Facial Mutilations

[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.

[Harry D]

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

[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.

[DJA]

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

Yay!

Good that you have finally seen the light.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yay!

Good that you have finally seen the light.

"A Freudian slip should have read"the uterus was still present" in too much of a rush to put you people right again [/QUOTE]

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

We know it wasn't present at the mortuary the doctors found it missing there. You keep changing the goal posts to suit.

You show me where Dr Phillips states that the uterus was missing when he examined the body at the crime scene?

The coroners question to Phillips is there is black and white and is irrefutable. Accept it and move on if you can?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

Firstly, why rip and mutilate the abdomen open simply to remove a uterus. Doing so would damage any internal organs the killer may have been seeking if that were the motive?

Secondly, you don't need to remove the intestines to remove a uterus.

Au contrair mon ami, people do now take this seriously,except it seems for you and handful of others who are still lost in the old accepted theories surrounding this mystery, and are clearly not going to change, come hell and high water, and will do everything possible to destroy anything new which upsets the status quo.

Lets wrap this up now once and for all its becoming tiresome having to keep repeating the same things over and over again.

Can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the organs of both Eddowes and Chapman were discovered missing while the bodies were still at the crime scenes?

Furthermore can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the organs were not removed at the mortuary during those long hours between the bodies arriving at the mortuaries and the post mortems being carried out?

If you cant then you have to accept that anything is possible.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[lynn cates]

in league

Hello Trevor. Thanks.

"I have to say you are wrong on this as Baxter's question to Phillips clearly points to the fact that the uterus was not present in Chapman's abdomen when the body was at the crime scene."

Completely agree. And THAT is my point. So we'll be wrong together?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

psychological clothing

Hello (again) Trevor.

"A Freudian slip"

Is that similar to a Jungian chemise? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello (again) Trevor.

"A Freudian slip"

Is that similar to a Jungian chemise? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

Very good, but it will go way over the heads of some !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

We know it wasn't present at the mortuary the doctors found it missing there. You keep changing the goal posts to suit.

You show me where Dr Phillips states that the uterus was missing when he examined the body at the crime scene?

The coroners question to Phillips is there is black and white and is irrefutable. Accept it and move on if you can?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

(Coroner) - Was the whole of the body there?
(Phillips) - No; the absent portions being from the abdomen.
(Coroner) - Are those portions such as would require anatomical knowledge to extract?
(Phillips) - I think the mode in which they were extracted did show some anatomical knowledge.
(Coroner) - You do not think they could have been lost accidentally in the transit of the body to the mortuary?
(Phillips) - I was not present at the transit. I carefully closed up the clothes of the woman. Some portions had been excised.

There is no need to say anything more than this. The portions Phillips speak of were excised, and had been taken away already as Phillips saw the body. They did not disappear at the morgue.

[Jon Guy]

Very good, but it will go way over the heads of some !

I believe the chemise goes over the head, but you step into a slip.

[Fisherman]

I believe the chemise goes over the head, but you step into a slip.

Well, somebody is doing just that!

[Trevor Marriott]

(Coroner) - Was the whole of the body there?
(Phillips) - No; the absent portions being from the abdomen.
(Coroner) - Are those portions such as would require anatomical knowledge to extract?
(Phillips) - I think the mode in which they were extracted did show some anatomical knowledge.
(Coroner) - You do not think they could have been lost accidentally in the transit of the body to the mortuary?
(Phillips) - I was not present at the transit. I carefully closed up the clothes of the woman. Some portions had been excised.

There is no need to say anything more than this. The portions Phillips speak of were excised, and had been taken away already as Phillips saw the body. They did not disappear at the morgue.

That what you cite is his evidence from the post mortem.The excised as referred to were the intestines which were seen at the crime scene and were out of the abdomen and the finding of the utetrus missing at the post mortem

Hence the coroners question which is irrefutable evidence

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

That what you cite is his evidence from the post mortem.The excised as referred to were the intestines which were seen at the crime scene and were out of the abdomen and the finding of the utetrus missing at the post mortem

Hence the coroners question which is irrefutable evidence

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Are you suggesting that Phillips "carefully closed up" Chapmans clothes at the morgue? That she was put on the slab with her clothes on, and then Phillips did the post-mortem, whereupon he closed up Chapmans clothes?

Some little reconsideration could be of use, Trevor, take my word for it!