Facial Mutilations

[Wickerman]

Hi Lynn
I have to say you are wrong on this as Baxters question to Phillips clearly points to the fact that the uterus was not present in Chapmans abdomen when the body was at the crime scene.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Quite the contrary.
Baxter asking if the uterus had been lost in transit only implies the uterus was not present at the mortuary.
Baxter quite reasonably assumed Chapman had a uterus when she entered the yard, but apparently she did not have one when she entered the mortuary.
Therefore, she either lost it in the yard, or in transit from the yard to the mortuary.

[Harry D]

Was Mary Kelly's heart also stolen by these dastardly organ thieves? I can't keep up.

[Harry D]

Trevor, why do you think the killer would go to the bother of slicing open the victim's bodies if he wasn't interested in what was inside? You have two women who are violently attacked, gutted open and found with their intestines thrown across their shoulders. Rather than accept that this was performed by the killer to facilitate the removal of the organs, you would have us believe that on two separate occasions the organs were stolen by thieves when the bodies were at the mortuaries? I know you think you're smashing down the walls of Ripperology with these radical ideas but you can't honestly expect anyone to take this seriously.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Cris, Trevor. I think there can be little doubt that the uterus was taken in BOTH the Chapman and Eddowes's cases AT the scene. So I think that is a non-starter.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn
I have to say you are wrong on this as Baxters question to Phillips clearly points to the fact that the uterus was not present in Chapmans abdomen when the body was at the crime scene.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

I reckon a further explanation may be necessary. Baxter was simply trying to determine that the organs in question were taken away by the murderer rather than being lost with the abdominal flaps, stomach, intestines and all the mess put on the ambulance with the victim in transport. Baxter likely already knew the answer. He was just (maybe awkwardly to us now) trying to drive the point home to the jury - which reinforces the fact that Phillips noticed the organs missing before the body was conveyed to the mortuary.

Phillips should have accompanied the body to the mortuary and this was (too me) Baxter's way of chiding him for not doing it. Having studied both Phillips and Baxter a little bit I could readily name Baxter's probable human weaknesses... but a simple study of his political career alone shows he was far from an idiot.

Y'all can have it back now folks.

Nothing to take back, your post is all conjecture, and yet another attempt to deflect from the obvious

The coroner would not have asked that specific question if he had been told or perceived that the organs were all present at the crime scene.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[lynn cates]

mutilations

Hello Gareth.

". . . how on earth did Wynne Baxter imagine that a uterus (and its attachments) could just "fall out", presumably due to bumps in the road?"

Perhaps on account of the extensive mutilations?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

non-starter

Hello Cris, Trevor. I think there can be little doubt that the uterus was taken in BOTH the Chapman and Eddowes's cases AT the scene. So I think that is a non-starter.

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

I reckon a further explanation may be necessary. Baxter was simply trying to determine that the organs in question were taken away by the murderer rather than being lost with the abdominal flaps, stomach, intestines and all the mess put on the ambulance with the victim in transport. Baxter likely already knew the answer. He was just (maybe awkwardly to us now) trying to drive the point home to the jury - which reinforces the fact that Phillips noticed the organs missing before the body was conveyed to the mortuary.

Yeah

Let's say there was a murder today, and instead of a uterus the killer rooted around in the chest and took the duodenum. And someone reads this to a court, or some official. And the first thing out of that guys mouth is going to be

"I'm sorry what?"

And then there's the confirmation that the duodenum is missing. But what the hell is someone going to do with a duodenum? No one even pronounces it correctly, zero fetish value, no symbolism. So Since no one would want such a thing, you really have to be sure that the killer took it, and it didn't just get kicked under a dumpster or something. If it was the heart, the genitals, hell fingers we understand. But a duodenum? Who doesn't make sure something else didn't happen to it?

Well, in 1888, people didn't take organs. There would have been very few cases of that known, and because it's the LVP and genitals are actually dirty bits, who would even want one if they were going to take something? Why not take a heart, a clearly understood symbol and at least doesn't make you pervert?

There's a lot of people who have to wrap their head around this. And the Coroner may be asking because he can't wrap his head around this, or maybe he is asking for the benefit others, leading them to the understanding that there is no other explanation, this weird disgusting thing did happen.

[Hunter]

I reckon a further explanation may be necessary. Baxter was simply trying to determine that the organs in question were taken away by the murderer rather than being lost with the abdominal flaps, stomach, intestines and all the mess put on the ambulance with the victim in transport. Baxter likely already knew the answer. He was just (maybe awkwardly to us now) trying to drive the point home to the jury - which reinforces the fact that Phillips noticed the organs missing before the body was conveyed to the mortuary.

Phillips should have accompanied the body to the mortuary and this was (too me) Baxter's way of chiding him for not doing it. Having studied both Phillips and Baxter a little bit I could readily name Baxter's probable human weaknesses... but a simple study of his political career alone shows he was far from an idiot.

Y'all can have it back now folks.

[Sam Flynn]

If the uterus was found to be missing at the crime scene, why did the coroner ask if it could have got lost in transit?

More to the point, how on earth did Wynne Baxter imagine that a uterus (and its attachments) could just "fall out", presumably due to bumps in the road?

The man was an idiot.

[Trevor Marriott]

This has been pointed out before every time this stuff gets brought up but I'll point it out again just for jolly. George Bagster Phillips testified that he noticed Chapman's uterus was missing at the scene of the crime. Look it up. I realise these inconvienient truths means nothing to wacko theorists. Which is why I seldom post anymore. The same people with the same bullshit... over and over and over.

And I keep pointing out to you that is wrong its about time you got your head around it.

[Coroner] You do not think they could have been lost accidentally in the transit of the body to the mortuary?

[Bagster Phillips] I was not present at the transit. I carefully closed up the clothes of the woman. Some portions had been excised.

If the uterus was found to be missing at the crime scene, why did the coroner ask if it could have got lost in transit?

The above text was from the inquest testimony relative to the post mortem, Not from the crime scene. He didn't find the uterus missing until the post mortem

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Harry D]

This has been pointed out before every time this stuff gets brought up but I'll point it out again just for jolly. George Bagster Phillips testified that he noticed Chapman's uterus was missing at the scene of the crime. Look it up. I realise these inconvienient truths means nothing to wacko theorists. Which is why I seldom post anymore. The same people with the same bullshit... over and over and over.

But WHAT IF, Hunter? WHAT IF!?

[Hunter]

This has been pointed out before every time this stuff gets brought up but I'll point it out again just for jolly. George Bagster Phillips testified that he noticed Chapman's uterus was missing at the scene of the crime. Look it up. I realise these inconvienient truths means nothing to wacko theorists. Which is why I seldom post anymore. The same people with the same bullshit... over and over and over.

[Trevor Marriott]

Will do.
Give us a kick on the arse when you find something worth coming up for.

Before you bury your head here is something to take with you to digest the meaning of plausible which by your posts you clearly don't understand the meaning of

seeming reasonable or probable.
"a plausible explanation"
synonyms:
credible, reasonable, believable, likely, feasible, probable, tenable, possible, conceivable, imaginable, within the bounds of possibility, convincing, persuasive, cogent, sound, rational, logical, acceptable, thinkable.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Jon Guy]

Well you keep your head buried in the sand

Will do.
Give us a kick on the arse when you find something worth coming up for.