How many victims?

[Sunny Delight]

It matters to a man with a theory SD. Trevor believes that these women weren’t killed by the same person and so to prove this he wants to show that some of the missing body parts were actually stolen in the mortuary and that the victims without missing body parts were not victims of the ripper. So Mary Kelly was killed by a completely different maniac operating in the same region.

Ah right ok. Sounds rather a strange theory. Even if the missing body parts had been stolen and not taken by the Ripper what does that prove? Surely the removal of the organs is not a deal breaker in regards M.O. It doesn't really prove anything.

[Trevor Marriott]

It matters to a man with a theory SD. Trevor believes that these women weren’t killed by the same person and so to prove this he wants to show that some of the missing body parts were actually stolen in the mortuary and that the victims without missing body parts were not victims of the ripper. So Mary Kelly was killed by a completely different maniac operating in the same region.

If you are going to quote me get it right

i made reference to the killers mo and the fact that many believe all the victims were killed by the same hand

but yet again you misrepresent what has been posted in your effort to try to negate what had been posted to prop up the old accepted theory which clearly you are deeply immersed in.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Ah right ok. Sounds rather a strange theory. Even if the missing body parts had been stolen and not taken by the Ripper what does that prove? Surely the removal of the organs is not a deal breaker in regards M.O. It doesn't really prove anything.

It tends to show that the killers motive was not to remove organs more victims did not have organs removed tha this who did

the disturbed explanation is not a credible explanation having regards to what is suggested the killer then did after failing with stride

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

If you are going to quote me get it right

i made reference to the killers mo and the fact that many believe all the victims were killed by the same hand

but yet again you misrepresent what has been posted in your effort to try to negate what had been posted to prop up the old accepted theory which clearly you are deeply immersed in.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No more than you are immersed in your attempt to prop up your theory Trevor. And then there’s your constant and very wearying attempt to portray everyone that disagrees with you as being guilty of blindly defending the ‘old established theories.’ It’s an absolute cop out (excuse the pun) and you do it on every single topic that you discuss on here. It shows the weakness of your arguments that you feel the need to do it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It tends to show that the killers motive was not to remove organs more victims did not have organs removed tha this who did

the disturbed explanation is not a credible explanation having regards to what is suggested the killer then did after failing with stride

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Or that things change. Disturbed minds are not simple to read or even less to predict so we can’t say “well if he did x on one occasion then he must have done x on another. Perhaps the voices in his head didn’t tell him to take body parts at every murder? Who knows? We can’t use the lack of stolen body parts as proof of different killers. No matter how much you want to Trevor.

[Trevor Marriott]

Or that things change. Disturbed minds are not simple to read or even less to predict so we can’t say “well if he did x on one occasion then he must have done x on another. Perhaps the voices in his head didn’t tell him to take body parts at every murder? Who knows? We can’t use the lack of stolen body parts as proof of different killers. No matter how much you want to Trevor.

Typical negative post full of "What if`s" and "who knows" let stick to the facts as they are known and less of the "what if`s" and "who knows" and "maybes"

and I notice you failed to explain away two important issues I rasied in a previous post

1. Why no police officer of any rank mentions the killer taking away the heart of Kelly either at the time or in later years?

2. Why Bond failed to mention the missing heart in his letter to Anderson. I make mention of this because it was you who suggested that when Insp Reid gave that interview in 1896 he misremebered the events and his acoount is unreliable. I have to ask Did Bond misremeber or forget that important issue on the missing heart only days after the murder?

And it was you and others who catergorically stated the heart was missing from the room and seek to rely on Bond as the only one who can prop up the belief that the heart was missing from the room.

Of course you may want to re think your position and if you now want to back down and accept that the heart was not missing from the room I wont hold it against you and we can all move onto another topic

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Typical negative post full of "What if`s" and "who knows" let stick to the facts as they are known and less of the "what if`s" and "who knows" and "maybes"

and I notice you failed to explain away two important issues I rasied in a previous post

1. Why no police officer of any rank mentions the killer taking away the heart of Kelly either at the time or in later years?

2. Why Bond failed to mention the missing heart in his letter to Anderson. I make mention of this because it was you who suggested that when Insp Reid gave that interview in 1896 he misremebered the events and his acoount is unreliable. I have to ask Did Bond misremeber or forget that important issue on the missing heart only days after the murder?

And it was you and others who catergorically stated the heart was missing from the room and seek to rely on Bond as the only one who can prop up the belief that the heart was missing from the room.

Of course you may want to re think your position and if you now want to back down and accept that the heart was not missing from the room I wont hold it against you and we can all move onto another topic

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You're still stating that the heart was not missing as a fact. It's not my problem if a former police officer can't tell the difference. It's worrying though.

You might mention what people didn't mention without thinking that there would have been lots of things that they didn't mention but did anyone apart from Reid say that the heart was found in the room ? And if course even Reid didn't explicitly state this so he might have simply misremembered.

The body parts in the room were mentioned at the time. The heart wasn't among them and it wasn't in the body. What should we deduce from that?

[Trevor Marriott]

No more than you are immersed in your attempt to prop up your theory Trevor. And then there’s your constant and very wearying attempt to portray everyone that disagrees with you as being guilty of blindly defending the ‘old established theories.’ It’s an absolute cop out (excuse the pun) and you do it on every single topic that you discuss on here. It shows the weakness of your arguments that you feel the need to do it.

It shows the strenght of my arguments and the weakness of yours in particular your failed attempts to try to negate the facts which are put forward in support of my theory.

For the final time we have 10 murders which it is suggested are the work of the same killer whose primary MO was to murder and mutilate. In two case it is suggested that after killing them he has removed organs from only two of the vistims. Now when we look closely at the MO and the removal of the organs we have to ask why did he only remove organs from two of the victims and make no attempt to remove organs from any of the other victims, if organ removal was another part of his MO?

Being disturbed has been suggested I can perhaps buy that exuse on maybe one or two perhaps but these murders were all in the dead of night with hardly anyone venturing onto the back streets especially at the height of the murders.

This rasies the question given what we know about the illicit dealing in body parts in the LVP was it the killer who removed these organs. The bodies of Chapman and Eddowes were taken to two different mortuaries and both bodies were left for many hours before the post mortems were carried out. Modern day medical experts who have reviewed the post mortem results state that the organs that were removed from both victims had been removed using two differnet methods of extraction.

I have to ask how could this be possible if it were the same killer why would he adopt two differnet methods of extraction of the same organs. Only a highly skilled medical man could be capable of doing that in 1888.

So if the killer did remove the organs from two victims what was his motive? Organ harvesting, trophy taking. It has to be one or the other.

If organ harvesting, why do we see no evidence of any attempts with any of the other victims? If that had have been his motive we should have seen this surface with the earlier victims. I dont buy the killers change in his MO as a possible explanation.

I have to also ask if the killer was organ harvesting why would he mutilate the abdomens in such a way as to possibly damage organs that he intended to harvest, and not withstanding the fact that by repeatedly stabbing the abdomen that action would sever blood vessels and aretries thereby causing the abdomen to fill with blood, making it even more difficult to locate slippery organs and take a firm grip on them and remove them in almsot total darkness.

If trophy taking I have to ask why would he take a second uterus when he had the full set with Chapman with the uterus and the fallopian tubes attached.?

In concluding many seek to believe that the killer removed the organs from Eddowes at the crime scene and have based there belief on nothing more than guesswork to ensure the murder time fits in with witness timings and doctors opinion as to how long it would have taken the killer in Mitre Square.

As previoulsy stated the acutal time the couple enteted the square cannot be accuratly determined so the timings postulated by many are nothing more than guesswork.

Dr Brown and Sequeira were asked by Ths Star reporter before the post mortem "How long would it have taken the killer to do all that he did as you found the body"
Sequeira replies 3 mins, Brown 5 mins. This is ambiguos because does it refer to the body at the crime scene, or when they carried out the post mortem. I note that at the inquest Sequeira then sides with Brown on the 5 mins, but of course Brown does not in any event catergorically state 5 mins, what he says is at least 5 mins, so that could be an infinite time therafter. However it seems that many want to accept 5 mins as being the operative time, which of course is not accurate

Can the old accpted theorie be relied upon. I dont think so

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

You're still stating that the heart was not missing as a fact. It's not my problem if a former police officer can't tell the difference. It's worrying though.

You might mention what people didn't mention without thinking that there would have been lots of things that they didn't mention but did anyone apart from Reid say that the heart was found in the room ? And if course even Reid didn't explicitly state this so he might have simply misremembered.

The body parts in the room were mentioned at the time. The heart wasn't among them and it wasn't in the body. What should we deduce from that?

Thats it evade giving a proper answer

You cant prove that it was not found after the post mortem, or that it was not in the pail that was sent to Dr Phillips home from the crime scene, because it was not ever mentioned anymore by anyone that suggests it was found

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Thats it evade giving a proper answer

You cant prove that it was not found after the post mortem, or that it was not in the pail that was sent to Dr Phillips home from the crime scene, because it was not ever mentioned anymore by anyone that suggests it was found

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

On a further note the post mortem notes were take down by Dr Hebbert who took the notes with him when he left followoing the post mortem he then took no further involvement in what followed thereafter so the notes remained as we see them today with the term absent from the pericardium. There is no mention of what was contained in the pail sent to Dr Phillips

So there was no reason for the notes to be altered or amended if the heart was found after the PM. However had it still been missing Bond would have noted it down in his letter to Anderson

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

Yes, we differ on this point. I do see and understand what you're saying, but as you know I draw different conclusions. The mutilations to Eddowes are more extensive than to Chapman, and there isn't 15 minutes available as PC Watkins' patrols was only 14. And, given contemporary and modern medical opinion has suggested as little as 3 minutes would be required in the Eddowes' case, then it suggests the original estimate for Chapman's case must be highly unsafe to rely upon. But, even if not, given you do not believe Chapman was murdered when Cadosche was going back and forth to the loo, the time required in the Chapman case is irrelevant because if she's murdered early in the morning then JtR could have had all the time in the world and taking more time there has no bearing on the Eddowes case. It's only the Eddowes case where we have a definite restriction on the time available due to PC Watkin's patrol times, allow for a maximum of 14 minutes.

And I agree we don't know what time Eddowes and JtR entered the square, but we do know there was enough time for her to be murdered and mutilated extensively, with placements of intestines out of the way, etc. Let's call that X time. The only point of contention is if two additional actions were under taken, the removal of 3/4 of her uterus, and the removal of her left kidney (which may or may not have been damaged in the process, something we don't know because it was never examined). Those two additional actions would simply increase our estimate of X only by the amount of time required to perform those two specific cuts (call that Y time), means we are comparing X vs X+Y, where Y is proportionally very small. So X and X+Y are amounts of time very close to each other. While we do not know for sure how long X is, we know X + Y is not much longer and we know for certain that JtR had X amount of time, all we are debating is whether or not he also had that additional Y amount of time, which would not be very much additional time. Arguing that they may have entered in the small time window such that X was available but not X+Y is incredibly unlikely, particularly when doing so dismisses the fact that there is still time unaccounted for which would make X+Y available.

Anyway, we're going round in circles as we've covered this before. As I say, I do like exploring all sorts of ideas and while we may disagree with each other, I don't mean to be disagreeable, but I realize text can sometimes come across that way, and apologize if my writing style does that at times.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff

As you are the resident time and motions expert I thought this would interest you

I recently asked one of my medical experts who is proficient in post moretm procedures if they would carry out an experiment to time how long it would take acting at speed to enter an abdomen and revove a uterus and a kidney. The expert carried out the procedure using the Victorian doctors post mortem reports on Catherine Eddowes.

The procedure started with making abdominal incisons and was carried out under full mortuary lighted conditions with the expert using surgical gloves to be able to grip the organs. The whole procdure took 4 mins from start to finish.

Could the killer have done all of this and more in the time that has been suggested as per the old accepted theory?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff

As you are the resident time and motions expert I thought this would interest you

I recently asked one of my medical experts who is proficient in post moretm procedures if they would carry out an experiment to time how long it would take acting at speed to enter an abdomen and revove a uterus and a kidney. The expert carried out the procedure using the Victorian doctors post mortem reports on Catherine Eddowes.

The procedure started with making abdominal incisons and was carried out under full mortuary lighted conditions with the expert using surgical gloves to be able to grip the organs. The whole procdure took 4 mins from start to finish.

Could the killer have done all of this and more in the time that has been suggested as per the old accepted theory?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

Thanks for that. Yes, 4 minutes fits into even the smallest and most restrictive readings of the timing of events, which leave 6 minutes unaccounted for. The range of times we have to consider also mean there could have been as much as 9 minutes (i.e. Leve's 1:33 combined with PC Harvey patrolling at 1:42 not 1:41). So 4 minutes gives an additional 2 minutes to work with at the most conservative reading, and there's over double that in the most liberal. Most likely reality lies in between, but that just makes it easier to fit in that the most restrictive readings. And, 4 minutes is right in the middle of the contemporary estimates of 3-5+ minutes, so that's interesting to see. Dr. S. does tell us there was sufficient light available, and also a surgeon is not a serial killer whose life is at stake if he gets caught, and they (surgeons) will also have an inbuilt respect for the deceased, something lacking in JtR. So I would think the benefits of more clinical setting for the modern version is offset by a killer's need for speed and utter disregard for the victim, making the time estimate worth noting. I could see arguments for either suggesting JtR needed more or less time, which therefore offset each other. It's also interesting to note that 4 minutes is similar to Dr. Brown's expert, who required 3.5 minutes, which probably just reflect individual differences.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

It shows the strenght of my arguments and the weakness of yours in particular your failed attempts to try to negate the facts which are put forward in support of my theory.

For the final time we have 10 murders which it is suggested are the work of the same killer whose primary MO was to murder and mutilate. In two case it is suggested that after killing them he has removed organs from only two of the vistims. Now when we look closely at the MO and the removal of the organs we have to ask why did he only remove organs from two of the victims and make no attempt to remove organs from any of the other victims, if organ removal was another part of his MO?

Being disturbed has been suggested I can perhaps buy that exuse on maybe one or two perhaps but these murders were all in the dead of night with hardly anyone venturing onto the back streets especially at the height of the murders.

This rasies the question given what we know about the illicit dealing in body parts in the LVP was it the killer who removed these organs. The bodies of Chapman and Eddowes were taken to two different mortuaries and both bodies were left for many hours before the post mortems were carried out. Modern day medical experts who have reviewed the post mortem results state that the organs that were removed from both victims had been removed using two differnet methods of extraction.

I have to ask how could this be possible if it were the same killer why would he adopt two differnet methods of extraction of the same organs. Only a highly skilled medical man could be capable of doing that in 1888.

So if the killer did remove the organs from two victims what was his motive? Organ harvesting, trophy taking. It has to be one or the other.

If organ harvesting, why do we see no evidence of any attempts with any of the other victims? If that had have been his motive we should have seen this surface with the earlier victims. I dont buy the killers change in his MO as a possible explanation.

I have to also ask if the killer was organ harvesting why would he mutilate the abdomens in such a way as to possibly damage organs that he intended to harvest, and not withstanding the fact that by repeatedly stabbing the abdomen that action would sever blood vessels and aretries thereby causing the abdomen to fill with blood, making it even more difficult to locate slippery organs and take a firm grip on them and remove them in almsot total darkness.

If trophy taking I have to ask why would he take a second uterus when he had the full set with Chapman with the uterus and the fallopian tubes attached.?

In concluding many seek to believe that the killer removed the organs from Eddowes at the crime scene and have based there belief on nothing more than guesswork to ensure the murder time fits in with witness timings and doctors opinion as to how long it would have taken the killer in Mitre Square.

As previoulsy stated the acutal time the couple enteted the square cannot be accuratly determined so the timings postulated by many are nothing more than guesswork.

Dr Brown and Sequeira were asked by Ths Star reporter before the post mortem "How long would it have taken the killer to do all that he did as you found the body"
Sequeira replies 3 mins, Brown 5 mins. This is ambiguos because does it refer to the body at the crime scene, or when they carried out the post mortem. I note that at the inquest Sequeira then sides with Brown on the 5 mins, but of course Brown does not in any event catergorically state 5 mins, what he says is at least 5 mins, so that could be an infinite time therafter. However it seems that many want to accept 5 mins as being the operative time, which of course is not accurate

Can the old accpted theorie be relied upon. I dont think so

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Can it be assumed that because the killer took organs during 2 of the murders then he would have done the same at all of the?

Answer - No

End of point.

.....

Were internal organs found in the room listed?

Answer - Yes

Was the heart, the most important of organs mentioned - No

Was the heart in or on the body?

Answer - No

Conclusion - The killer had taken it away.

[Gordon]

Serial killer do not change there MO to this extent whereby out of 9-10 victims he only decide to remove organs from two leaving no sign with the others of any attempt to remove organs now to me those facts are astouding.

I'm unclear where there’s any credible evidence that the Ripper had nine or ten victims. That’s taking speculation a very long way. Unless I'm misunderstanding something.

More to the point, some serial killers certainly can change their MO. A notable example was that latter-day Ripper, Peter Sutcliffe. He changed his method of murder from bashing on the head with a hammer to strangulation. Admittedly he bashed Marguerite Walls on the head before strangling her, but when he attacked Dr. Uphadya Bandara he began his assault by trying to strangle her--an attack that she luckily survived. That’s a radical change in MO--and very late in his series of murders, too, when we’d expect an MO to be firmly established. It threw the police for a loop because they failed to connect these crimes with his other murders. Plus these victims weren’t prostitutes, but very respectable women. Sutcliffe started seeing every woman as a “prostitute” in the end, whether she was or not.

Compared with that, taking or not taking body organs is a minor variation. I would say the Ripper’s primary intention was to hack, destroy, and mutilate, driven by insane hatred. Taking body organs as trophies was a secondary motive that occurred to him along the way. In any case he was developing his MO as he went along, and no doubt ran short of time on more than one occasion, so variations in what he did to his victims were to be expected. I’d be very surprised to hear if he was a cookie-cutter killler who succeeded in doing precisely the same thing to all of his victims.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

Thanks for that. Yes, 4 minutes fits into even the smallest and most restrictive readings of the timing of events, which leave 6 minutes unaccounted for. The range of times we have to consider also mean there could have been as much as 9 minutes (i.e. Leve's 1:33 combined with PC Harvey patrolling at 1:42 not 1:41). So 4 minutes gives an additional 2 minutes to work with at the most conservative reading, and there's over double that in the most liberal. Most likely reality lies in between, but that just makes it easier to fit in that the most restrictive readings. And, 4 minutes is right in the middle of the contemporary estimates of 3-5+ minutes, so that's interesting to see. Dr. S. does tell us there was sufficient light available, and also a surgeon is not a serial killer whose life is at stake if he gets caught, and they (surgeons) will also have an inbuilt respect for the deceased, something lacking in JtR. So I would think the benefits of more clinical setting for the modern version is offset by a killer's need for speed and utter disregard for the victim, making the time estimate worth noting. I could see arguments for either suggesting JtR needed more or less time, which therefore offset each other. It's also interesting to note that 4 minutes is similar to Dr. Brown's expert, who required 3.5 minutes, which probably just reflect individual differences.

- Jeff

Jeff
i think you are still missing the point Brown stated at least 5 mins so you cannot safely work with 5 mins as an exact working time and you cannot rely on his experts time because we no nothing about under what conditions this took place.

furthermore if it takes a modern day expert 4 mins just to effect removals there is no way that given the crime scene conditions and the condition of Eddowes body the killer could have effected those removals in the time suggested.

notwithstanding the extra time needed to carry out the murder rifle the pockets and to walk into the square

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk