Poll: Organs/body parts removed or not?

[Sam Flynn]

I, too, think the killer used Annie as a guide. (Yes, I KNOW what you meant.)

Bless you, Lynn

[lynn cates]

Out of the mouth of . . .

Hello Gareth.

"Using the Chapman evidence as a guide, he did so quite deliberately, cutting through the "mesenteric attachments" to enable the intestines to "lifted out of the body" and "placed over the shoulder of the corpse"."

I, too, think the killer used Annie as a guide. (Yes, I KNOW what you meant.)

Cheers.
LC

[Trevor Marriott]

The colon IS an organ.What has that to do with the question of whether organs were removed at the scene or not? It's about as relevant to as the angle between the victim's left arm and the body, or the direction in which her head was lolling.Hardly impossible - not even particularly difficult, especially not with most of the viscera heaved out of the way.No "perhaps" about it. The intestines didn't just shoot out of their bodies like springs from a busted clock - the killer moved the intestines out of the way himself. Using the Chapman evidence as a guide, he did so quite deliberately, cutting through the "mesenteric attachments" to enable the intestines to "lifted out of the body" and "placed over the shoulder of the corpse". The drawing of Eddowes' corpse in situ at Mitre Square gives us further visual evidence that here was another victim whose intestines had been deliberately drawn out.

You cannot get away from the fact that intestines will recoil outwards when the abdominal wall is pierced. I have to ask did the doctors know that in 1888 or anyone else for that matter. Because there is no mention of that fact that this could have been an attributable factor "Placed by design" is an opinion only

You also seem to keep disregarding the fact that some of those injuries documented at the post mortem could have been inflicted at the mortuary when the organs were actually removed there. ie, cuttting the mesenteric attachments"

So, given that it's evident that the killer deliberately moved the intestines out of the way, we have to ask ourselves WHY he did it. Could it be that he wanted to gain easier access to those organs that lay behind the intestines? Surely not.

No surely not ! besides no one could effect tose removals with a long 6 inch bladed knife. In a confined blood filled abdomen in almost total darkness

[Sam Flynn]

You keep banging on about the colon the report says about 2 feet of the colon was cut away so what is your point? and what is its relevance to the removal of the organs.

The colon IS an organ.

I going to throw in another whammy for you in relation to this organs removal issue which you cant seem to grasp or don't want to grasp is that when the bodies of Chapman and Eddowes were found Chapman had both legs drawn up and Eddowes one.

What has that to do with the question of whether organs were removed at the scene or not? It's about as relevant to as the angle between the victim's left arm and the body, or the direction in which her head was lolling.

Anyone with any intelligence should be able to understand that in the case of Chapman it would be almost impossible to be able to work in an abdomen and remove a uterus with the legs in that position. The same applies to Eddowes with her being found with one leg drawn up.

Hardly impossible - not even particularly difficult, especially not with most of the viscera heaved out of the way.

It is also a know fact that when the abdominal walls are pierced such as in stabbings etc the intestines do recoil outwards. In the cases of Eddowes and Chapman there must have been massive recoils depositing the intestines outside of the body at great distance perhaps helped by the killer.

No "perhaps" about it. The intestines didn't just shoot out of their bodies like springs from a busted clock - the killer moved the intestines out of the way himself. Using the Chapman evidence as a guide, he did so quite deliberately, cutting through the "mesenteric attachments" to enable the intestines to "lifted out of the body" and "placed over the shoulder of the corpse". The drawing of Eddowes' corpse in situ at Mitre Square gives us further visual evidence that here was another victim whose intestines had been deliberately drawn out.

So, given that it's evident that the killer deliberately moved the intestines out of the way, we have to ask ourselves WHY he did it. Could it be that he wanted to gain easier access to those organs that lay behind the intestines? Surely not.

[DVV]

Better blinkered than illogical.

Some are both, by the grace of God.

[Trevor Marriott]

Because what you're propounding simply ignores the evidence.
Better blinkered than illogical.

You are clearly not able to asses and evaluate evidence in a logical way you see what you want to see and believe what you want to believe.

You keep banging on about the colon the report says about 2 feet of the colon was cut away so what is your point? and what is its relevance to the removal of the organs.

It is not clear which colon is being referred to in the inquest report. Here are your choices to pick from

The colon is also called the large intestine. The ileum (last part of the small intestine) connects to the cecum (first part of the colon) in the lower right abdomen. The rest of the colon is divided into four parts

The ascending colon travels up the right side of the abdomen.
The transverse colon runs across the abdomen.
The descending colon travels down the left abdomen.
The sigmoid colon is a short curving of the colon, just before the rectum

We know the killer cut and stabbed the victim. What we don't know is what damage was caused by the killer or the person removing the organs at the mortuary

I going to throw in another whammy for you in relation to this organs removal issue which you cant seem to grasp or don't want to grasp is that when the bodies of Chapman and Eddowes were found Chapman had both legs drawn up and Eddowes one.

That shows how the killer left the victims. Anyone with any intelligence should be able to understand that in the case of Chapman it would be almost impossible to be able to work in an abdomen and remove a uterus with the legs in that position. The same applies to Eddowes with her being found with one leg drawn up.

It is also a know fact that when the abdominal walls are pierced such as in stabbings etc the intestines do recoil outwards. In the cases of Eddowes and Chapman there must have been massive recoils depositing the intestines outside of the body at great distance perhaps helped by the killer.

I have attached a pic of a victim who suffered less severe abdominal wounds to Chapman Eddowes to prove the point

[Sam Flynn]

so why are you so eager to dismiss all of this and stick with all the old beliefs.

Because what you're propounding simply ignores the evidence.

You are so blinkered

Better blinkered than illogical.

[Sam Flynn]

But no organs taken away, after all he could have taken the whole body and used it as a jigsaw puzzle when he got home.

So, organs were removed at the scene by the killer, but he didn't take any away?

And how do you know the same person murdered Kelly that also murdered the others ?

Not just Kelly - Eddowes. Her colon was cut out and laid by the side of her corpse. As I said earlier.

Besides, even if there were multiple murderers involved, the thought that they'd go to such lengths to cut open their victims, shift their intestines out of the way, and - yes, indeed - cut out organs at the scene, without also being responsible for the removal of those "trophies" from the scenes of the crimes is ridiculous.

[Observer]

My "moronic poll" that has 17 votes and counting, which actually has sparked some decent debate (albeit a lot is your pointless and defensive murmurs).

My, that was a quick response!

A whole 17 posts! Wow! It's a no-brainer my friend, only one poster has voted in the positive. There's no doubt the killer took the organs. You speak of "decent debate". Where would that be?

If you'd be so wise as to check the thread, it's you said they had "better things to do" yet you continue to respond! Total hypocrite.

Eh? You've lost me there. I said the Poster's in this thread had better things to do?

A posterboy keyboard warrior.

So sad.

Who's sitting in judgement now?

You're correct on one thing though these exchanges are becoming an embarrassment. I'm off to watch the build up to the World Cup final.

You take care dougie

[El White Chap]

That's the first time I've mentioned other poster's, apart from urging them not to vote in your moronic poll.

My "moronic poll" that has 17 votes and counting, which actually has sparked some decent debate (albeit a lot is your pointless and defensive murmurs)

Listen to her. You've replied equally as quickly as I have! You need to get over yourself my dear

If you'd be so wise as to check the thread, it's you said they had "better things to do" yet you continue to respond! Total hypocrite.

Referring to me as female is the icing on the cake, typical of someone with such behaviour as yours.

A posterboy keyboard warrior.

So sad.

[m_w_r]

You ask why didn't anyone come forward and own up. Well tampering with a body removing organs interfering with the coroner all amounting to jail time. So if you were that person and you knew you had got away with it would you come forward ?

I can certainly see your reasoning here - why admit to something you've done if you know you were wrong to do it in the first place? You'd brazen it out, wouldn't you, or keep your head down and hope that nobody found you out? I suppose the moral alternative would be to admit your guilt and hope for lenient punishment, taking into consideration the wider societal interest in capturing a serial killer, and the undesirability of propagating or perpetuating false leads.

Still, I don't know what sort of offence taking organs from a dead body would be, or what the sentencing guidelines were. I can't find any other cases to compare to it to know for sure whether prison was an inevitable consequence.

Incidentally, since we're thinking about how bodies should be treated between death and burial, I've got an honest question for you. I understand that the surgeon who helped your with your experiments performed the hysterectomy on a living patient who could give her consent in advance. But how about the experiment to remove the kidney? This must have been done on a corpse. Did the operation take place in a hospital? If so, how did you persuade the ethics committee to sanction the experiment - and, if not, who did you have to go to in order to obtain the appropriate clearance? I'm genuinely interested to find out how you managed to arrange this experiment.

Regards,

Mark

[Observer]

Like you've been leaving them to decide all along this thread? It's getting embarrassing that you keep insisting on saying this when your actions are a direct contradiction of this statement..

That's the first time I've mentioned other poster's, apart from urging them not to vote in your moronic poll.

Better things to do? The evidence would suggest otherwise. You've constantly replied to my comments and at such a rate of alarming speed too.

Practise what you preach.

Get over yourself dear.

Listen to her. You've replied equally as quickly as I have! You need to get over yourself my dear

[El White Chap]

Do I? There is much in evidence which would suggest I'm correct. I'll leave the other poster's who contribute to this forum to decide

Like you've been leaving them to decide all along this thread? It's getting embarrassing that you keep insisting on saying this when your actions are a direct contradiction of this statement.

The truth hurts, that's also much in evidence here. However, enough of your moronic ramblings, I've better things to do.

Better things to do? The evidence would suggest otherwise. You've constantly replied to my comments and at such a rate of alarming speed too.

Practise what you preach.

Get over yourself dear.

[Observer]

Once again you misconstrue my motivations, I happen to share different beliefs to one poster and express that strongly and you deduct the conclusion of a vendetta. Fine, as you were. So much for freedom of speech.

Do I? There is much in evidence which would suggest I'm correct. I'll leave the other poster's who contribute to this forum to decide

What's not needed are your monotonous and bizarrely continuous petulant interventions. That's living a "sheltered life" in it's very definition.

The truth hurts, that's also much in evidence here. However, enough of your moronic ramblings, I've better things to do.

[El White Chap]

Defensive? I'm on the defensive? And protective? Me? Haha. You live a sheltered life. One last time, it's plain for all to see, you carry out a vendetta. It's to point out this fact that I'm exchanging post's with you. That, and only that. Nothing else.

Once again you misconstrue my motivations, I happen to share different beliefs to one poster and express that strongly and you deduct the conclusion of a vendetta. Fine, as you were. So much for freedom of speech.

What's not needed is your vindictive mocking post's

What's not needed are your monotonous and bizarrely continuous petulant interventions. That's living a "sheltered life" in it's very definition.