Skill or no Skill, that is the question

[Trevor Marriott]

Another variable is that different doctors examining the same victim came to different assessments of the anatomical skill of the killer.

But the starting point is Chapman who it said had her uterus removed with expert precision. So if it was the same killer for Eddowes why do we not see that same expert precision, The answer is that whoever removed the organs from Eddowes was not the same as who removed the organs from Eddowes because all he had to do was remove the uterus without the fallopian tubes attached as was the case with Chapman a much easier extraction than Chapman

and on another point if the killer did take the organs why would he take a second uterus from Eddowes when he had already acquired a perfect specimen from Chapman
?
and nots let forget the degree of difficulty involved in first locating the kidney and then being able to take hold of it with one hand and remove it with the other all with out the aid of clamps to keep the abdomen open and from a blood-filled abdomen in almost total darkness

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

What I meant, Trevor, was that he could have had all the anatomical knowledge in the world and still have extracted the organs the way he did, either completele by choice or also influenced by (some of) the circumstances mentioned above by John and Fiver. As long as we don't know his motive it's perfectly possible that the killer, and one killer only, was responsible for the organ extractions and certainly doesn't necessarily point to anything else.

yes. and based on what I have presented that theory is not conclusive and doesn't explain why we see no attempts on any that go anywhere near to suggesting the killer of the other seven victims was intent to stealing organs, strange two different methods of extraction of the same organ from two different mortuaries where the bodies had been left unattended for many hours before the post mortems.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[etenguy]

yes. and based on what I have presented that theory is not conclusive and doesn't explain why we see no attempts on any that go anywhere near to suggesting the killer of the other seven victims was intent to stealing organs, strange two different methods of extraction of the same organ from two different mortuaries where the bodies had been left unattended for many hours before the post mortems.www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor

Your theory is not consistent with the murder of Mary Jane Kelly - where several organs were removed and the heart taken by the killer. It would seem peculiar that MJK would be the only victim where the murderer removed organs, in the circumstances where other victims had organs missing.

[FrankO]

yes. and based on what I have presented that theory is not conclusive and doesn't explain why we see no attempts on any that go anywhere near to suggesting the killer of the other seven victims was intent to stealing organs, strange two different methods of extraction of the same organ from two different mortuaries where the bodies had been left unattended for many hours before the post mortems.

For me there’s enough ‘conclusivity’ in the fact that the intestines of both Chapman and Eddowes were drawn out and placed on and/or above her right shoulder, indicating that the killer had interest in the insides of his victims, taking the intestines out of the way. Furthermore, in the case of Eddowes a piece of colon was cut out and placed between the left side of the body and her left arm, whilst in Kelly’s case, of course, he had practically emptied her abdomen and placed organs all around her. In addition it was found that a piece of belly wall including the navel was missing from Chapman. Which is exactly what happened in a mutilation murder not committed by the Ripper but by Robert Napper: a piece of her abdomen had been sliced off and her killer took it away with him.

Why should it be such a big step from ‘just’ opening up victims, pulling, cutting off pieces and cutting out organs & placing them besides or around them to doing all of that but also cutting out some organs and taking them with him? I don’t see that and as long as we don’t know his motive, there’s nothing remarkable about one organ being extracted differently on two seperate occasions. What's the compelling reason that should convince people into thinking: no, no, I see it now, he just has to have stopped after pulling out the intestines and cutting out organs and placing them beside the body; he can't have gone any further than that? In my opinion, you have presented nothing compelling so far, so you'd have to do better to convince me. If that's what you want, of course.

[Trevor Marriott]

For me there’s enough ‘conclusivity’ in the fact that the intestines of both Chapman and Eddowes were drawn out and placed on and/or above her right shoulder, indicating that the killer had interest in the insides of his victims, taking the intestines out of the way. Furthermore, in the case of Eddowes a piece of colon was cut out and placed between the left side of the body and her left arm, whilst in Kelly’s case, of course, he had practically emptied her abdomen and placed organs all around her. In addition it was found that a piece of belly wall including the navel was missing from Chapman. Which is exactly what happened in a mutilation murder not committed by the Ripper but by Robert Napper: a piece of her abdomen had been sliced off and her killer took it away with him.

A piece of colon was cut out there is no evidence to show it was placed

Why should it be such a big step from ‘just’ opening up victims, pulling, cutting off pieces and cutting out organs & placing them besides or around them to doing all of that but also cutting out some organs and taking them with him? I don’t see that and as long as we don’t know his motive, there’s nothing remarkable about one organ being extracted differently on two seperate occasions. What's the compelling reason that should convince people into thinking: no, no, I see it now, he just has to have stopped after pulling out the intestines and cutting out organs and placing them beside the body; he can't have gone any further than that? In my opinion, you have presented nothing compelling so far, so you'd have to do better to convince me. If that's what you want, of course.

Well, what you describe amounts to nothing more than murder and mutilation which is what I have stated many times.

You will believe what you want to believe based on your own personal assessment of the facts and the evidence I can do nothing to change that

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor

Your theory is not consistent with the murder of Mary Jane Kelly - where several organs were removed and the heart taken by the killer. It would seem peculiar that MJK would be the only victim where the murderer removed organs, in the circumstances where other victims had organs missing.

But my point is that if the killer did not remove any of the organs from Chapman and Eddowes why would he then just take a heart from Kelly when if he was organs harvesting he could have taken away a number of organs.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[etenguy]

But my point is that if the killer did not remove any of the organs from Chapman and Eddowes why would he then just take a heart from Kelly when if he was organs harvesting he could have taken away a number of organs.www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor

I was not clear - I am suggesting the fact that he removed organs from MJK would suggest he also removed organs from his other victims when he had a chance. That he only took one organ I can only speculate it was all that he needed as a trophy/reminder of the murder.

[FrankO]

A piece of colon was cut out there is no evidence to show it was placed

I actually agree with you on this one, Trevor. I copied the "placed" from somewhere, but should have changed it into "put" or "laid", because I don't think there was any design there from the part of the killer.

You will believe what you want to believe based on your own personal assessment of the facts and the evidence I can do nothing to change that

And so do you, which is the way it should be. Perhaps you will convince me all the same, one day.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor

I was not clear - I am suggesting the fact that he removed organs from MJK would suggest he also removed organs from his other victims when he had a chance. That he only took one organ I can only speculate it was all that he needed as a trophy/reminder of the murder.

But conversely, if he didn't remove the organs from Chapman and Eddowes then it must cast a major doubt about him taking away the heart of Kelly

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[etenguy]

But conversely, if he didn't remove the organs from Chapman and Eddowes then it must cast a major doubt about him taking away the heart of Kelly www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I prefer to start from what is generally accepted as accurate. MJK was murdered and severely mutilated with organs removed from her body by her murderer - many left at the murder site. You have started a debate about whether her heart was taken by the murderer, though until now that was generally accepted as what had happened.

Given the above, whether the murderer took away the heart or not, it is clear he removed organs from MJK's body. When we play that fact into the theory of mortuary thefts as the explanation for organ removal for previous victims, it undermines that explanation. It has been shown that the murderer did remove the organs for one victim. Previous victims had organs removed. It makes sense to suggest therefore that the murderer removed the organs of his victims when he had a chance.

Also, it is telling that the two victims we know had no organs removed by the murderer - Nichols and Stride, also suffered no theft of organs by anyone else.

[Trevor Marriott]

I prefer to start from what is generally accepted as accurate. MJK was murdered and severely mutilated with organs removed from her body by her murderer - many left at the murder site. You have started a debate about whether her heart was taken by the murderer, though until now that was generally accepted as what had happened.

Given the above, whether the murderer took away the heart or not, it is clear he removed organs from MJK's body. When we play that fact into the theory of mortuary thefts as the explanation for organ removal for previous victims, it undermines that explanation. It has been shown that the murderer did remove the organs for one victim. Previous victims had organs removed. It makes sense to suggest therefore that the murderer removed the organs of his victims when he had a chance.

Also, it is telling that the two victims we know had no organs removed by the murderer - Nichols and Stride, also suffered no theft of organs by anyone else.

No one is disputing Kelly's killer emptied her abdomen of most of the internal organs, but there was no anatomical knowledge shown in those removals. I have postulated for some time now that the motive for the killings was simply murder and mutilation, With Kelly the killer had enough time to disembowel her and "play with the organs" but if Insp Reid and the press of the day are to be believed Kellys heart was not taken away. If this fact is accepted then a serious doubt arises over the removal of the organs from the other two victims.

None of the other victims had their abdomens opened in such a way that the organs could be removed prior to the post-mortems. The killer had every chance with all of the other victims to remove organs but we don't even see any attempts made not even to suggest as some will say he was disturbed.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Michael W Richards]

I'd suggest that perceived differences in skill level could be to do with differences in how much alcohol the killer had before killing each victim. Rather than the idea that there were several similar killers running around a small area of London at the same.

Well John, it is a fact that there were other killers running about London at the very same time. One glaring example is the guy who turned complete people into Torsos. But he had been at it for years prior. We have Deeming, we have Chapman, we have many others...see for yourself.

https://www.murdermap.co.uk/maps/1888-london-murder-map/

[John Wheat]

Well John, it is a fact that there were other killers running about London at the very same time. One glaring example is the guy who turned complete people into Torsos. But he had been at it for years prior. We have Deeming, we have Chapman, we have many others...see for yourself.

https://www.murdermap.co.uk/maps/188...on-murder-map/

Neither Chapman nor Deeming nor even the Torso Killer were using a very similar M.O. though to the M.O. used in the C5.

[Michael W Richards]

Neither Chapman nor Deeming nor even the Torso Killer were using a very similar M.O. though to the M.O. used in the C5.

If you look at the C5 you see different MO's within that small group, yet people seem happy to group them all under 1 killer. The point being that there were other men who killed in London while these crimes were happening, not just one loony. The motivation is for me the key, is a raving lunatic killing at random the ONLY plausible reason for the C5 murders? I see differently on that issue.

[John Wheat]

If you look at the C5 you see different MO's within that small group, yet people seem happy to group them all under 1 killer. The point being that there were other men who killed in London while these crimes were happening, not just one loony. The motivation is for me the key, is a raving lunatic killing at random the ONLY plausible reason for the C5 murders? I see differently on that issue.

I disagree. The C5 have very similar MO's. It is highly likely there was only one killer of the C5.