Did The Ripper Remove Organs?

[Patrick Differ]

And what was the market for an incomplete uterus as per Eddowes. Dr Brown said that the organs were worthless.

Dr Brown also said that with reference to the actual killer and not anyone associated with Golden Lane Mortuary. No one from Golden Lane appeared at the inquest. If there was a market for organs then I doubt it was mortuaries because in 1888 there were very few in London and none in Whitechapel.

Any market would likely be in the medical community and within Parishes where the market would likely be known. London had a serious problem in the 19th Century dealing with death and body removal. 20,000 per year on average. How high was the demand and who supplied it? It wasn't Robert Mann or Hatfield. Golden Lane Mortuary??

[Herlock Sholmes]

I haven’t read all of this yet but I hope to later today.

https://anatomypubs.onlinelibrary.wi....1002/ar.24794

[Herlock Sholmes]

Phillips was reported to have arrived sometime after 5:20pm.

Hi George, Im not doubting you for a second but could you let me know where it says that please.

[GBinOz]

Hi George, Im not doubting you for a second but could you let me know where it says that please.

Hi Herlock,
LLoyd's Weekly News 30 Sep:

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/lloyds_weekly_news/18880930.html

Search on "At twenty minutes past five".

Edit: I've just noticed that I mistakenly stated 5:20PM when I should have typed 5:20AM. That makes more sense. Humble apologies.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,
LLoyd's Weekly News 30 Sep:

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/lloyds_weekly_news/18880930.html

Search on "At twenty minutes past five".

Edit: I've just noticed that I mistakenly stated 5:20PM when I should have typed 5:20AM. That makes more sense. Humble apologies.

Thank you George. When I was working on the timeline last night I did wonder if you had mistaken am for pm? Lost count of the times that I’ve done it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I just moved these comments her so that the Chapman Timeline thread doesn’t get sidetracked.

Me - “Calling Jerry Dunlop or Neil Bell or anyone else…Does anyone know who PC 376H was? He was left on guard at the mortuary after Chandler had left. (meaning of course that no one could have stolen any organs.”

Trevor - “Au contraire-Mon ami - You just can't help yourself can you

If the mortuary attendant was corrupt it would have been easy for him to allow an organ thief wearing a white coat or apron to accompany him to enter the mortuary. The police officer was there to keep the press and members of the public out not those who were entitled to access the mortuary.

We know the mortuary wasn't closed for normal business as the body was stripped and washed by nurses, after being found on a ambulance outside as to how long it had been left outside we dont know but perhaps long enough for the organs to be removed“


Me - Except that we know that organ thieves would, as a necessary practice, always remove organs after a post mortem had been performed. So why in this case (and later for Eddowes) would they change? They had absolutely no need to risk being found out by using your ‘disguise’ method in broad daylight. PC Barnes was given the key so would have known who had gone in and out so, a) those inside couldn’t have known if he or a colleague..or a Doctor, might have arrived and gone gone inside at any time and caught them in the act, and b) what if at some point a senior officer had asked him (in the presence of the person in charge of the mortuary) “and no one has been in the mortuary?” And he replies “only two mortuary workers.” The man in charge then says “two?”

The problem is Trevor that your theory has been disproven but you are just defending it at all costs (something that is sadly to prevalent in ripperology these days) A theory becomes almost a religious belief which the originator feels insulted that people don’t accept it. I asked the opinion of people who all had many years of studying this case. All have judgment and common sense. Not one accepts your theory Trevor. Not because, as you usually claim, that they are somehow attached to an ‘official version,’ as if they are somehow defensive of the ripper’s ‘performance,’ either. That claim has long ago worn thin because you use it every single time someone disagrees with you. You never once stop to consider that you may be wrong. Well you are wrong Trevor. The theory has been thoroughly refuted.

[Doctored Whatsit]

I have a massive problem with the suggestion that organ harvesters dealt with Chapman. Swanson is quite clear in his summing up, and after detailing viscera flung to the left and the right, he reported, "The following parts were missing:- part of belly wall including navel; the womb, the upper part of the vagina and greater part of the bladder."

Not only is that a very substantial part of the abdomen, the absence of which must have been obvious to an experienced police surgeon, but the absence of the navel itself would surely have been difficult for anyone to miss, especially a police surgeon. If Phillips didn't see the navel, then it and the other items, had been removed by the killer, and if he saw the navel, then obviously the killer didn't remove the body parts. I do not see how the very experienced Phillips could miss something so obvious.

[Trevor Marriott]

I just moved these comments her so that the Chapman Timeline thread doesn’t get sidetracked.

Me - “Calling Jerry Dunlop or Neil Bell or anyone else…Does anyone know who PC 376H was? He was left on guard at the mortuary after Chandler had left. (meaning of course that no one could have stolen any organs.”

Trevor - “Au contraire-Mon ami - You just can't help yourself can you

If the mortuary attendant was corrupt it would have been easy for him to allow an organ thief wearing a white coat or apron to accompany him to enter the mortuary. The police officer was there to keep the press and members of the public out not those who were entitled to access the mortuary.

We know the mortuary wasn't closed for normal business as the body was stripped and washed by nurses, after being found on a ambulance outside as to how long it had been left outside we dont know but perhaps long enough for the organs to be removed“


Me - Except that we know that organ thieves would, as a necessary practice, always remove organs after a post mortem had been performed. So why in this case (and later for Eddowes) would they change? They had absolutely no need to risk being found out by using your ‘disguise’ method in broad daylight. PC Barnes was given the key so would have known who had gone in and out so, a) those inside couldn’t have known if he or a colleague..or a Doctor, might have arrived and gone gone inside at any time and caught them in the act, and b) what if at some point a senior officer had asked him (in the presence of the person in charge of the mortuary) “and no one has been in the mortuary?” And he replies “only two mortuary workers.” The man in charge then says “two?”

Conjecture on your part !!!!!!!!!!

The problem is Trevor that your theory has been disproven but you are just defending it at all costs (something that is sadly to prevalent in ripperology these days) A theory becomes almost a religious belief which the originator feels insulted that people don’t accept it. I asked the opinion of people who all had many years of studying this case. All have judgment and common sense. Not one accepts your theory Trevor. Not because, as you usually claim, that they are somehow attached to an ‘official version,’ as if they are somehow defensive of the ripper’s ‘performance,’ either. That claim has long ago worn thin because you use it every single time someone disagrees with you. You never once stop to consider that you may be wrong. Well you are wrong Trevor. The theory has been thoroughly refuted.

I am defending it because I believe it did happen and I say again
Chapman and Eddowes bodies taken to 2 different mortuaries
Two different methods of organ extraction for the same organs

Let me ask just three questions

Do you accept that there were body dealers active in the East End at the time of the murders? Yes or no will suffice

and if you accept the above, how were they able to obtain body parts and in some cases even bodies?

Do you accept that Prof Elizabeth Hurren has published several books on the activities of body dealers and corrupt mortuary attendants operating in the East End at the time of the murders?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I am defending it because I believe it did happen and I say again
Chapman and Eddowes bodies taken to 2 different mortuaries
Two different methods of organ extraction for the same organs

And you are very obviously wrong. It really is a poor show how you are willing to scrape the bottom of the barrel with this silliness. The ripper took the organs. Absolutely 100% certain.

Let me ask just three questions

Your three questions aren’t relevant because you are just continually repeating that these people existed. No one has ever doubted this.

Do you accept that there were body dealers active in the East End at the time of the murders? Yes or no will suffice

Yes. Although I’m unsure how prevalent organ thieves were as opposed to those that stole the whole body and allowed the doctors to take what organs they wanted?

and if you accept the above, how were they able to obtain body parts and in some cases even bodies?

They would have been taken when the doctors had no further need of them. What I mean by that is that if a body required a post mortem then it couldn’t have been stolen or plundered for organs before that post mortem had taken place.

Do you accept that Prof Elizabeth Hurren has published several books on the activities of body dealers and corrupt mortuary attendants operating in the East End at the time of the murders?

Why would I dispute this Trevor? It appears that you will go to any length just to get a ‘yes.’

If you tell me that

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

That organ thieves would have stolen organs from a corpse in a mortuary only after a post mortem is not conjecture as you strangely claim. It cannot be otherwise and it’s worrying if you can’t understand that Trevor.

[Trevor Marriott]

That organ thieves would have stolen organs from a corpse in a mortuary only after a post mortem is not conjecture as you strangely claim. It cannot be otherwise and it’s worrying if you can’t understand that Trevor.

Not all deaths would have required post-mortems so that would limit the supply of organs, so as the saying goes, "needs must when the devil calls"

and how do you explain away the two different methods of extraction of the same organs from the two different mortuaries?

and one more question for you if, the killer was harvesting organs why do we see no attempts to remove organs from many of the other victims? or was it because the killers motive was nothing more than murder and mutilation and the many of the other victims abdomens had not been opened enough and it would have been impossible for organs to have been removed un-noticed?

and finally we get back to good old DI Reid, who was actively involved in the murder of Kelly, who categorically states that no organs were taken from Kelly so his statement is pivotal to the suggestion that the killer did not take the organs from the victim, because with Kelly he could have taken several organs he had the time and the opportunity.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Not all deaths would have required post-mortems so that would limit the supply of organs, so as the saying goes, "needs must when the devil calls"

Not good enough. They wouldn’t, under any circumstances have taken organs from a corpse that was due for a post mortem. It would have meant the end of their little sideline at that particular mortuary and possibly result in greater security at others.

and how do you explain away the two different methods of extraction of the same organs from the two different mortuaries?

Something that you exaggerate the significance of because it suits you. The killer wasn’t a surgeon performing an operation using the latest methods. He wasn’t concerned about the patient surviving so it didn’t matter if he didn’t use exactly the same method each time. It may have been that after trying one way he realised that another way might have been easier or quicker. Maybe his method altered simply due to where he was kneeling in relation to the corpse at the time.

and one more question for you if, the killer was harvesting organs why do we see no attempts to remove organs from many of the other victims? or was it because the killers motive was nothing more than murder and mutilation and the many of the other victims abdomens had not been opened enough and it would have been impossible for organs to have been removed un-noticed?

Trevor, I’ve already commented on your use of this phrase but on you go. Don’t you read what people post? ‘Harvesting’ is YOUR suggestion. You can’t invent a motive just to dismiss it. We can’t say that he was ‘harvesting’ so please stop using this logical fallacy. You just want to invent so rigorous rules so that you can invent a point. We know that Cross heard Robert Paul approaching so if you continue to deny the very obvious possibility that he could have been interrupted then you really are doing yourself no favours Trevor but there really is nothing unusual in that. For years the possibility that Stride’s killer wasn’t an interrupted and it’s certainly possible. I don’t think that she was a ripper victim though (and neither do you)

and finally we get back to good old DI Reid, who was actively involved in the murder of Kelly, who categorically states that no organs were taken from Kelly so his statement is pivotal to the suggestion that the killer did not take the organs from the victim, because with Kelly he could have taken several organs he had the time and the opportunity.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And here we go with Reid again. No poster on here comes close to you for repeatedly stating that someone (or something) is ‘unsafe to rely on.’ Notably Macnaghten who made a couple of errors, the Swanson Marginalia (for no reasonable reason) PC’s Robinson and Hutt (for absolutely no reason and there are more that you apply the ‘cannot be relied upon’ label - coincidentally though, these ‘unreliable’ people, on every single occasion without fail, are people whose testimony disagrees with your own opinion. Strange coincidence

And yet, here we have good old Inspector Reid speaking to the Press 8 years after the murder, in a newspaper piece where he make error after glaring, embarrassing error. The who piece is a tissue of incorrect ‘facts.’ So we would expect this man to receive the standard Marriott label ‘unsafe to rely on,’ but no. Hold on. This time our man is a paragon of reliability. The tissue of errors and inaccuracies are no somehow unimportant. Macnaghten makes two and we shouldn’t listen to anything that he’s ever said. Good old Inspector Spector Reid makes about 20 in one article…stuff that he definitely shouldn’t be getting wrong after just 8 years but he does…and he’s entirely trustworthy according to you. Your blatant bias is showing again Trevor.

And as I and others have pointed out to you, in that article he was claiming that no organs were taken from any of the bodies (and not because of your theory I hasten to add) Reid clearly had a poor memory.