Facial Mutilations

[c.d.]

An absolutely excellent post, Errata. You nailed it.

c.d.

[Trevor Marriott]

I believe cops lie I believe they take bribes, I believe organs were in demand, though not like, Tickle Me Elmo in demand, and I believe with my whole heart that given the right circumstances everyone acts in their own best interests whenever possible.

What I don't believe is that they did it on THIS case which clearly freaked them out badly. Sandbagging this case by tampering with the evidence, and then doing it AGAIN a couple of months later when the determination had been made that this was a serial killer is not self serving. Do I think they did everything right? No. Do I see any medical professional or law enforcement officer willing to compromise finding this killer by taking a bribe, or leaving the body, or taking an organ (the wrong way for a medical specimen mind you).

But cant you see that if you were going to chance your arm and quickly remove an organ you are going to make sure you dont get seen or caught. Especially if you are looking to save money or keep it for yourself having been given it for the specific purchase of organs (see attachment)

And I'm sure that there were people that sociopathic to say screw the case, I need what I need. But everyone there would have to have been equally sociopathic. And I think you need at least three people that uncaring, all courting arrest because it was only legal under certain circumstances, all who meet at the same time and somehow manage to silence everyone who saw the body prior to the organ theft so they don't say "Hey, there was stuff in here before and now it's gone". Because the intestines were out at the scene, so that cavity was partially exposed. And people did see inside. And none of them, even those with no notion of anatomy, noticed that the pelvic cavity was 50% emptier than it was before they went for lunch? And no one knew when the coroner was going to show up, so he could have walked in on some random guy cutting out a uterus, and straight to jail for all of them.

But no one can say the missing organs were present when the body was taken to the mortuary. I presume all the intestines were simply placed back in the open abdomen or on top of the body. With regards to Eddowes when the doctors viewed the body at the crime scene having known that organs were missing from Chapman you would have assumed they would have checked

But no one can say that someone did not cross the palms with silver of the mortuary keepers to turn a blind eye.

Anything is possible !

The only thing that we can be certain of is that the organs were missing when the post mortems were done.

What happened to them is for each individual to make their own choice based on how they interpret the facts and the arguments which have been put forward in both scenarios.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

[B]

But no one can say that someone did not cross the palms with silver of the mortuary keepers to turn a blind eye.

But no-one can say they did either.
On the one hand you want to dismiss what people who were there say; police, press, etc. and replace their observations with your conjectures.

Anything is possible !

Oh dear, oh dear!
Trevor, if you had unearthed a comment, by the police or in the press, which stated that someone passing the mortuary had noticed there was no police presence, then you would have cause.
Resistance to this concept would be considerably less.

Instead, you conjure up some hypothesis and expect others to prove it wrong. We are living in desperate times indeed if this is how a detective puts his case together - heaven help us....

Speculation is used to open up alternate lines of inquiry, it is not used to draw conclusions.

If you have no evidence that the bodies of these victims were ever left unattended prior to the end of the inquest, then you have no cause to suggest they were in order to justify your theory.
When you/we actually look into the issue we do find comments in support of the bodies being guarded.

Your hypothesis fails to convince due to you ignoring the evidence, circumstantial as it is, it still does not support your conjecture.

[Michael W Richards]

My reading of the evidence suggests that we have an opportunist who struck at easy targets. (Or opportunists, plural, if you like). I don't see that it's at all necessary to conclude that we have a "stalker" of "actively soliciting" street-women.

Its been a while since you and I have exchanged comments Gareth, I hope you're well and having a great summer. I would hope that you would agree Sam that almost every published characterization of a Ripper victim includes the term Prostitute, though it seems unclear whether Kate or Liz had done any of that sort of activity in the summer leading up to that Fall, or more specifically, at the time of their murders, respectively. We can say that Mary must either have been soliciting and then spending without paying rent for a few weeks, or that she was out earning less at the time of her murder.

Cheers Sam

[lynn cates]

kidney

Hello Errata. Would you be comfortable in having the assailant taking both uteri, but ONLY the kidney being taken by medical personnel?

Note the VERY different description of HOW the kidney was taken.

Cheers.
LC

[Harry D]

Anything's possible in the world of Marriott. From sneaky organ thieves at the mortuary to giant rats running around with 'menstrual rags', but the idea that a violent serial killer could've pulled out a woman's innards is sheer lunacy.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Errata. Would you be comfortable in having the assailant taking both uteri, but ONLY the kidney being taken by medical personnel?

Note the VERY different description of HOW the kidney was taken.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lyn
That could have been because the bodies were taken to 2 different mortuaries and organs removed by two different persons.

That could also explain why two uteri were taken. If the killer had taken chapmans uterus why would he want to take another?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Anything's possible in the world of Marriott. From sneaky organ thieves at the mortuary to giant rats running around with 'menstrual rags', but the idea that a violent serial killer could've pulled out a woman's innards is sheer lunacy.

Lunacy
You need to take a look back at some of your posts both on this thread and the whitechapel mystery then you can see lunacy in its true form

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

If the killer had taken chapmans uterus why would he want to take another?

There are some arguments that catch me totally off guard. I never saw this one coming, for example.

[c.d.]

There are some arguments that catch me totally off guard. I never saw this one coming, for example.

Are we to believe that taking one uterus is normal behavior and socially acceptable but taking two is somehow bizarre?

c.d.

[c.d.]

Hello Errata. Would you be comfortable in having the assailant taking both uteri, but ONLY the kidney being taken by medical personnel?

Note the VERY different description of HOW the kidney was taken.

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

Just so I am clear here -- the mortuary attendant is a different person than the killer, correct?

If so, it must have been terribly frustrating for him having to wait for a chopped up woman to come in so he could do his thing without it being discovered.

c.d.

[c.d.]

Anything's possible in the world of Marriott. From sneaky organ thieves at the mortuary to giant rats running around with 'menstrual rags', but the idea that a violent serial killer could've pulled out a woman's innards is sheer lunacy.

Indeed, Harry. The streets of Whitechapel were filled with copy cat killers, killers who focused on uteri, other killers who had a preference for kidneys, left handed killers, right handed killers, ambidextrous killers, killers who cut throats in parallel lines, single cut killers, and jilted lovers who flipped out and took out their rage by ripping out intestines. Oh yeah and a few lunatics and wacked out mortuary attendants.

Throw in a club conspiracy and a police cover up too. It was one crazy ass place in the Fall of 1888.

c.d.

[Trevor Marriott]

Are we to believe that taking one uterus is normal behavior and socially acceptable but taking two is somehow bizarre?

c.d.

No but those on here who keep suggesting the organs were taken by the killer as trophies need to wise up and ask themselves that same question.

If you have one why do you need another why not take another body part, i.e. and ear, a breast, two breasts, or the vagina itself.

It should also be noted that entry to the abdomens of both Chapman and Eddowes was by different methods, that indicates two different people.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[c.d.]

No but those on here who keep suggesting the organs were taken by the killer as trophies need to wise up and ask themselves that same question.

If you have one why do you need another why not take another body part, i.e. and ear, a breast, two breasts, or the vagina itself.

It should also be noted that entry to the abdomens of both Chapman and Eddowes was by different methods, that indicates two different people.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hello Trevor,

So are you saying that we should be surprised that a killer who takes a uterus in the first place doesn't behave in a rational, consistent manner?

c.d.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Trevor,

So are you saying that we should be surprised that a killer who takes a uterus in the first place doesn't behave in a rational, consistent manner?

c.d.

I am questioning the logic of taking a second when you have one. If you are a killer and you know you are going take trophies in the first instance you are rational to a certain degree are you not?

Also if taking organs was part of the overall scheme why mutilate the abdomens in such a way that might damage the intended organs?

Perhaps you might enlighten us as to why the killer would want to take a second uterus when he already has one and an opportunity to take other organs. If organ harvesting was the motive besides murder.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk