19th Century "anatomical skill"

[Trevor Marriott]

If you are going to reply just to write that, you might as well not bother. However, since you did not seem to understand me, I will clarify:

One point of contention - which can be addressed without touching on the other points; I quoted absolutely everything of relevance - is what possible reason there could be for medical personell to make off with the kidney in such a fashion as you suggest. This is not something you have explained, but something you have merely postulated. People have pointed out to you why the reason you have given doesn't make much sense, but instead of offering explanations that would help your theory, you simply restate the same suggestion. If you don't fix the holes, the bucket is still going to leak no matter how many times you fill it up.

Its not me that doesn't understand its you.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The evidence never lies but doesn't always tell the truth

[Karl]

Its not me that doesn't understand its you.

Of course I don't understand. That's why I asked you to explain. You said the following:

You ask why would someone take the organs unlawfully. Organs had to be paid for. I am sure that if someone from the medical profession was tasked with going to the mortuary to purchase organs, and saw an opportunity of obtaining organs and saving that money, then that could be an answer.

...and I sincerely do not understand how you can think that could be an answer, given the explanations I have given you. So I await your explanation, which you have yet to offer.

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;386486]

You clearly not able to asses and evaluate facts in an unbiased fashion. You need to think outside the box. The sources are there and they support the theory. When this issue came to the forefront I didnt expect to to be greeted with open arms, and it accepted without question, and that has been the case because there is a need for some, and it seems you are one of this minority who want to keep the mystery as it has been for 127 years alive at all costs.

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win”
Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948)


www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor

The first line of that reply could so easily be applied to the person who wrote it.


The sources do not support the theory you claim is a fact. We could go on forever like this, its no problem for me.

Put forward a theory, debate it, get passionate about and accept criticism, no one has any issue with that, it happen all the time.

However when claims are made that one view is the only view.
And the sources quoted to support such a view are purely the interpretations of the person pushing the theory originally, then we have a problem !


When we claim a theory is a FACT , when we cannot support that claim with hard evidence of course it will be rebutted.
How we are measured as a person depends on how we react to that.

By the way, please don't make assumptions about what I want with regards this case , you have no idea.


regards

Steve

[Elamarna]

Hi Lynn

Another medical comment which is of great interest which would appear to have come from Dr Brown which appeared in The Star, Oct 1st

Q “How long would it have taken him to "mutilate" the body as you found it?”

A “At least five minutes.”

I suggest this interview could have taken place before the post mortem as he makes no mention of any removals, or gives any hint of removals, he simply answers a direct question with a direct answer.

In support of that the Star also carried a sub heading which read "NO PART OF THE BODY WAS MISSING" So again we must assume Brown was interviewed before the post mortem, because the organs were not found to be missing until then.

So we get back to the 5 mins which is suggested by some to be ample time to carry out all that he is supposed to have done fact or fiction ?

Dear All

I had previously said The Star article Trevor is quoting in support of his theory, needs to be assessed. So here goes

All quotes are from the press report for 1st October on this site.


A first look shows several things very quickly:


The item described as a “sub headline”:

Such items appear, in some cases to relate to the paragraph preceding, they appear to be extension of that paragraph, but more often to the following paragraph, where they are expanded on, are they all "sub headlines"?

To put the report into some context, the preceding "sub headline" is :



“A HORRIBLE AND SICKENING SIGHT.”


We then have a description, interestingly it seems clear that the mutilations definitely included the removal of the intestines.

“The clothes had been pulled up, the abdomen ripped open, and the puberic bone left completely bare. As in the case of Annie Chapman part of the intestines were pulled out and thrown over the woman's neck. “


We now come to the "sub headline"

“NO PART OF THE BODY WAS MISSING.”

Is this meant to follow on from the previous paragraph? In which case it is not a sub headline, or is it meant to be a sub headline for the next paragraph which gives no details relating to that statement.

Which ever the answer, this comment is not backed by any other statement in the paper and appears to be a stand alone comment, with no indication where it has come from.


Next "sub headline "

“A Bloody Apron Found.”

This is followed by some details about the apron, after which we then have comments apparently by Dr Brown, in which he seems to know Eddowes had been hop picking because of the colour of her hands, and then a fascinating comment about the victim:

“ I think she was an Irish woman."

"Does the form of her features make you think so?" (reporter)

"No, but because
SHE CARRIED A PIPE."


On this site the “she carried a pipe” is given as in “sub headline” style.

Is this a transcription error?
Unfortunately the paper is not carried on the British Newspaper Archive so I personally am unable to check the original lay out, if anyone has a copy it would be fascinating to know how it was originally laid out.

However to be able to say she was Irish because she carried a pipe seems a very strange thing to say. Is this what he really said or was it just badly reported?


Dr Brown is then questioned further:

"Do you think that the murderer was a skilled man?" (reporter)

"He had some knowledge of how to use a knife. The knife which he used must have been very sharp."

"How long would it have taken him to mutilate the body as you found it?" (reporter)

"At least five minutes."

There is no indication in the exchange as to what the mutilations consisted of, or if anything had been removed or not.
The “sub headline” appears not to be related to the comments made by Dr Brown.



This is followed by a further exchange:

“The murderer must have, therefore, entered the square about five minutes after the policeman had passed through, and left it five minutes before he returned. “

There seems to be no reason given as to why the murder entered 5 minutes after the PC.
There are no reports related to this before this comment, nor does there appear to be anything after the comment to justify this.


Final we have the comments by Dr. J. G. Sequiera:

"No, not by an expert, but by a man who was not altogether ignorant of the use of the knife. It would have taken about three minutes."

Again there is nothing to suggest he is not talking about the full mutilations as seen at the post mortem.


So lets look at what we have found.

1. The so called “sub headlines” appear to sometimes be headlines and sometimes an extension of the previous paragraph.

2. Without the original layout it is not possible to discuss if this is important or not.

3. We have a first statement saying the intestines had been removed. However it does not say they had been cut out so are we to assume this cutting was done after the body was taken to the mortuary?
Obviously in the scenario proposed, while the killer removed the intestines which of course would be require to get to the kidney anyway, he did not remove the other organs (uterus and kidney) given that the paper does not report the intestines had been cut free, I wonder if the scenario includes them being cut at the scene or later?

4. The “sub headline” “ No part of the body was missing”, reads more like an extension of the previous paragraph and would seem to logically follow on it, it certainly bears no relevance to the following paragraph, sub headlines normally do refer to what follows.

5. There appears to be no material in this source to back the “sub headline” at all.

This now leads to a few questions:

The first question is therefore where did this description come from, it appearers not be from the doctors as they are not quoted until some time later.
Could it be from a police officer? The reporter ?

The second question is was the person giving this description qualified to make such a comment?

The third question is given the low light levels was it possible to judge with any certainty if body parts were missing, we are told how difficult the kidney would be to find in that light, one assume the same applies when looking into the body cavity, the intestines moved and some blood present if looking for a kidney at the scene.

We now come onto an area I was not aware of, that being Dr Browns apparent remarkable powers of deduction.
6. The apparent deduction of a pipe meaning she was Irish is astounding, and one wonders is this coming from the doctor or the reporter.
Also in poor light he could tell that Eddowes had sunburnt hands rather than just dirty, and she had possibly been hop picking.
One must ask if this is probably, and not something added by either the doctor or the reporter some hours after the murder. This ties in with the next point.

7. The comment that the killer must have waited 5 minutes after the PC left is most interesting, the only reason I can see for such a comment is if there was a known sighting after 1.30 approx.
However Mr Lawende and co were not known of at this time, again were these comments contemporaneous with the murders as the report suggested or were they given some time later.

8. There is not the slightest suggestion in the quotes by either doctor, as to what the mutilations consisted of.

It as been suggested that the question to Dr Brown by the reported somehow indicates that nothing had been taken:

"How long would it have taken him to mutilate the body as you found it?"


However that question applies equally to the organs being present as not present.

9. Given that Chapman was known to have had organs removed, and this was believed to be one of the same series of murders, why did the report not ask the question if he believed nothing had been removed?


To sum up:

There is one comment, in one paper that says no body parts were taken;
We do not know if this is editorial, the report of a reporter or from an interview with either the police or a doctor.

There is no data to back up this Statement or expand on it.

It is certainly not unknown for papers to make mistakes, be those deliberate or accidental.

It appears no other publication carries a similar story. ( if it does then we look again).

In light of that it would seem there is insufficient data to allow the hypotheses, that sources suggested organs had not been removed at the murder site, to be taken any further at present.


regards

steve

[Harry D]

In summary:

1. Annie Chapman & Catherine Eddowes were both disemboweled by their killer but the missing organs were removed at the mortuary sheds by medical staff prior to the postmortems.

2. The motive for stealing the organs was for medical research.

3. The Ripper Murders were carried out by at least two killers independent of each other.

4. Mary Kelly was not killed & butchered by the same hand that did Chapman, Eddowes, et al.

Would this be correct, Trevor?

[Wickerman]

Re: Chapman.
There was no mortuary staff for Whitechapel, the mortuary was a shed attached to a workhouse. The only medical staff was the doctor when he turned up for the autopsy, and his 'assistants' were workhouse employees/inmates.

Re: Eddowes.
The City did have a full-time mortuary, with or without staff I'm not sure.

Which indicates that whatever may have happened in a Whitechapel mortuary could not be connected in any way to the procedure in the City mortuary.

[John Wheat]

In summary:

1. Annie Chapman & Catherine Eddowes were both disemboweled by their killer but the missing organs were removed at the mortuary sheds by medical staff prior to the postmortems.

2. The motive for stealing the organs was for medical research.

3. The Ripper Murders were carried out by at least two killers independent of each other.

4. Mary Kelly was not killed & butchered by the same hand that did Chapman, Eddowes, et al.

Would this be correct, Trevor?

I guess that's what Trevor thinks. However many would think its utter bullshit.

Cheers John

[Elamarna]

I guess that's what Trevor thinks. However many would think its utter bullshit.

Cheers John

John

i would suggest that is very well summed up

Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

Re: Chapman.
There was no mortuary staff for Whitechapel, the mortuary was a shed attached to a workhouse. The only medical staff was the doctor when he turned up for the autopsy, and his 'assistants' were workhouse employees/inmates.

Re: Eddowes.
The City did have a full-time mortuary, with or without staff I'm not sure.

Which indicates that whatever may have happened in a Whitechapel mortuary could not be connected in any way to the procedure in the City mortuary.

You really have no idea you clearly have not read my previous posts on this topic
Which answer your concerns about the two mortuaries.

Also the intestines issue is also answered

Maybe you should do that instead of rushing to put pen to paper thinking that you have negated the theory. Think again

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Aldebaran]

You really have no idea you clearly have not read my previous posts on this topic
Which answer your concerns about the two mortuaries.

Also the intestines issue is also answered

Maybe you should do that instead of rushing to put pen to paper thinking that you have negated the theory. Think again

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You might try taking your own advice, sir. That's exactly what you did today in the "Trouble with etc" thread regarding a certain shawl. You as much as told me to stop talking about DNA--that it was a "dead horse" in your estimation. I have news. You haven't "negated" any theory there because you can't. Maybe the "dead horse" is the one you should have your money on. But how would you know? Pity that such a good-looking chap is so narrow-minded.