Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

19th Century "anatomical skill"

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
    My questions for Trevor would be:

    1. Why did someone remove the organs of Chapman and Eddowes at two different mortuaries?

    And, most importantly:

    2. Why did they apparently only do this for two women in September 1888 as opposed to every other body that appeared at these mortuaries over a longer period of time?

    Or perhaps Trevor is saying there is evidence of organs being removed from other bodies held in these mortuaries?
    There is plenty of evidence of organs being removed from dead people at mortuaries but lawfully, and under the anatomy act, which gave licence for bona fide medical personnel to go to mortuaries and obtain not only body parts, but in some case bodies themselves. It was noted that each morning there was a stream of bona fide personnel seeking out the aforementioned body parts and bodies at the various mortuaries.

    As to your question regarding Chapman and Eddowes. Firstly modern day medical experts who have reviewed the post mortem reports on both victims note that two different methods were used to access the abdomens, so that suggests that if it had been the same remover then the same method of removal would be evident in both cases.. So we have two different victims, two different removers of organs from two different mortuaries. Sound like a perfect match to me, and not one killer who removed the organs from both.

    I am not going to comment on every other body that was sent to a mortuary simply because they are of no relevance to the matter in hand and most bodies are likely to be covered by the anatomy act.

    As you aware none of the other Whitechapel Victims had organs removed and this was not proven until the post mortems, so you may ask why did they have none removed and only Chapman and Eddowes.

    The answer again is simple. If the killer only intended to kill and mutilate his victims with no design on the removal of organs, and if the organs were taken away at the mortuary in the cases of Chapman and Eddowes then the lack of ripped open abdomens in the cases of the others would prevent this because any tampering would have been discovered at the point of post mortem, whereas with Eddowes and Chapman a cursory examination at the crime scenes showed both abdomens had been ripped open, so any tampering of the abdomens would be difficult to spot.

    Finally the witness timings relative to the Eddowes murder coupled with the experiment of the removal of a uterus by Dr Browns expert suggest that the killer would not have had sufficient time to remove those organs.

    I am fully aware that this theory cannot be conclusively proven. But the old accepted theory of the killer removing these organs does not stand up to close scrutiny at all now.

    So there has to be another plausible explanation I am sure even you must agree on that.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 06-21-2016, 03:13 PM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
      There is plenty of evidence of organs being removed from dead people at mortuaries but lawfully, and under the anatomy act, which gave licence for bona fide medical personnel to go to mortuaries and obtain not only body parts, but in some case bodies themselves. It was noted that each morning there was a stream of bona fide personnel seeking out the aforementioned body parts and bodies at the various mortuaries.

      As to your question regarding Chapman and Eddowes. Firstly modern day medical experts who have reviewed the post mortem reports on both victims note that two different methods were used to access the abdomens, so that suggests that if it had been the same remover then the same method of removal would be evident in both cases.. So we have two different victims, two different removers of organs from two different mortuaries. Sound like a perfect match to me, and not one killer who removed the organs from both.

      I am not going to comment on every other body that was sent to a mortuary simply because they are of no relevance to the matter in hand and most bodies are likely to be covered by the anatomy act.

      As you aware none of the other Whitechapel Victims had organs removed and this was not proven until the post mortems, so you may ask why did they have none removed and only Chapman and Eddowes.

      The answer again is simple. If the killer only intended to kill and mutilate his victims with no design on the removal of organs, and if the organs were taken away at the mortuary in the cases of Chapman and Eddowes then the lack of ripped open abdomens in the cases of the others would prevent this because any tampering would have been discovered at the point of post mortem, whereas with Eddowes and Chapman a cursory examination at the crime scenes showed both abdomens had been ripped open, so any tampering of the abdomens would be difficult to spot.

      Finally the witness timings relative to the Eddowes murder coupled with the experiment of the removal of a uterus by Dr Browns expert suggest that the killer would not have had sufficient time to remove those organs.

      I am fully aware that this theory cannot be conclusively proven. But the old accepted theory of the killer removing these organs does not stand up to close scrutiny at all now.

      So there has to be another plausible explanation I am sure even you must agree on that.

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
      Interesting points, but certain questions remain unanswered: why was Catherine Eddowes missing just the one kidney? Why not the other one as well? If it was done by bona fide personell who acted lawfully, they would not have abandoned the second kidney for fear of getting caught. And if they were noticed and told, "oy, lay off that one, we're doing a post mortem on it in a bit", then that would explain why only one kidney was removed - but then the removal of that kidney would have been known and Mr. Brown might have noted this in his PM:

      "Right kidney was pale, bloodless with slight congestion of the base of the pyramids. Left kidney could not be examined because some cheeky bastard made off with it before the PM."

      Dr. Brown did not write that, however, nor does it seem like he allowed for that possibility. Something I think he would have if it was as common or likely as all that. Instead, he shows no doubt whatsoever in attributing the missing kidney to the killer:

      "I believe the perpetrator of the act must have had considerable knowledge of the position of the organs in the abdominal cavity and the way of removing them. It required a great deal of medical knowledge to have removed the kidney and to know where it was placed. The parts removed would be of no use for any professional purpose."

      Also, Dr. Brown did not say the killer did not have sufficient time, but the exact opposite:

      "I think the perpetrator of this act had sufficient time, or he would not have nicked the lower eyelids. It would take at least five minutes."
      Last edited by Karl; 06-22-2016, 01:37 AM.

      Comment


      • #18
        You're flogging a dead horse, Trevor, and putting the cart before it. The victims' abdomens were mutilated for the express purpose of gaining access to the internal organs. But of course, when Mary Kelly's killer ripped her out innards, that's because it was a different murderer this time. Well... isn't that convenient?

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Karl View Post
          Interesting points, but certain questions remain unanswered: why was Catherine Eddowes missing just the one kidney? Why not the other one as well?

          Perhaps he only wanted one and a uterus !

          If it was done by bona fide personell who acted lawfully, they would not have abandoned the second kidney for fear of getting caught. And if they were noticed and told, "oy, lay off that one, we're doing a post mortem on it in a bit", then that would explain why only one kidney was removed - but then the removal of that kidney would have been known and Mr. Brown might have noted this in his PM:

          The remover could have gone there with a lawful intent but saw the opportunity to save the money he would need to pay for organs when the opportunity presented itself to take the organs without anyone knowing and without making payment.

          Not forgetting the bodies were left for 12 hours


          "I believe the perpetrator of the act must have had considerable knowledge of the position of the organs in the abdominal cavity and the way of removing them. It required a great deal of medical knowledge to have removed the kidney and to know where it was placed. The parts removed would be of no use for any professional purpose."

          Also, Dr. Brown did not say the killer did not have sufficient time, but the exact opposite:

          "I think the perpetrator of this act had sufficient time, or he would not have nicked the lower eyelids. It would take at least five minutes."
          So why was Dr Brown concerned enough to ask an expert on female anatomy to carry out an experiment to see how quick it would take him to remove a uterus, note Dr Brown didnt attempt this himself.

          The doctors were in conflict with each other so you take your pick on which one you decide to accept, bearing in mind we know that victorian doctors were in the habit giving opinions based on guesswork and people believed what they said------- A bit like today on here !!!!!!!!!!!!!

          The doctors statements on the time the killer would have had is open to interpretation as to whether they referred to the murder, and the mutilations, or to include the removal of the organs in that statement.

          There wasnt the time for the killer to do all that he is supposed to have done in the Eddowes murder.

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Harry D View Post
            You're flogging a dead horse, Trevor, and putting the cart before it. The victims' abdomens were mutilated for the express purpose of gaining access to the internal organs. But of course, when Mary Kelly's killer ripped her out innards, that's because it was a different murderer this time. Well... isn't that convenient?
            Be that as it may, you believe what you want to believe. The old accepted theory is there to be proved or disproved. In the light of what is now known I see little evidence to prop up that old theory.

            You need to take the blinkers off !

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Karl View Post
              Cutting round the navel is easier than cutting through it - tough is tough, whether you have an expensive education or not. It might not even have been intentional, but simply a case of the knife cutting along a path of least resistance.
              You may be right, Karl. But the degree of toughness surely depends on the tool employed and it has been said before on these boards that the knife used on the victims would easily have been sharp enough to slice in a straight line right through the navel and was therefore guided round it by the killer's hand. In short, what was very tough for the needle was not likely to give the blade any resistance.

              Not sure where an expensive education comes into this. I believe anyone could observe the dissecting room procedures for a modest fee, and I doubt the killer was a fully qualified medical man or surgeon.

              Love,

              Caz
              X
              Last edited by caz; 06-22-2016, 04:25 AM.
              "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


              Comment


              • #22
                Mr. Marriott, your quoting methodology leaves a lot to be desired. I have to resort to a bit of copying and pasting to get the quotes a-right:


                Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                Perhaps he only wanted one and a uterus !
                If he had need of a kidney, why wouldn't he take both when he had the opportunity? But the uterus was certainly not extracted by a professional by any stretch of the imagination. The cervix remained in the body, 3/4 of an inch's worth.


                The remover could have gone there with a lawful intent but saw the opportunity to save the money he would need to pay for organs when the opportunity presented itself to take the organs without anyone knowing and without making payment.
                And that's an argument to get both kidneys rather than just the one. But I don't know how the quoted text above relates to the position in my post in which you placed it.


                So why was Dr Brown concerned enough to ask an expert on female anatomy to carry out an experiment to see how quick it would take him to remove a uterus, note Dr Brown didnt attempt this himself.
                Do you have a link to this experiment, and Dr. Brown's conclusions from it?


                The doctors were in conflict with each other so you take your pick on which one you decide to accept, bearing in mind we know that victorian doctors were in the habit giving opinions based on guesswork and people believed what they said------- A bit like today on here !!!!!!!!!!!!!

                The doctors statements on the time the killer would have had is open to interpretation as to whether they referred to the murder, and the mutilations, or to include the removal of the organs in that statement.
                Agreed.


                There wasnt the time for the killer to do all that he is supposed to have done in the Eddowes murder.
                But what do you base this on? If, as you said, the doctors' statements on the time the killer would have had is open to interpretation?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Trevor prolly needs to acquaint himself with the Anatomy Act 1832.
                  My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Trevor,

                    I have read your response carefully but I am having difficulty in finding the answers to my two questions.

                    Certainly the first question has not been answered.

                    If it helps, forget about the different mortuaries, can you just answer this simple question for me:

                    Q1. Why did some person or persons remove organs from the corpses of Chapman and Eddowes?

                    I don't care if it was done under the Anatomy Act or not. Why did they do it?

                    Q2. As for my second question, the other examples you mention only make sense if the organs of Chapman and Eddowes were removed "lawfully, and under the anatomy act" by "bona fide persons". So are you saying that the organs of Chapman and Eddowes were removed lawfully under the Anatomy Act? If so, who would have authorised this? If not, why do you mention such removals?

                    And if the organs were not removed lawfully under the Anatomy Act am I right in thinking that the organ removals in the case of Chapman and Eddowes are the only two examples of unlawful organ removals from mortuaries of which you are aware or believe you are aware?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                      The simple answer could be that Kelly was not killed by the same hand as others !

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                      Thanks Trevor. Another question if you donīt mind. Do you know if removal of organs was allowed before the post mortem examination in murder cases?

                      Regards, Pierre

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                        The simple answer could be that Kelly was not killed by the same hand as others !
                        I am leaning more and more towards this idea myself. Not so much because of the mutilations, but because she was completely different from the other victims. In terms of age and height, she was the odd one out. Those are the the two biggest hang-ups for me, and these are significant differences. Also, I am leaning toward a time of death in the morning rather than late night for MJK. But these are conspiracies for another thread.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Karl View Post
                          I am leaning more and more towards this idea myself. Not so much because of the mutilations, but because she was completely different from the other victims. In terms of age and height, she was the odd one out. Those are the the two biggest hang-ups for me, and these are significant differences. Also, I am leaning toward a time of death in the morning rather than late night for MJK. But these are conspiracies for another thread.
                          Peter Sutcliffe's victims ranged from 16-40.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                            Thanks Trevor. Another question if you donīt mind. Do you know if removal of organs was allowed before the post mortem examination in murder cases?

                            Regards, Pierre
                            No, officially the bodies were not supposed to be tampered with but needs must when the devil calls. Why pay to purchase organs when there an opportunity presents itself to acquire them for nothing.

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by David Orsam View Post
                              Trevor,

                              I have read your response carefully but I am having difficulty in finding the answers to my two questions.

                              Certainly the first question has not been answered.

                              If it helps, forget about the different mortuaries, can you just answer this simple question for me:

                              Q1. Why did some person or persons remove organs from the corpses of Chapman and Eddowes?

                              For medical research

                              I don't care if it was done under the Anatomy Act or not. Why did they do it?

                              Because the opportunity presented itself to obtain them without the need to pay for them

                              Q2. As for my second question, the other examples you mention only make sense if the organs of Chapman and Eddowes were removed "lawfully, and under the anatomy act" by "bona fide persons". So are you saying that the organs of Chapman and Eddowes were removed lawfully under the Anatomy Act? If so, who would have authorised this? If not, why do you mention such removals?

                              No I am saying they were removed unlawfully by person or persons who may have been seeking to obtain organs lawfully but an opportunity presented itself to obtain them without making payment.

                              And if the organs were not removed lawfully under the Anatomy Act am I right in thinking that the organ removals in the case of Chapman and Eddowes are the only two examples of unlawful organ removals from mortuaries of which you are aware or believe you are aware?
                              There may have been many others where organs were taken from dead people and payments never made or recorded.

                              See attached this might give you and others get a better understanding.

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                              Attached Files

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by DJA View Post
                                Trevor prolly needs to acquaint himself with the Anatomy Act 1832.
                                And so do many others it seems !

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X