidently fetuses but the competing Universities had a monopoly with the asylums. The monetary value for the Uterus and Kidney was apparently 1 shilling if there was a buyer. Would that entice a mortuary assistant? It's possible. Although any risk in a high profile case would probably not be worth it. There were plenty of poor without advocacy so there was a steady source of organs. It's not clear why JtR would kill just to extract the intestines. If he truly hated women the Uterus makes more sense. Once the intestines were out the Uterus and Kidney were exposed at that time. Why would a mortuary assistant himself target the Uterus and Kidney v some other argument. Logically I do not believe the mortuary theory holds up.