Poll: Organs/body parts removed or not?

[Sam Flynn]

I personally believe there is enough evidence (when we consider other serial mutilators) for the Whitechapel murderer to have been a trophy taker, and that he took those organs for self gratification.

We don't even need to consider other serial killers, Obs. When was the last time you heard of a smash-and-grabber leaving a broken window empty-handed, only for an independent thief to come along later and nick the jewels?

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello all , I think that everyone agrees , including Trevor , that organs were removed from at least four of the C5 .. But the question Trevor puts forward is , was the missing organs removed at the mortuary prior to PM ? which may have actually been a less confusing poll question .

Yes .. organs were taken from at least 4/5

No .. I don't think organs were removed for resale purposes by morticians at the mortuary ( But they could have been , I don't see it as an impossibility )

My problem with that , is the ramifications and retributions that would be handed down to a poorly paid mortuary assistant , if he got caught , especially in the light of such a high profile case .. but I am open to persuasion !

cheers , moonbegger

Just to clarify I am not suggesting that a mortuary attendant was responsible I am suggesting that someone from one of the many medical professions that visited mortuaries first thing every morning in lawful pursuit of organs for research could have seized the opportunity to remove them unbeknown to those in charge. That would explain the removal of the organs in different ways and by different methods
I also accept that these bodies should not have bee tampered with but as they say never look a gift horse in the mouth

I hope this now puts the matter to rest but I won't hold my breath

[Observer]

Once again and regardless of your beliefs about my motivation, this poll is about gauging the opinions of posters here on this topic of removal and trophies. You've stated you don't approve and why, fine.

Ask yourself this though, is this poll really so pointless if there are indeed individuals who subscribe to the wild theory that the organs weren't taken despite the records we have?

Actually, I think it's very relevant.

How many subscribe to this theory? Do you know of how many apart from Mr Marriot? As has been pointed out to you the wording of the poll leaves a lot to be desired. No one, not even Mr Marriot denies that the organs were removed, why on earth you have an option

"No, organs weren't removed and missing

is beyond me. Anyway, I'll leave it that, it's a half assed poll at best.

[Trevor Marriott]

I'm sure you are not alone in your belief that someone other than the killer removed and took away the organs Mr Marriot. As I said the vast majority of members of this forum believe the reverse, which is why I pointed out it's a pointless exercise to conduct a poll. I personally believe there is enough evidence (when we consider other serial mutilators) for the Whitechapel murderer to have been a trophy taker, and that he took those organs for self gratification.

Regards

Observer

I keep reading and hearing this same view and I keep asking the same question in relation to eddowes and that is to explain how anyone with medical knowledge could have in 5 mins or less have walked into the darkest part of the square carried out the murder carried out facial and body mutilations then in almost total darkness removes with some medical precision removes a uterus and kidney because a team of modern day medical experts say it can't be done

[Observer]

We don't even need to consider other serial killers, Obs. When was the last time you heard of a smash-and-grabber leaving a broken window empty-handed, only for an independent thief to come along later and nick the jewels?

Indeed Sam. Although it could have been these two who were responsible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aclS1pGHp8o&feature=kp

[Sam Flynn]

Indeed Sam. Although it could have been these two who were responsible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aclS1pGHp8o&feature=kp

"You're not doctors, then?" - "Ooh, blimey no!"

[moonbegger]

I keep reading and hearing this same view and I keep asking the same question in relation to eddowes and that is to explain how anyone with medical knowledge could have in 5 mins or less have walked into the darkest part of the square carried out the murder carried out facial and body mutilations then in almost total darkness removes with some medical precision removes a uterus and kidney because a team of modern day medical experts say it can't be done

Hello Trevor , We do have Dr Brown , who had all the evidence in front of him , claiming it was possible .

I think he had sufficient time, but it was in all probability done in a hurry.
[Coroner] How long would it take to make the wounds? - It might be done in five minutes. It might take him longer; but that is the least time it could be done in.

moonbegger

[Observer]

"You're not doctors, then?" - "Ooh, blimey no!"

Haha, precisely Sam, and they had his liver away in less than two minutes!

[Sam Flynn]

Haha, precisely Sam, and they had his liver away in less than two minutes!

Quite so. Actually - and I'll regret saying this - that clip might not be too far from the truth, bolt-cutters notwithstanding.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Trevor , We do have Dr Brown , who had all the evidence in front of him , claiming it was possible .



moonbegger

Did he ?

again you fall into the trap of reading something and interpreting to your own end.

Dr Brown talks about the wounds he mentions nothing about the removal of the organs to think that is pure conjecture

[Sam Flynn]

Dr Brown talks about the wounds he mentions nothing about the removal of the organs to think that is pure conjecture

"The peritoneal lining was cut through on the left side and the left kidney carefully taken out and removed... The womb was cut through horizontally, leaving a stump of three quarters of an inch. The rest of the womb had been taken away with some of the ligaments." (Dr Brown, documented in the official Inquest records.)

Brown's opinion of how long it would have taken:

"Dr. Brown added that for the purpose of practically testing the time required for what had been done to this unfortunate woman, an expert practitioner had actually performed the operation, and found that it took three minutes and a half" (Daily News, 5 October 1888)

"I think the perpetrator of this act had sufficient time, or he would not have nicked the lower eyelids. It would take at least five minutes." (Dr Brown, documented in the official Inquest records.)

"[Coroner] How long would it take to make the wounds? - [Brown] It might be done in five minutes. It might take him longer; but that is the least time it could be done in." (Daily Telegraph, 5 October 1888.)

[Trevor Marriott]

"The peritoneal lining was cut through on the left side and the left kidney carefully taken out and removed... The womb was cut through horizontally, leaving a stump of three quarters of an inch. The rest of the womb had been taken away with some of the ligaments." (Dr Brown, documented in the official Inquest records.)

Brown's opinion of how long it would have taken:

"Dr. Brown added that for the purpose of practically testing the time required for what had been done to this unfortunate woman, an expert practitioner had actually performed the operation, and found that it took three minutes and a half" (Daily News, 5 October 1888)

"I think the perpetrator of this act had sufficient time, or he would not have nicked the lower eyelids. It would take at least five minutes." (Dr Brown, documented in the official Inquest records.)

"[Coroner] How long would it take to make the wounds? - [Brown] It might be done in five minutes. It might take him longer; but that is the least time it could be done in." (Daily Telegraph, 5 October 1888.)

The test he referred to was a controlled test very much like the ones done by my group or experts not done in the dark with a blood filled abdomen to contend with and notice Brown didnt try it himself that show the high level of expertise needed.

If I remember right that article or another goes onto say that even that test didnt go off as expected.

So if it took an expert medical man three minute and a half under a controlled test to just remove a uterus and a kidney adding all the extra time there is no way it could all have been done in 5 minutes. Brown and his medical expert clearly did not add on the extra time needed for the walk into Mitre Square. the cutting of the throat and facial and abdomonal mutilation etc etc. It simply does not equate

[Sam Flynn]

The test he referred to was a controlled test very much like the ones done by my group or experts not done in the dark with a blood filled abdomen to contend with.

A pity your experts didn't conduct the experiment in poor light, with a corpse well-blooded after a sudden vicious cut to the throat, as that would have been a more valid test, Trev. It would also have been even better if you'd instructed them to remove the kidney as quickly as possible, without worrying about the collateral damage inflicted on the rest of the cadaver.

[robhouse]

A pity your experts didn't conduct the experiment in poor light, with a corpse well-blooded after a sudden vicious cut to the throat, as that would have been a more valid test, Trev. It would also have been even better if you'd instructed them to remove the kidney as quickly as possible, without worrying about the collateral damage inflicted on the rest of the cadaver.

Or for that matter, just reach into the body cavity and cut out whichever organ you happen to grab first.

[Trevor Marriott]

A pity your experts didn't conduct the experiment in poor light, with a corpse well-blooded after a sudden vicious cut to the throat, as that would have been a more valid test, Trev. It would also have been even better if you'd instructed them to remove the kidney as quickly as possible, without worrying about the collateral damage inflicted on the rest of the cadaver.

Under a controlled test it matters not how long it take does it because you never can recreate the actual crime. The point is that the killer is supposed to have carried out all of this in 5 minutes or even less. Now despite what you and others say or want to believe I can only tell you that a number of highly qualified medical experts all say that this would have been an impossible task. All expertsl had access to the post mortem reports before coming to their conclusions

You cant accept Browns evidence because clearly he had no idea of how long it would take which doesn't say much for his medical knowledge hence bringing in someone more qualified. Now I am no surgeon or eviscerator or pathologist, neither are you or any others on here so I can only go on what experts are telling me. I cannot see why you cannot accept that?

You clearly and others clearly don't want to accept that because it goes against your beliefs and for this important part of the mystery to suddenly be disproved I guess from your perspective and others who have lived and slept with this mystery for god know how many years it would be like losing a leg.