Did The Ripper Remove Organs?

[Fiver]

Among the various arguments clearly showing that Trevor’s argument is false, one is perhaps neglected, even more so when looking at the doctors’ estimates of time and skill needed: we don’t know which organ the killer intended to take - did he perhaps just take the first he could get his hands on?
So the qualified colleague who in 1888 did the procedure in three and a half minutes did so targeting a specific organ. We don’t know that the killer did that.

That's an excellent point.

Another consideration is that all of these alleged organ thieves would need to use a knife similar enough to the killer's that none of the autopsy doctors would notice the difference. The organ thief would also need to not show significantly different skill in their cutting.

[Fiver]

This doesn’t prove that they didn’t take organs but it proves that for them to have done so would have been unbelievably stupid. A huge risk that they had absolutely no need to take because they could have stepped have removed organs at night, after the autopsy (with there being no further scrutiny of the body) under cover of darkness, with no one expected in an out.

For that matter, a mutilated body would be one of the worst choices for finding specific, intact organs. At a minimum, there would be less useful organs than from other bodies.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Jon
If the body dealers were working with a corrupt mortuary attendant, then they could have been given access to the mortuary at any time of the day or night by the mortuary attendant. If it is suggested that the killer took the organs in such a short time,I have to ask how long would it have taken a body dealer to access a victims abdomen which had already been opened up by the killer and remove organs.

With regards to Chapman not only was the uterus taken but the fallopian tubes which were attached to the uterus, In the pics I have posted the fallopian tubes are highlighted and would be difficult to find and remove in the dark.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

A question Trevor:

Your theory claims that the killer didn’t have enough time in Mitre Square to remove organs (despite not knowing how long the removal would have taken and how long the killer had available)

I believe that Chapman was killed at around 5.25 and 5.30 which would have given the killer approximately 25 before the arrival of John Davis. You believe that Chapman was killed much earlier giving the killer even longer.

So what is it about the Chapman murder specifically that leads you to suspect that the killer didn’t remove organs?

[Trevor Marriott]

A question Trevor:

Your theory claims that the killer didn’t have enough time in Mitre Square to remove organs (despite not knowing how long the removal would have taken and how long the killer had available)

I believe that Chapman was killed at around 5.25 and 5.30 which would have given the killer approximately 25 before the arrival of John Davis. You believe that Chapman was killed much earlier giving the killer even longer.

You have hit the nail on the head when you state a specific time frame with Chapman the answer is we simply don't know the time she was killed so it is wrong to make a wild guess like you have done

So what is it about the Chapman murder specifically that leads you to suspect that the killer didn’t remove organs?

Chapmans uterus with the fallopian tubes was removed which can be seen in the last photo I posted. The picture shows the abdomen held open with mortuary clamps allowing easier access there is no way the killer able remove the uterus complete and intact without the aid of a clamp to hold the abdomen open.

Dr. Phillips: I think I can guide you by saying that I myself could not have performed all the injuries I saw on that woman, and effect them, even without a struggle, under a quarter of an hour. If I had done it in a deliberate way, such as would fall to the duties of a surgeon, it would probably have taken me the best part of an hour.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
A question Trevor:

Your theory claims that the killer didn’t have enough time in Mitre Square to remove organs (despite not knowing how long the removal would have taken and how long the killer had available)

I believe that Chapman was killed at around 5.25 and 5.30 which would have given the killer approximately 25 before the arrival of John Davis. You believe that Chapman was killed much earlier giving the killer even longer.

You have hit the nail on the head when you state a specific time frame with Chapman the answer is we simply don't know the time she was killed so it is wrong to make a wild guess like you have done

Again Trevor you post without even understanding what you post. How could I be making a ‘wild guess’ whilst at the same time and in the same passage you accept that I’ve stated that we don’t have a specific time frame.

So what is it about the Chapman murder specifically that leads you to suspect that the killer didn’t remove organs?

Chapmans uterus with the fallopian tubes was removed which can be seen in the last photo I posted. The picture shows the abdomen held open with mortuary clamps allowing easier access there is no way the killer able remove the uterus complete and intact without the aid of a clamp to hold the abdomen open.

The clamp makes it easier. It doesn’t mean that the lack of a clamp made it impossible. If it was impossible to remove a uterus without a clamp don’t you think that someone at the time might have pointed this fact out. You are just floundering around Trevor.

Dr. Phillips: I think I can guide you by saying that I myself could not have performed all the injuries I saw on that woman, and effect them, even without a struggle, under a quarter of an hour. If I had done it in a deliberate way, such as would fall to the duties of a surgeon, it would probably have taken me the best part of an hour.

So Phillips opinion (and he wasn’t a surgeon) was that he couldn’t have done it in less than 15 minutes. That doesn’t mean that someone else couldn’t have done it in less time but that aside, the evidence points to a minimum available time of around 25 minutes or so. Just in case you can’t work it out 25 minutes is 10 minutes longer than 15 minutes.

So we have no reason to suspect that the killer couldn’t have removed organs in Hanbury Street.

20-0 by the way. No one agrees with your theory.

[Trevor Marriott]

Chapmans uterus with the fallopian tubes was removed which can be seen in the last photo I posted. The picture shows the abdomen held open with mortuary clamps allowing easier access there is no way the killer able remove the uterus complete and intact without the aid of a clamp to hold the abdomen open.

The clamp makes it easier. It doesn’t mean that the lack of a clamp made it impossible. If it was impossible to remove a uterus without a clamp don’t you think that someone at the time might have pointed this fact out. You are just floundering around Trevor.

Dr. Phillips: I think I can guide you by saying that I myself could not have performed all the injuries I saw on that woman, and effect them, even without a struggle, under a quarter of an hour. If I had done it in a deliberate way, such as would fall to the duties of a surgeon, it would probably have taken me the best part of an hour.

So Phillips opinion (and he wasn’t a surgeon) was that he couldn’t have done it in less than 15 minutes. That doesn’t mean that someone else couldn’t have done it in less time but that aside, the evidence points to a minimum available time of around 25 minutes or so. Just in case you can’t work it out 25 minutes is 10 minutes longer than 15 minutes.

So we have no reason to suspect that the killer couldn’t have removed organs in Hanbury Street.

20-0 by the way. No one agrees with your theory.

You're not as smart as you think; otherwise, you would have spotted my deliberate mistake. I mentioned abdominal clamps when I should have mentioned abdominal retractors, as there is a big difference. And just to put your smart ass firmly in its place, these had not been invented in 1888. So that simply highlights the degree of difficulty the killer would have encountered in trying to first locate the organs, in the dark and then taking hold of them and trying remove them.

With Chapman it would have been an impossible task to remove a complete uterus with the fallopian tubes still attached given the crime scene conditions

And one question for you how can you explain the fact that the bodies of Chapman and Eddowes were taken to 2 different mortuaries yet we see two different methods of extracting the uterus Surely if the killer had removed the organs with precison and undamaged from Chapman in the same circumstances why did he not show the same level of skill with Eddowes and if the killer was harvesting organs why take a uterus from Eddowes when he had a perfect specimen from Chapman.

I win game over I will accept your surrender !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[seanr]

I have no desire to take part in threads where Trevor posts his weird holiday pictures, but an interesting question was asked.

If we assume the perspective (whether we hold it or not) that the Ripper needed more than 5 minutes - maybe several more than 5 - to do everything he did (not just the medical stuff!), then how does that impact the timeline as structured by Lawende/Harvey Watkins? Or does it impact it?

It's perfectly possible that for more time had been available to the killer than the usual timeline identifies, but it requires that the man and woman seen by Lawende et al, were not the killer and Eddowes, and that PC Harvey and Watkins were being somewhat economical with the truth. The latter is hard for some to accept, but Houndsditch and Dukes Place had to have been some of the most lucrative beats in the City of London, if not the most lucrative, for any officer willing to make himself scarce or turn a blind eye to certain matters. So, it's possible, but probably impossible to ever prove.

On the other hand if 15 minutes was the timing, the killer had to be someone who could do this in the time frame available. There can only have been a subset of people who were capable of doing this, and a significant part of the contemporary investigation focused on just that reasoning.

[Trevor Marriott]

I have no desire to take part in threads where Trevor posts his weird holiday pictures, but an interesting question was asked.

It's perfectly possible that for more time had been available to the killer than the usual timeline identifies, but it requires that the man and woman seen by Lawende et al, were not the killer and Eddowes, and that PC Harvey and Watkins were being somewhat economical with the truth. The latter is hard for some to accept, but Houndsditch and Dukes Place had to have been some of the most lucrative beats in the City of London, if not the most lucrative, for any officer willing to make himself scarce or turn a blind eye to certain matters. So, it's possible, but probably impossible to ever prove.

On the other hand if 15 minutes was the timing, the killer had to be someone who could do this in the time frame available. There can only have been a subset of people who were capable of doing this, and a significant part of the contemporary investigation focused on just that reasoning.

One picture is worth a thousand words, and two pictures blow the theory that the killer took the organs right out of the water

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[seanr]

Fred Gehringer's brother was a butcher who ran a dodgy slaughterhouse just off Cable Street that was raided by Met Police.

It was reported at the time that the quality of the meat was the worst that had been seen.

Fred's social status as a man of influence and power, his previous address in Mitre Street, his brother being a dodgy butcher, and the fact that Fred's 3rd wife/common law wife had a penchant for aggressively assaulting people and cutting them with a knife, lends to Fred needing a closer look.

I submitted the data on Fred's dodgy brother on a separate thread.

The Ripper was used to cutting things up.

Frederick Gehringer the Senior's brother was Martin Gehringer. Martin was a pork butcher, but it was George Gehringer who was raided and charged for running an unlawful slaughterhouse under the Slaughterhouses Act 1874. George would have been the cousin of the younger Frederick Gehringer, who was the lodging house keeper of Great Pearl Street in 1888. The older Frederick Gehringer passed away in January 1888, meaning his widow Mrs Emma Gehringer was left to run the City of Norwich pub.

The Slaughterhouses Act 1874 was the same law which would have outlawed the long practice of slaughtering at the Shambles in Aldgate and led Henry B. Wheatley when writing about the historical practice in 1897, to confidentally assert that the animals were now slaughtered at Deptford and then brought to the shops at Aldgate as carcases.

I'm sure the local police would have enforced these laws diligently, the signs of unlawful slaughtering would be unmistakable. George Gehringer, for example, was easily caught in the act at Shadwell, and so was unable to reasonably deny the offence.

At the trial of George Munro and Henry Skett in 1872, Emma Gehringer stated "my house is a house of call for journeymen bakers and butchers".

Emma Gehringer was questioned by Sergeant Thick after the wife of Jacob Isenschmid had made a statement that her husband frequented the pub in the area run by 'Gehrlingher'. At the time Mrs Gehringer stated that only locals had frequented her pub, this was despite the City of Norwich recently launching boxing entertainments at that venue. I guess the boxing can't have been very successful if it didn't bring any new customers in.
Jacob Isenschmid was a Journeyman butcher.

I wonder if there was an area of shops well known for the butchery trade close to the City of Norwich, and so when Emma had said the place was a house of call for Journeymen butchers in 1872, it meant it was the local watering hole for those local butchers in particular. A row of butchers, if you will.

[Tom_Wescott]

No chance.


The key attribute that the killer displayed... speed!


The Ripper wouldn't have stayed in that square for more than 7 minutes...at a push.


He liked risk...but he wasn't stupid.


Stupid killers get caught.

I wasn't asking how long the killer took, I was asking how much time he had available to him.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

I have no desire to take part in threads where Trevor posts his weird holiday pictures, but an interesting question was asked.



It's perfectly possible that for more time had been available to the killer than the usual timeline identifies, but it requires that the man and woman seen by Lawende et al, were not the killer and Eddowes, and that PC Harvey and Watkins were being somewhat economical with the truth. The latter is hard for some to accept, but Houndsditch and Dukes Place had to have been some of the most lucrative beats in the City of London, if not the most lucrative, for any officer willing to make himself scarce or turn a blind eye to certain matters. So, it's possible, but probably impossible to ever prove.

On the other hand if 15 minutes was the timing, the killer had to be someone who could do this in the time frame available. There can only have been a subset of people who were capable of doing this, and a significant part of the contemporary investigation focused on just that reasoning.

Thanks, Sean, you raise some points here. I think a full 15 minutes might indeed have been enough, but I've seen some put the times down with Lawende/Harvey/Watkins and suggest the killer had only a six minute window. That's really what I was inquiring about. WHAT IS THE WINDOW? Or at least the nearest we can get to it.

As for Lawende & co. versus Harvey or Watkins, the witnesses don't appear to have had a reason to lie, and they rather corroborate each other. Police have a built in reason to fudge the truth. Which is not to say they did in this case. So, if I were to bend any of the testimony, I'm not sure it would be Lawende & co.

Sean, you seem to suggest that BOTH parties (witness and police) would need to be massaged or dismissed altogether to open the Ripper's window. Did I misunderstand that?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Herlock Sholmes]

You're not as smart as you think; otherwise, you would have spotted my deliberate mistake.

There isn’t a person alive who will believe that your mistake was deliberate.

I mentioned abdominal clamps when I should have mentioned abdominal retractors, as there is a big difference. And just to put your smart ass firmly in its place, these had not been invented in 1888.

Then he couldn’t possibly have missed their absence could he. What are you waffling on about Trevor?

So that simply highlights the degree of difficulty the killer would have encountered in trying to first locate the organs, in the dark and then taking hold of them and trying remove them.

Chapman wasn’t killed in the dark.

With Chapman it would have been an impossible task to remove a complete uterus with the fallopian tubes still attached given the crime scene conditions

Then why the hell did not a single medical man spot this glaring impossibility Trevor? Clearly it wasn’t impossible. Get someone to explain this to you.

And one question for you how can you explain the fact that the bodies of Chapman and Eddowes were taken to 2 different mortuaries yet we see two different methods of extracting the uterus Surely if the killer had removed the organs with precison and undamaged from Chapman in the same circumstances why did he not show the same level of skill with Eddowes and if the killer was harvesting organs why take a uterus from Eddowes when he had a perfect specimen from Chapman.

Another non-point. Do you think that the killer was working away with a surgical instruction book at his side. Why do you think that a serial killer would adhere to some kind of method..

The organs were taken by the killer.

I win game over I will accept your surrender !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

In your dreams Trevor

20-0

[Herlock Sholmes]

We know that an organ thief wouldn’t have been stupid enough to steal organs before an autopsy so we know that organ thieves didn’t steal these organs. One day Trevor might come up with a theory that holds water and that he can find someone that agrees will him. Maybe.

[Tom_Wescott]

I just read this excellent post from Herlock Sholmes from Feb. 7th, 2020. It's relevant to a couple of our current discussions so I hope he doesn't mind my sharing it. It amounts to Herlock giving an 8 minute timeframe in which the Ripper had to 'work' in the square.

"To create a scenario where the time available commit the murder and mutilations is reduced to a point where we might begin to question the very possibility, we have to assume things that we are unable assume as facts. But to assess whether the murder could have taken place we simply have to look at reasonable possibilities with no leaps of faith.

And so as Jeff has pointed out, the couple were seen (as per witnesses) sometime between 6.33-6.35. If it wasn’t Eddowes and her killer (which is at least a possibility) then we could allow a longer time for the murder. If it was them (which I think must be statistically stated as probable) then we have a starting point that we have no reason to question. They might have been wrong in some way of course. They might have both lied. They might have been out in their time’s by a minute or two. But we have nothing to point us in that direction of thinking.

Harvey’s time for checking Church Passage amounts to 1.42 (a couple of minutes before Watkins) Harvey might have lied about the rigour of this search of Church Passage. He might have been slightly out with his time. But we have nothing to point us in that direction of thinking.

Watkins stated that he’d discovered the body at 1.44. We know that he did this of course but yes he might have been out in his time by a minute or so but we have nothing to point us in that direction of thinking.

Therefore we have an earlier time for the couple being seen of 6.33 and we have to reasonably assume that Harvey would have seen the couple had they have been there at 6.42.

And so we have to ask ourselves which is the more reasonable, plausible even likely scenario?

a) that the Ripper killed Catherine elsewhere and for some unknown reason risks lugging her body into the corner of Mitre Square?

b) that the Ripper didn’t remove organs at the scene (despite doing it another murder) and that someone ‘stole’ them at the morgue from a body in the most high profile case ever?

or,

c) that Eddowes and the Ripper reached the corner of Mitre Square at 6.34ish and he scarpered when he heard Harvey’s approach at 6.42?

Where is the problem?

There simply isn’t one unless you have a vested interest in making it appear that this murder couldn’t have taken place in the time available. The evidence says otherwise though."

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Herlock Sholmes]

I don’t mind at all Tom but I’d like to add two points. Firstly, why did I keep putting 6.33/ 6.34/ 6.35 etc. I must have had 6 on the brain at the time. Obviously I meant 1.

I wrote this before I had considered the issue of the synchronisation of clocks. I can’t recall who first raised the issue but a lot has been written about it since. George posted an article by Chris McKay which ended with this sentence: Overall I think that if you found a clock in the East End that was telling time to within 10 mins of GMT you were doing well.

This allows for sizeable discrepancies. I know that we can feel a bit squeamish about not adhering to stated times because it feels like we are moving the goalposts to fit but it’s not the case. We can’t assume a specific discrepancy but we have to consider the very real possibility/likelihood of one. This has to work both ways of course. Estimated gaps of time can actually have been larger or smaller but we have no way of verifying one way or another. We just have to make an allowance that they could have occurred.