Poll: Organs/body parts removed or not?

[Natasha]

Its also worth pointing out that the organs wouldn't just fall out on their own accord, there were other organs left behind, why didn't they fall out? It appears you are suggesting that the bodies were haphazardly cut, I don't think this was the case. It appears that the killer was methodical in his actions.
The organs missing appear to have been targeted (for what purpose I don't know for sure) which makes sense seeing as they were not with the body

[Sam Flynn]

There is nothing which can prove that the organs were found to be missing prior to the post mortem so you can huff and puff all you like that isn't going to change

My point was that there is clear evidence that organs were removed from the body at the scene of the crime, on at least two occasions. To wit: Eddowes' colon; Kelly's nose, breasts, lobe of left lung, diaphragm, stomach, liver, spleen, kidneys, bladder and uterus. There's even a photograph that clearly demonstrates this.

The day I stop "huffing and puffing" is the day you pay attention to what's being said.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

don't you sense it was just his task to ask so ?

Cheers

Hi
My answer is no

and nor should you !

[DVV]

why would the coroner have asked that question ?

Hi Trevor,

don't you sense it was just his task to ask so ?

Cheers

[Trevor Marriott]

Taken from this very website:

Dr. George Bagster Phillips describes the body of Annie Chapman as he saw it at 6:30 AM in the back yard of the house at 29 Hanbury Street. This is inquest testimony...The abdomen had been entirely laid open: the intestines, severed from their mesenteric attachments, had been lifted out of the body and placed on the shoulder of the corpse; whilst from the pelvis, the uterus and its appendages with the upper portion of the vagina and the posterior two thirds of the bladder, had been entirely removed. No trace of these parts could be found



Organs were officially reported missing in the back yard by Dr Phillips, it's in his inquest testimony.

Still not enough for you eh you old sceptic?

This has cropped up before and old chap I hope you wont mind me putting you in your place with this will you?

As you have referred to the inquest testimony so will I

[Coroner] Was the whole of the body there? - No; the absent portions being from the abdomen. (This relates to the post mortem)

[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. (Note anatomical knowledge not cut and slash apart from the murder itslef)

[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.

Now the last question is the killer is it not if it had been accepted at that time that the organs were found to be missing at the crime scene why would the coroner have asked that question ?

[El White Chap]

I havent seen any proof, but of course you have proved tgat you are one of those who reads something and thinks it proof without being able to assess and evaluate what you have read to find its not proof at all !

Taken from this very website:

Dr. George Bagster Phillips describes the body of Annie Chapman as he saw it at 6:30 AM in the back yard of the house at 29 Hanbury Street. This is inquest testimony...The abdomen had been entirely laid open: the intestines, severed from their mesenteric attachments, had been lifted out of the body and placed on the shoulder of the corpse; whilst from the pelvis, the uterus and its appendages with the upper portion of the vagina and the posterior two thirds of the bladder, had been entirely removed. No trace of these parts could be found

There is nothing which can prove that the organs were found to be missing prior to the post mortem so you can huff and puff all you like that isn't going to change

Organs were officially reported missing in the back yard by Dr Phillips, it's in his inquest testimony.

Still not enough for you eh you old sceptic?

[Trevor Marriott]

You've been presented with the proof.

That theory has crashed and burned to ashes.

Hope that humble pie isn't tasting to bitter for you Trev.

You wouldn't no proof if it bit you on the nose

I haven't seen any proof, but of course you have proved that you are one or many who reads something and thinks it proof without being able to assess and evaluate what you have read. Because if you had that ability you would be able see its not proof at all !

[El White Chap]

There is nothing which can prove that the organs were found to be missing prior to the post mortem so you can huff and puff all you like that isn't going to change

You've been presented with the proof.

That theory has crashed and burned to ashes.

Hope that humble pie isn't tasting to bitter for you Trev.

[El White Chap]

Here's where the theory fails and we can say this with the utmost confidence.

Annie Chapman's body was examined in the backyard of Hanbury Street by Dr. Phillips approximately an hour after she was last seen by Elizabeth Long and he duly noted that "No trace of these parts could be found" (uterus)

She has missing organs and this is before she was moved from the backyard or any post mortem was conducted.

So we then have a time window of half an hour from when she was last seen and found dead at the back of a house and not on particular show to the public.

That's approximately only 30 minutes for someone other than the killer to find her around the back of a house and then take whatever. Hmmmmmm.

Theory.Dead.In.The.Water.

[Trevor Marriott]

There is ample evidence that the bodies had been ripped open at the scene, and the intestines moved out of the way, in 3 out of the canonical 5 murders. It is highly unlikely that the killer went to all that trouble, without going just that step further to secure one or two trophies for himself.

Besides, we know that Eddowes' colon was cut out and left on the pavement, and we know that practically all of Kelly's abdominal organs, and some of her thoracic organs, were cut out fully or in part, and displaced from her corpse. So, far from there being no evidence, it is abundantly clear that organs were "missing from the body" in at least these two instances. We even have photographic evidence to this effect.

There is nothing which can prove that the organs were found to be missing prior to the post mortem so you can huff and puff all you like that isn't going to change

[Sam Flynn]

Firstly there is no evidence that the organs were found to be missing from the bodies at the crime scenes.

There is ample evidence that the bodies had been ripped open at the scene, and the intestines moved out of the way, in 3 out of the canonical 5 murders. It is highly unlikely that the killer went to all that trouble, without going just that step further to secure one or two trophies for himself.

Besides, we know that Eddowes' colon was cut out and left on the pavement, and we know that practically all of Kelly's abdominal organs, and some of her thoracic organs, were cut out fully or in part, and displaced from her corpse. So, far from there being no evidence, it is abundantly clear that organs were "missing from the body" in at least these two instances. We even have photographic evidence to this effect.

[Sam Flynn]

But of course there are those who don't want consider new theories and don't want to enter into serious discussion

Shocking, isn't it? I'm so glad I'm not one of them.

[Trevor Marriott]

You express disbelief to what I said in response to YOUR suggestion that Eddowes' facial injuries could have been "defensive wounds"?
What, the accepted theory that said facial wounds were simply post-mortem cuts inflicted by her killer?

Call me fixated if you wish, but at least I'm not fixated on being unorthodox for the sake of it.

Why should we 126 years later automatically have to accept the previous accepted theories when they are brought into question and give rise to new discussions.
But of course there are those who don't want consider new theories and don't want to enter into serious discussion and when their wall is in danger of being breached they go into defensive mode and resort to verbal abuse and ridicule to try to deflect away from the fact the new stuff just may have some foundation

[Sam Flynn]

With a reply like that I now withdraw shaking my head in disbelief.

You express disbelief to what I said in response to YOUR suggestion that Eddowes' facial injuries could have been "defensive wounds"?

It clearly shows to me how immersed and fixated you are in the old accepted theories surrounding this case.

What, the accepted theory that said facial wounds were simply post-mortem cuts inflicted by her killer?

Call me fixated if you wish, but at least I'm not fixated on being unorthodox for the sake of it.

[Hunter]

Ah .. So now the parrot is a professor .. but the drunk , is still a drunk who shits on the bar

But oddly enough Hunter , there was an old pub not far from Whitechapel called the Birdcage , where they indeed had a parrot , and also a few drunks , and everyone got along famously with no need for shitting , squawking , or snobbery for that matter ! Alas its a different world we live in now .

Yeah, nobody's drunk or sober at the same time. And the parrot's just figurin' out what to say to suit him...
But at least the parrot reasonably expects a positive result for his effort.

Cheers