19th Century "anatomical skill"

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,

How uninformative and ultimately utterly condescending a post.

I politely asked for a link to the note about the stab wounds through the clothing, so I could consider any significance, however I see you have not provided it.

I also see you ignore the point that there is no blood on the front of the clothing.

But there was blood on the clothing if your read Insp Collards report of the description of the clothing you will just that along with the cuts there is blood on the clothing which came from the inside out

The problem is you do not wish to debate, you wish to tell.

What is there to debate when you infer I am making things up

I will continue to attempt to clarify.

I do not need to prove it was not filled, you claimed it was filled with blood, making it difficult to remove the organs. I simply asked you to back up this statement, that you have not done.

How can I conclusively prove it was. I cant, but given the wounds to the abdomen the likelihood is it was, and if it wasnt totally the problem would still be there for the killer. end of argument

2. yes arteries and veins may be damaged, however Dr Browns report suggests they were not, and that of course starts with the comment about no blood on the front of the clothing. In addition:

"The skin was retracted through the whole of the cut through the abdomen, but the vessels were not clotted. Nor had there been any appreciable bleeding from the vessels."

Doesn't mean to say there was no bleeding does it. Dr Brown said a lot of things some we know to not be correct. That also might be a pointer to show the organs were not removed by the killer. If as you say there was very little blood that shows the killer didnt take the organs other wise there would have been more blood in removing those two organs.

That certainly suggests only minor damage

Does the description of the wounds and what was done to the abdomen sound like minor damage. you are having a laugh.

The only damage to major blood vessels he mentions is:

"The left renal artery major was cut through"

which of course needs to be done to remove the kindney.

Yes and if done at the mortuary there would be very little blood flow would there ?

In addition his comments about the rip and stab to the liver are very revealing:

"We examined the abdomen. The front walls were laid open from the breast bones to the pubes. The cut commenced opposite the enciform cartilage. The incision went upwards, not penetrating the skin that was over the sternum. It then divided the enciform cartilage. The knife must have cut obliquely at the expense of that cartilage.

Behind this, the liver was stabbed as if by the point of a sharp instrument"


The obvious inference from that is that the stab was a result of the Rip to the body. that is the tip of the knife caused it!

You could be right but on the other hand its a question of interpertation

Trevor, while I do not know your educational background, given your occupation as a Police officer, it is probably safe to say I have far more of a handle on "this" than you do from a medical perspective.
If of course you have qualifications in either medicine or one of the natural sciences, then I may be wrong in that assessment.

Please do not tell me to reconsider my position before challenging again.

I am well qualified to make any observations on medical grounds.

Well I dont know you background do I ?

There is a big difference between those who study anatomy and those who have to practice it

And I am well qualified to suggest what I have suggested based on the assessment and evaluation of the evidence coupled with expert medical evidence to support this from those who might be better qualified from a practical perspective to give opinions than yourself.

I will therefore continue to challenge the information which is published by either yourself or others which I consider to be either wrong, or misleading.
It is up to others to make up their minds on who , if any, is correct or even partially correct.

You are most welcome to challenge what ever you want to but I have nothing more to say on this subject we keep going around in circles and I have more pressing things to attend to. I have wasted far to much time on here as it is on this topic.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

How can all of those cuts in the clothing going off in different directions relate to one long rip ?

If you stab someone the blood flows from the owunf from the inside out soaking the clothing from the inside out.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[DJA]

www.trevormarriott.co.uk[/url]

What is an owunf?

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;385512]

In a previous post you said you could not make out the wounds on the body which correspond in some way with the cuts in the clothing. Here is what I see as far as possible wounds on the body.

www,trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

Thank you Trevor,

"But there was blood on the clothing if your read Insp Collards report of the description of the clothing you will just that along with the cuts there is blood on the clothing which came from the inside out"


Yes, but has I have said in another post, those cuts do not correspond to any marks on the body, other than the major rip, something backed by both the photographs and post mortem report.



"What is there to debate when you infer I am making things up"


Where did I infer you were making stuff up?
I just think you are wrong in your interpretation and questioned it.



"Doesn't mean to say there was no bleeding does it. Dr Brown said a lot of things some we know to not be correct. That also might be a pointer to show the organs were not removed by the killer. If as you say there was very little blood that shows the killer didnt take the organs other wise there would have been more blood in removing those two organs."



Trevor, no one has said there was no bleeding, just that the body cavity may not have been filled up with blood.

I question your second conclusion: death is by blood loss, therefore the amount of blood left to bleed internally is greatly reduced.

Removing the kidney could produce significant blood loss, two major vessels need to be cut, however given that the neck had already been cut, the the torso opened, how much is left to bleed from these vessels is open to great debate,
The removal of the uterus, again will certainly cause bleeding, again how much is open to question.

You do not seem to allow for the substantial amount of blood lost from the neck wound.




"Yes and if done at the mortuary there would be very little blood flow would there ?"


Yes that is true from a technical viewpoint, however you have no evidence to back this other than your belief that the killer could not have carried out the procedure in time, do you?

If I am wrong on that I have missed this evidence, could you link me it, I see nothing specific on your website, other than this belief, be that yours or the views of modern doctors.



"You could be right but on the other hand its a question of interpertation"


Yes the whole thing is about interpretation.



"Well I dont know you background do I ?

There is a big difference between those who study anatomy and those who have to practice it

And I am well qualified to suggest what I have suggested based on the assessment and evaluation of the evidence coupled with expert medical evidence to support this from those who might be better qualified from a practical perspective to give opinions than yourself."



yes you are certainly qualified to suggest it, but please respect others, i do see that you still question my knowledge on the subject. oh well.
I agree 100% studying is not the same as doing, experience is everything when carrying out this type of procedures correctly.

The question of course is was this someone trained, or not?

you say yes, I say probably not.




"You are most welcome to challenge what ever you want to but I have nothing more to say on this subject we keep going around in circles and I have more pressing things to attend to. I have wasted far to much time on here as it is on this topic."


Such is your right, you are not forced to respond on anything Trevor, I am sorry you feel that it is a waste of your time. I hope you have a good day.

Steve

[Karl]

You have seen the description of the cuts to the clothing all with blood suggesting that the blood came from the inside i.e the body after the wounds, were inflicted. If the killer simply first cut her throat and was after the organs why did he not then simply lift all her clothes up above her waist and do what he need to do thereafter. Then we would not have the cuts and blood on the clothing.

The killer wouldn't be concerned with not getting blood on the victim's clothes. And why would he lift the victim's clothes above her waist? That would be the hard way of doing things. The coat opens. The other items could be lifted, but the body was lying on the ground. Easier to simply rip them with the knife.

Insp Collards Inquest testimony.

So it is from Catherine Eddowes's inquest. It can be found here:

http://www.casebook.org/official_documents/inquests/inquest_eddowes.html

Except I do not find that inventory list there. Instead I find this, by Collard:

I have a list of articles of clothing more or less stained with blood and cut.

But the list itself must come from a different source - it is not from the inquest.

But while we are reading the inquest, scrolling down to Inspector Collard's testimony, we find the following:

Mr. Crawford: When you arrived was the deceased in a pool of blood? [Collard:]- The head, neck, and, I imagine, the shoulders were lying in a pool of blood when she was first found, but there was no blood in front. I did not touch the body myself, but the doctor said it was warm.

[Crawford ?] Was there any sign of a struggle having taken place? - None whatever. I made a careful inspection of the ground all round. There was no trace whatever of any struggle. There was nothing in the appearance of the woman, or of the clothes, to lead to the idea that there had been any struggle.

Which suggests that all mutilations happened post mortem; that Dr. Brown was probably correct in surmising that death was quick following the brutal and quick slash of the throat.

[David Orsam]

if the killer didnt removed the organs there has to be another plausible explanation

You are obviously correct Trevor that if the killer didn't remove the organs then there has to be another plausible explanation but I'm wondering how plausible it is that in two different mortuaries a single organ was opportunistically removed from the bodies of two different women prior to a post-mortem in circumstances where that organ appears to have had little or no value either commercially or for medical research. In the price list you posted, neither a uterus nor kidney are included in the list which appears to suggest that complete or near complete corpses had value but not individual organs.

I can assure you that I don't have any attachment to any theories in this respect but I can't help thinking that the most likely explanation for the absence of the organs is that the murderer took them, despite the "flaws" you believe you have identified in this theory.

[Trevor Marriott]

Thank you Trevor,

"But there was blood on the clothing if your read Insp Collards report of the description of the clothing you will just that along with the cuts there is blood on the clothing which came from the inside out"


Yes, but has I have said in another post, those cuts do not correspond to any marks on the body, other than the major rip, something backed by both the photographs and post mortem report.

They may not be exact because we do not know the position of the clothing in relation to the body when the cuts were made but some are pretty dam near

Trevor, no one has said there was no bleeding, just that the body cavity may not have been filled up with blood.

Well whether it was or it wasn't is academic in the grand scheme of things the issue is did the killer have enough time time to carry out the removal with the same level of expertise that Dr Browns colleague had in the time calculated by that expert. and that is not taking into account all the other aspects of this murder.

I question your second conclusion: death is by blood loss, therefore the amount of blood left to bleed internally is greatly reduced.

Removing the kidney could produce significant blood loss, two major vessels need to be cut, however given that the neck had already been cut, the the torso opened, how much is left to bleed from these vessels is open to great debate,
The removal of the uterus, again will certainly cause bleeding, again how much is open to question.

You do not seem to allow for the substantial amount of blood lost from the neck wound.

According to the doctors there was no blood splatter so that might suggest very little, and again we do not know the sequence of events. Did he strangle her first, then cut the throat, did he cut her throat and then stab her, Did he stab her in the abdomen first and then cut her throat?

"Yes and if done at the mortuary there would be very little blood flow would there ?"


Yes that is true from a technical viewpoint, however you have no evidence to back this other than your belief that the killer could not have carried out the procedure in time, do you?

No but as i said the facts and the witness testimony cannot be dismissed regarding times.

If I am wrong on that I have missed this evidence, could you link me it, I see nothing specific on your website, other than this belief, be that yours or the views of modern doctors.

It it is to be found in its entirety in my book Jack The Ripper The Secret Police files. Much of which has already been aired on here.

"You could be right but on the other hand its a question of interpertation"


Yes the whole thing is about interpretation.

My role as an investigator has always been to prove or disprove. I have ho hidden agenda just seeking the truth or as near to it as we can 128 years later.

The question of course is was this someone trained, or not?

you say yes, I say probably not.

If the organs were removed at the mortuary that could have been effected by a medical student,an anatomist, a doctor or even a surgeon. The fact that some anatomical knowledge was shown has to be taken into account. I rule out the butcher suggestion.

The most obvious organ for anyone untrained to take would be the heart everyone knows where the heart is located.So if the killer removed them he had some anatomical knowledge of some high degree to go for the kidney.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

Trevor

let us look at that picture.

First red circle nearest to arm, does not appear to actually be on the body,
certainly it looks to be on the background, and is not shown on the post mortem sketch.

The next two going down are not in the torso at all, but on the thigh. I admit I did not consider the thigh cut before as this would not bleed into the body cavity.
This wound is attested to by the post mortem report and the post mortem sketch.

The other could certainly be a stab, it corresponds to a stab mentioned in the pm report, and I did say previously that one of the cuts to the clothing could be stab.

In fact looking at the sketch, it is possible that there are two stabs very close to that last red circle.

indeed the post mortem does say:

"There was a stab of about an inch on the left groin. This was done by a pointed instrument. Below this was a cut of three inches going through all tissues making a wound of the peritoneum about the same extent."


I interpret this as a minor stab wound, first followed by a deeper one which reaches the peritoneum ,but not penetrating it.

Therefore Trevor you are correct she was stabbed, separate to the main rip.
However I do not see how this could have bled into the body, if the peritoneum was not penetrated!
Nor according to the pm does it appear to cause any major damage to underlying vessels.

in addition, it appears from the photo not to have been stitched at all, suggesting not that deep or large.


I therefore am still of the opinion that the body was not filled with blood, there would be some, but not filled.

Steve

[Elamarna]

How can all of those cuts in the clothing going off in different directions relate to one long rip ?

easily, given that the major cut changes direction several times.

[Trevor Marriott]

easily, given that the major cut changes direction several times.

But the photo shows there was not one long rip, even the two long rips can be easily identified

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Pierre]

I want opinions by anyone on this!

Thanks for your reply Trevor. It is very interesting, although I do no know your source.

Now, I would like other people to comment on this:

There were two posts. In the first, I wrote to Trevor, since his hypothesis is that organs were being taken at the hospital from Chapman and Eddowes by people working in the hospital:

Do you know if removal of organs was allowed before the post mortem examination in murder cases?

And in the second, Trevor replied:

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.

What do people here think about this?

Thanks.

Regards, Pierre

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor

let us look at that picture.

First red circle nearest to arm, does not appear to actually be on the body,
certainly it looks to be on the background, and is not shown on the post mortem sketch.

The next two going down are not in the torso at all, but on the thigh. I admit I did not consider the thigh cut before as this would not bleed into the body cavity.
This wound is attested to by the post mortem report and the post mortem sketch.

The other could certainly be a stab, it corresponds to a stab mentioned in the pm report, and I did say previously that one of the cuts to the clothing could be stab.

In fact looking at the sketch, it is possible that there are two stabs very close to that last red circle.

indeed the post mortem does say:

"There was a stab of about an inch on the left groin. This was done by a pointed instrument. Below this was a cut of three inches going through all tissues making a wound of the peritoneum about the same extent."


I interpret this as a minor stab wound, first followed by a deeper one which reaches the peritoneum ,but not penetrating it.

Therefore Trevor you are correct she was stabbed, separate to the main rip.
However I do not see how this could have bled into the body, if the peritoneum was not penetrated!
Nor according to the pm does it appear to cause any major damage to underlying vessels.

in addition, it appears from the photo not to have been stitched at all, suggesting not that deep or large.


I therefore am still of the opinion that the body was not filled with blood, there would be some, but not filled.

Steve

Ok
So the body wasnt filled with blood, but you accept that blood could have been present, and another factor, which may have inhibited the removal of the organs by the killer along with a long blade knife, and very little or no light at all to see inside the abdomen.

This is really a mute point whether the abdomen was filled with blood or not the issue is all about timings if he didnt have the time then he didnt remove the organs and therefore there has to be another explanation for the removal.

This has been a trying day so I am going to have a cup of tea and a valium sandwich

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

But the photo shows there was not one long rip, even the two long rips can be easily identified

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor, there is one long rip to the Torso, it may have started and stopped but it is a continuous wound, its in the pm report and is attested to by the pm sketch.

The lower stitching is the thigh wound, also described in the pm.

[Pierre]

Thanks for your reply Trevor. It is very interesting, although I do no know your source.

Now, I would like other people to comment on this:

There were two posts. In the first, I wrote to Trevor, since his hypothesis is that organs were being taken at the hospital from Chapman and Eddowes by people working in the hospital:

Do you know if removal of organs was allowed before the post mortem examination in murder cases?

And in the second, Trevor replied:

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.

What do people here think about this?

Thanks.

Regards, Pierre

I could give a comment on this myself to start with. I find it impossible to think that unknown staff at the hospital operated on the murder victims before the post mortem was performed.

Especially regarding that the murders was believed to have been done by the Whitechapel killer.