Mary Jane Violence

[Fisherman]

Come to think of it, maybe that was the "No!" Cadosch heard - after the killer had fled the scene, an entrepeneur in the innards business happens on Chapman, realizes that she is a treasure trove for uterus sellers and cuts out her ditto - but happens to slice her bladder open in the process. And THAT is when he says "No!". The rest of the conversation Cadosh thought he heard was the organ retriever mumbling to himself "well, what have we got here, let´s see, there´s something I can sell!" and so on. And the thud was him slumping back and leaning against the fence, dismayed by how he had screwed up and gotten pissed (worst pun of the day, surely?)

I can think of no other explanation that explains Phillips assurance that the uterus was gone at 6.30, while simultaneously telling us what it was Cadosh overheard. And hey, we may even get an explanation to how Chapman may have taken a nosedive temperaturewise in an hour only: when the organ hunter stumbled upon her, he may have said "Cool!" - and so she did just that.

Problems solved.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Come to think of it, maybe that was the "No!" Cadosch heard - after the killer had fled the scene, an entrepeneur in the innards business happens on Chapman, realizes that she is a treasure trove for uterus sellers and cuts out her ditto - but happens to slice her bladder open in the process. And THAT is when he says "No!". The rest of the conversation Cadosh thought he heard was the organ retriever mumbling to himself "well, what have we got here, let´s see, there´s something I can sell!" and so on. And the thud was him slumping back and leaning against the fence, dismayed by how he had screwed up and gotten pissed (worst pun of the day, surely?)

I can think of no other explanation that explains Phillips assurance that the uterus was gone at 6.30, while simultaneously telling us what it was Cadosh overheard. And hey, we may even get an explanation to how Chapman may have taken a nosedive temperaturewise in an hour only: when the organ hunter stumbled upon her, he may have said "Cool!" - and so she did just that.

Problems solved.

Smartass!

[FISHY1118]

[Trevor Marriott]

Perhaps so - but why would we alter the facts to facilitate things for us? That would be lazy.

Because the old accepted facts may not be correct !!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is all effectively clarified by the exchange at Chapmans inquest between Baxter and Bagster, if you will:

[Coroner] Was the whole of the body there? - No; the absent portions being from the abdomen.
[Coroner] Are those portions such as would require anatomical knowledge to extract? - I think the mode in which they were extracted did show some anatomical knowledge.
[Coroner] You do not think they could have been lost accidentally in the transit of the body to the mortuary? - I was not present at the transit. I carefully closed up the clothes of the woman. Some portions had been excised.

Ergo, Baxter effectively asks Bagster if the uterus was in place at the murder site, and Bagster assures us it was not.

The Uterus was only found missing at the post mortem stage the body was not checked for missing body parts at the crime scene !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

True enough - but I would point out that I do believe that there is a category of killers inbetween the original ones and the copycat killers. Maybe we can call them followers, or something such. On the whole, I think that society´s way of reporting these types of crimes in different media is something that functions as a ground of inspiration for a number of people who are killer material, but who have not found their true inspiration grounds. Once they hear or read of somebody who has been killed in a particularly gruesome manner, their fuse is ignited and they go out and kill in a way that is reminiscent of the reports they have taken part of.
I am not opposed to thinking that murders like the Beadmore case, for example, can be a reflection of this mechanism. I remember reading Donald Rumbelows book, where a murder was mentioned that took place in our own modern day, and where the killer had written "I am Jack the Ripper!" on a wall in a room where a woman was found dead and mutilated (if memory serves me).

These are not copycat murders, of course - but they are killings inspired by other murders and in many ways recreating them. In that respect, the Ripper murders will - at least to my mind - have been the perhaps single most powerful source of inspiration throughout criminal history for weirdos with underlying urges to kill.

Copycats as such, though, who emulate a murder in order to cast guilt on somebody who has a clear-cut (sorry) and specific MO, will normally be much more the stuff off fiction than of reality, just like you say.
If there is anybody who comes close to a copycat murder in our context, then I´d say that William Bury would likely be that man. The cutting of the abdomen of his wife seems tentative and a reluctant decision - then again, it may also have been a case of the kind of "follower" inspiration I mentioned earlier, cut short (did it again...) by how Bury suddenly realized that it is one thing to gain inspiration from matters like these - and quite another to put it into practice.

absolutely fish
totally agree, however i think bury makes a pretty good ripper suspect. but if he wasnt again agree.

[Fisherman]

The Uterus was only found missing at the post mortem stage the body was not checked for missing body parts at the crime scene !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I´m afraid Phillips is telling us the exact opposite. You must remember that Phillips checked the body for warmth by way of feeling in the abdominal cavity, under the intestines. So he rummaged around inside her, and he would accordingly have noted if something was gone from the contents there.

To reason that Phillips answered Baxters question about whether the uterus could have gone lost during transport by way of saying that he carefully closed up Chapmans clothes and that some portions (aka the uterus) had been excised, is to reason that Phillips intentionally misled Baxter. And he did not.

We can turn to the Morning Advertiser if we want a clearer picture:

Was the whole of the body there? - No; portions had been taken from the abdomen, and I think that the mode in which the walls of the stomach had been abstracted showed some anatomical knowledge.

Might not some portions of the body have been lost in transit? - No; they had been excised from the body without a doubt.

So the whole of the body was not there, because portions had been taken from the abdomen - and there was no way it could be that they had fallen out during transportation because they had instead been excised from the body before transportation. No red letters will change that.

I note that you fail to explain how it was that the killer took one kidney only or why he failed to extract the uterus undamaged from Eddowes. Do you have any explanation for these matters? Or why he took no kidneys at all from Chapman? Wouldn´t you say that any person who had time enough on his own in the post mortem room to extract organs, would be likely to be careful about not damaging them? And would it not be likely that somebody who took a left kidney would also take the right one?

It fails to make any form of sense to me. And it always has.

[Trevor Marriott]

I´m afraid Phillips is telling us the exact opposite. You must remember that Phillips checked the body for warmth by way of feeling in the abdominal cavity, under the intestines. So he rummaged around inside her, and he would accordingly have noted if something was gone from the contents there.

To reason that Phillips answered Baxters question about whether the uterus could have gone lost during transport by way of saying that he carefully closed up Chapmans clothes and that some portions (aka the uterus) had been excised, is to reason that Phillips intentionally misled Baxter. And he did not.

We can turn to the Morning Advertiser if we want a clearer picture:

Was the whole of the body there? - No; portions had been taken from the abdomen, and I think that the mode in which the walls of the stomach had been abstracted showed some anatomical knowledge.

Might not some portions of the body have been lost in transit? - No; they had been excised from the body without a doubt.

So the whole of the body was not there, because portions had been taken from the abdomen - and there was no way it could be that they had fallen out during transportation because they had instead been excised from the body before transportation. No red letters will change that.

I note that you fail to explain how it was that the killer took one kidney only or why he failed to extract the uterus undamaged from Eddowes. Do you have any explanation for these matters? Or why he took no kidneys at all from Chapman? Wouldn´t you say that any person who had time enough on his own in the post mortem room to extract organs, would be likely to be careful about not damaging them? And would it not be likely that somebody who took a left kidney would also take the right one?

It fails to make any form of sense to me. And it always has.

The simple explanation is that the killer did not remove any organs, and take them away from any of the victims.

proof of that is the fact that the only two victims that were found with organs missing, were victims that had been taken to two different mortuaries, and both had been left for many hours before the post mortems were carried out, both uteri from both victims had them removed by two different methods suggesting two different persons effected those removals and not two different killers.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

The simple explanation is that the killer did not remove any organs, and take them away from any of the victims.

As I said, it is a VERY simple explanation - but I prefer true ones to the simple variations.

proof of that is the fact that the only two victims that were found with organs missing, were victims that had been taken to two different mortuaries, and both had been left for many hours before the post mortems were carried out, both uteri from both victims had them removed by two different methods suggesting two different persons effected those removals and not two different killers.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I´m afraid that is not proof at all. We cannot treat an important term like proof that lightheartedly.

Now, where is the explanation to my questions about why the Eddowes uterus was not taken out unharmed and why the Eddowes organ hunter would only take interest in one kidney? Had somebody specifically offered to pay for left kidneys but not for right ones?

[Trevor Marriott]

I´m afraid that is not proof at all. We cannot treat an important term like proof that lightheartedly.

Now, where is the explanation to my questions about why the Eddowes uterus was not taken out unharmed and why the Eddowes organ hunter would only take interest in one kidney? Had somebody specifically offered to pay for left kidneys but not for right ones?

Well its far more proof than to rely on the old suggestion that the killer removed these organs in almost total darkness, in double quick time, where is the proof of that ? there is none, its just an inference that has wrongly drawn based on the fact that when the post mortems were carried out the organs were found to be missing.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Well its far more proof than to rely on the old suggestion that the killer removed these organs in almost total darkness, in double quick time, where is the proof of that ? there is none, its just an inference that has wrongly drawn based on the fact that when the post mortems were carried out the organs were found to be missing.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You are emphatically wrong. There IS a mutilating killer proven to have existed, and there is no organ thief proven to have existed in the post mortem rooms, so the evidence is very much in favour of the killer being the organ extractor. Taken together with Phillips´ assertions and the fact that we KNOW that whoever killed Mary Kelly took organs out, the odds for two separate cases of post mortem room organ theft are sky high.

It really is that simple. There are many things we cannot disprove, but in this case, I´d say that we can prove beyond reasonable doubt that whoever killed these women also took the organs out.

[John Wheat]

You are emphatically wrong. There IS a mutilating killer proven to have existed, and there is no organ thief proven to have existed in the post mortem rooms, so the evidence is very much in favour of the killer being the organ extractor. Taken together with Phillips´ assertions and the fact that we KNOW that whoever killed Mary Kelly took organs out, the odds for two separate cases of post mortem room organ theft are sky high.

It really is that simple. There are many things we cannot disprove, but in this case, I´d say that we can prove beyond reasonable doubt that whoever killed these women also took the organs out.

I agree. The theory that the organs were stolen is a crackpot theory.

[Abby Normal]

[QUOTE=John Wheat;n724020]

I agree. The theory that the organs were stolen is a crackpot theory


more than crackpot. the shards are scattered across the floor.

[Abby Normal]

double post

[Trevor Marriott]

I agree. The theory that the organs were stolen is a crackpot theory.

If the killer removed the organs from eddowes then his knowledge of where to locate them, and how to remove them must have been on a par with Dr Browns expert because it took him 3 mins just to remove the uterus, and in the process he damaged the bladder and we do not know under what condition this was carried out. Add to that the time it would have taken to locate and remove the kidney on top of that, by my reckoning that adds up to an absolute minimum total of 5 mins for an expert in anatomy to carry out the removals. Dr Brown states also as least 5 mins but that was a guess and that's why he asked an expert.

Add to that the time to walk into the square, carry out the murder and the mutilations, rifle her pockets. cut her apron and then leave. Unless the killer was such an expert the time frame does not fit. How many persons would have those skills in any event ?

If the couple seen were the killer and Eddowes they were seen at 1.35am, that means they had not entered the square at that time

So lets say they made a move to enter the square at 1.36am - 1 min to walk slowly to crime scene, take us to 1.37am- 5 mins min just to remove organs + time to carry out all the other things he is supposed to have done, being conservative 1 minute, tha all add up to taking him to 1.43am and that is the bottom line.

Pc Harvey comes back down the passage and into the square at 1.41am/1.42am and no doubt disturbs the killer.

Based on those timings there was not enough time for the killer to have removed the organs in the square that is fact

If the couple entered the square any later than 1.37 then there is definitely no time to do all that he is supposed to have done.

Two victims, two different mortuaries, two different methods of removing the uterus from the two victims, two victims bodies left for many hours before post mortems conducted.

Tabram, Stride, Nichols, Kelly, Mckenzie, Coles, no attempts made to remove organs from any of these now isn't that strange when there is supposed to have been one lone killer? and before the old chestnut is rolled out yet again that he was disturbed, once or twice maybe but not six times

The only crackpot theory is with those who believe the killer removed the organs from Chapman and Eddowes at the crime scenes, and I would suggest those read up on the workings of the anatomy act which allowed bona fide medical persons to go to mortuaries and lawfully take organs for medical research. Now on that I do concede that the bodies of Eddowes and Chapman should not have been tampered with, but as the saying goes "needs must when the devil calls" and we do not know what went on at the mortuaries on those days.

And that is why when the post mortems were carried out the doctors saw signs of anatomical knowledge in the way they were removed.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

You are emphatically wrong. There IS a mutilating killer proven to have existed, and there is no organ thief proven to have existed in the post mortem rooms, so the evidence is very much in favour of the killer being the organ extractor. Taken together with Phillips´ assertions and the fact that we KNOW that whoever killed Mary Kelly took organs out, the odds for two separate cases of post mortem room organ theft are sky high.

It really is that simple. There are many things we cannot disprove, but in this case, I´d say that we can prove beyond reasonable doubt that whoever killed these women also took the organs out.

I never suggested there was not a mutilating killer in operation, I suggested that is the only type of killer, and not one who was an expert in female anatomy who could remove these organs in double quick time in almost total darkness

The Anatomy Act allowed for bona fide medical persons to go to mortuaries and lawfully take organs for medical research is that stealing ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk