Did The Ripper Remove Organs?

[Trevor Marriott]

It was 2pm, Trev

At the same time as the post-mortem was conducted

Thanks Jon

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Jon Guy]

But we don't know when he went to the mortuary, and besides did he ever make a statement to say that he found organs missing? you cant rely on his evidence.

Your ducking and diving now your posts show signs of desperate attempts to prop up your belief


www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It was 2pm, Trev

[Trevor Marriott]

But we know for a fact that Dr Phillips examined the body at the mortuary Trevor. There was no need for this to be documented because anything found at a pre-post Mortem examination would have been mentioned in the post Mortem itself. You are creating ‘rules’ specifically to dismiss what you consider as inconvenient.

But we don't know when he went to the mortuary, and besides did he ever make a statement to say that he found organs missing? you cant rely on his evidence.

Your ducking and diving now your posts show signs of desperate attempts to prop up your belief

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/the-...natomy?t=27448

Hi Debs
Its like I said female bodies and body parts were in great demand.

But of course we don't know how many deaths of females occurred in botched abortions by back street abortionists which would have necessitated the dispoacble of bodies and some of the thames torsos showed sign of having been the subject of failed abortions

Trevor

[Herlock Sholmes]

But the doctors didn't find any organs missing at the crime scene or when the bodies were first taken to the mortuary, if they had have done it would have been the first thing they would have looked for, especially knowing the Chapman was missing organs. If they had carried out any cursory examination either at the crime scene or at the mortuary it would have been documented.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But we know for a fact that Dr Phillips examined the body at the mortuary Trevor. There was no need for this to be documented because anything found at a pre-post Mortem examination would have been mentioned in the post Mortem itself. You are creating ‘rules’ specifically to dismiss what you consider as inconvenient.

[Trevor Marriott]

We know that the trade existed Trevor but its mere existence isn’t proof of anything. For your theory to be correct we would have to assume that our dim witted organ thieves (who clearly must have been staggeringly lucky to have still been at liberty) stole organs BEFORE a post Mortem; at which point they would have been completely unaware what the doctors had or had not seen. Remember, these bodies had opened abdomens. What would have prevented a doctor looking inside and noticing the presence of an organ that was later found missing? Also, wouldn’t the doctors have had to have put the intestines back inside before transportation?

No organ thief would have taken this stupid, needless risk.

You gave no answer to this Trevor…you just ignore it.

But the doctors didn't find any organs missing at the crime scene or when the bodies were first taken to the mortuary, if they had have done it would have been the first thing they would have looked for, especially knowing the Chapman was missing organs. If they had carried out any cursory examination either at the crime scene or at the mortuary it would have been documented.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Debra A]

https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/the-torsos/27999-school-of-anatomy?t=27448

[Herlock Sholmes]

Female body parts were in demand for the teaching hospitals, and there simply were not enough to meet the demand.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

We know that the trade existed Trevor but its mere existence isn’t proof of anything. For your theory to be correct we would have to assume that our dim witted organ thieves (who clearly must have been staggeringly lucky to have still been at liberty) stole organs BEFORE a post Mortem; at which point they would have been completely unaware what the doctors had or had not seen. Remember, these bodies had opened abdomens. What would have prevented a doctor looking inside and noticing the presence of an organ that was later found missing? Also, wouldn’t the doctors have had to have put the intestines back inside before transportation?

No organ thief would have taken this stupid, needless risk.

You gave no answer to this Trevor…you just ignore it.

[Trevor Marriott]

Let's suppose Chapman's organs were stolen in the mortuary. After the press associated with Leather Apron, why would these thefts continue with Eddowes? Why steal organs from the victims of a high-profile serial killer? I doubt the organ snatchers were motivated by the market for murderabilia. If they were stealing organs for simply the profit associated with generic organs, why not take organs from people who passed away under conventional circumstances? Of course, maybe this was being done, and we will never know if great-great-Aunt Alma was missing her kidney, but why risk it with Eddowes?

Female body parts were in demand for the teaching hospitals, and there simply were not enough to meet the demand.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Barnaby]

Let's suppose Chapman's organs were stolen in the mortuary. After the press associated with Leather Apron, why would these thefts continue with Eddowes? Why steal organs from the victims of a high-profile serial killer? I doubt the organ snatchers were motivated by the market for murderabilia. If they were stealing organs for simply the profit associated with generic organs, why not take organs from people who passed away under conventional circumstances? Of course, maybe this was being done, and we will never know if great-great-Aunt Alma was missing her kidney, but why risk it with Eddowes?

[Trevor Marriott]

Looks like a trip to Specsavers for you then Trevor.

I already have been, and the results are in. I can now see even more clearly now all the facts and evidence to show the killer did not remove the organs

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

There are none so blind as those who will not see

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Looks like a trip to Specsavers for you then Trevor.

[Trevor Marriott]

It’s noticeable that at no time does she mention the possibility of organs being taken at the mortuary. She wonders if Kelly might have been involved in the body-dealing business.

Nothing to see here.

There are none so blind as those who will not see

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[bonestrewn]

Having just finished the article, I concur with Detective Sholmes, and have to add that I find the overall article quite thin on the ground. Prof. Hurren doesnt seem to have much reading in JTR matters (her sources are almost exclusively the work of Paul Begg, and while I have the utmost respect for him, he is not the only Ripperologist working!) and she makes no argument about the theft of organs. Moreover, her case that Mary Kelly may have been involved in the body trade is purely circumstantial, with little to ground it. I must agree with the current scorecard of 22-0 on this point.

That said, I am very curious about Hurren's other work and would like to explore it, so still very much appreciate what it adds to our understanding of the time and of Dorset St.

[Lewis C]

I think it is you that is floundering

But if the killer had removed a uterus intact by one method from Chapman which was a more intricate removal than Eddowes, why did he not use the same method of extraction with Eddowes or was he highly skilled anatomist which would indicate a medical man, but even that falls flat because under the anatomy act medical persons could go to mortuaries and obtain organs lawfully

Two different methods of extraction from two different mortuaries = The organs were removed not by the killer

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

See below

[ATTACH]n854287[/ATTACH]

That the lighting was much better at the Chapman murder than at the Eddowes murder could account for differences in how the organ removal was done.