Poll: Organs/body parts removed or not?

[lynn cates]

stunning

Hello Cris. That one stun easily? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi MB
I will reply to you as you are one of the few that seem to have more than one brain cell.

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

Secondly no one knows what happened to those bodies in the 12 hour window before the post mortems ere carried out or who touched them or who looked at them.

If therefore the organs were removed by someone from the medical profession at the mortuary who seized the opportunity to acquire organs without going through the proper channels when perhaps left alone momentarily

Then there is the answer because when the doctors came back to carry out the post mortems they would not know that the bodies had been tampered with and as they did naturally assumed that the killer took them.

[moonbegger]

Point taken.

But you may be overestimating the entertainment value of the drunk if he kept coming in the establishment you frequented and shite on the bar every time. And you might be underestimating the entertainment value of a parrot with intellegence and a well rounded vocabulary. I know mine would contest that notion.

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 .

moonbegger

[moonbegger]

From what I can see there is some merit in the theory that the organs missing from Chapman and Eddowes were not removed by the killer at the crime scene, but at the mortuary.

I take on board the difficulty the killer would have experienced - even with a slash and grab blitz attack - to find and remove a kidney for example.

And yes .. All the above does sound feasible , but I just cannot understand why no one would question the post death possibility at the time ,

moonbegger

[Hunter]

Speaking as a frequenter of East End pub scene , before the days of gentrification .. I can tell you now that , your scenario would be a lot more entertaining than some parrot sitting in the corner singing the same song over and over and over again ..

Point taken.

But you may be overestimating the entertainment value of the drunk if he kept coming in the establishment you frequented and shite on the bar every time. And you might be underestimating the entertainment value of a parrot with intellegence and a well rounded vocabulary. I know mine would contest that notion.

[moonbegger]

Against this would the doctors and coroners not have been aware that a visiting doctor or medical student may have taken the organs? If this did used to happened from time to time wouldn't this possibility have been mentioned at the inquest or as part of the post mortem?

Good luck getting a reply to this one Lech , I asked the same question a few times to no avail

moonbegger

[Lechmere]

From what I can see there is some merit in the theory that the organs missing from Chapman and Eddowes were not removed by the killer at the crime scene, but at the mortuary.

I take on board the difficulty the killer would have experienced - even with a slash and grab blitz attack - to find and remove a kidney for example.

Against this would the doctors and coroners not have been aware that a visiting doctor or medical student may have taken the organs? If this did used to happened from time to time wouldn't this possibility have been mentioned at the inquest or as part of the post mortem?

[Trevor Marriott]

What, you mean she tried to head-butt his knife away? That's a new one on me. Was this before or after he sliced through her neck?

With a reply like that I now withdraw shaking my head in disbelief. It clearly shows to me how immersed and fixated you are in the old accepted theories surrounding this case.

You need to get out more !

[Sam Flynn]

Ah the face have you not considered the fact that the wounds to the face could have been defensive wounds

What, you mean she tried to head-butt his knife away? That's a new one on me. Was this before or after he sliced through her neck?

[Trevor Marriott]

Because it was there, Trevor.You're suggesting the heart would be easier to remove than a kidney? The best of British luck with that idea.If that's the case, then why did he limit himself to one measly kidney?

He didn't he took the uterus as well which the removal off and the degree of difficult would have taken even more time

[Trevor Marriott]

I'm not saying any such thing. I'm certainly not suggesting that he had a head start, with the victim already "prepped" and the intestines heaved out of the way. I mean 4-5 minutes from scratch - and that includes opening the abdomen, removing the organs and slashing the face.

Ah the face have you not considered the fact that the wounds to the face could have been defensive wounds and not specifically targeted by the killer as we have been asked to believe. But that's another argument for another time

[Sam Flynn]

The why did he go for the kidney

Because it was there, Trevor.

Why not the heart

You're suggesting the heart would be easier to remove than a kidney? The best of British luck with that idea.

Because the killer did not remove the organs at the scene.

If that's the case, then why did he limit himself to one measly kidney?

[Sam Flynn]

So now you are allowing 4-5 mins for the kidney removal.

I'm not saying any such thing. I'm certainly not suggesting that he had a head start, with the victim already "prepped" and the intestines heaved out of the way. I mean 4-5 minutes from scratch - and that includes opening the abdomen, removing the organs and slashing the face.

[Trevor Marriott]

No, but you can get most of the obstacles out of the wayI don't assume he was intending to "harvest" anything.

The why did he go for the kidney the most difficult organ to locate because it sits at the back of the abdomen and as stated difficult to locate and to take hold of and remove. Why not the heart, why not cut off a finger or an ear.

Because the killer did not remove the organs at the scene.

[Trevor Marriott]

Any scientist worth their salt should always be open to have their opinions challenged. Besides, the issue here is not so much medical opinion, as the validity of the tests you cite.

These tests in no way adequately addressed the hypothesis that, by adopting "slash-and-grab" methods under time-pressure, a human kidney can be removed in 4 or 5 minutes. That is the exam question, and if you failed to ask it - or failed to test it - then the experiment, and any conclusions drawn from it, are entirely irrelevant to the matter in hand.

So now you are allowing 4-5 mins for the kidney removal. Now add the rest of the time needed for him to do the rest of what he is supposed to have done. You are now running out of time old chap. Getting near 10 mins now i would suggest and if he witnesses are correct he did not have 10 mins