Did The Ripper Remove Organs?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Trevor,

I'm sure that I am going to regret this, but why is it impossible to cut the abdominal stitches made at a post mortem, remove anything you want, and then re-stitch the abdomen?

And that post was from an ex-policeman. The mind boggles Doc.

[Trevor Marriott]

I answered your points in detail. You haven’t answered one of mine properly which clearly illustrates that you have no answers. This is poor stuff even for you Trevor.

I have the answers, the problem is that the answers are not what you want to hear or wont accept as being the right answers

Here is further proof to corroborate Insp Reid and adds even more weight to who removed the organs and from where

Superintendent Arnold who was in overall charge of Whitechapel policing, and visited the crime scene shortly after the discovery of the body. The relevant part of the article reads “The kidneys and heart had also been removed from the body, and placed on the table by the side of the breasts

The second piece of corroboration comes from The New York Herald dated November 10th and is a quote from Dr Gabe who also attended the crime scene while the body was still in situ:
“The nose and ears were sliced away. The throat was cut from left to right, so that the vertebrae alone prevented a heads manlike severance. Below the neck the trunk suggested a sheep's carcass in a slaughter house. Ribs and backbone were exposed and the stomach, entrails, heart and liver had been cut out and carefully placed beside the mutilated trunk.

Now I hope that the aforementioned will silence you on this topic because I have nothing further to add and I rest my case

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have the answers, the problem is that the answers are not what you want to hear or wont accept as being the right answers

Here is further proof to corroborate Insp Reid and adds even more weight to who removed the organs and from where

Superintendent Arnold who was in overall charge of Whitechapel policing, and visited the crime scene shortly after the discovery of the body. The relevant part of the article reads “The kidneys and heart had also been removed from the body, and placed on the table by the side of the breasts

The second piece of corroboration comes from The New York Herald dated November 10th and is a quote from Dr Gabe who also attended the crime scene while the body was still in situ:
“The nose and ears were sliced away. The throat was cut from left to right, so that the vertebrae alone prevented a heads manlike severance. Below the neck the trunk suggested a sheep's carcass in a slaughter house. Ribs and backbone were exposed and the stomach, entrails, heart and liver had been cut out and carefully placed beside the mutilated trunk.

Now I hope that the aforementioned will silence you on this topic because I have nothing further to add and I rest my case


www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No answers just irrelevancies.

I asked you 4 questions. You didn’t answer any of them. I answered yours fully so stop embarrassing yourself and answer mine.


1. Would you accept that no one can give us a definitive time that the killer would have required in Mitre Square to have killed and mutilated Catherine Eddowes and then removed her uterus and kidney? And by saying this Trevor I’m not asking for one or two people’s estimations. I’m asking if we know exactly how long he required with a number which is disputed by no one?

2. Would you accept that we cannot possibly know how closely the clocks used by Joseph Lawende and PC Watkins were synchronised, which means that it is impossible for us to state with any real accuracy how much time might have elapsed between the killer seeing Eddowes and her killer and the discovery of her body? (And please don’t bother mentioning how long the couple waited after Lawende passed before entering Mitre Square because this is an unknown and we are ONLY looking at how much time the killer could theoretically have had)

3. Would you accept the obvious FACT that organ thieves would always have taken organs from a body due for a post mortem after that post mortem had taken place? (Please don’t tell me that I need to explain why this is obvious Trevor)

4. If you accept point 3 (and if you don’t you will be the only person on the entire planet that doesn’t) then could you provide an explanation for these alleged organ thieves stealing body parts prior to the PM. Please don’t use the “needs must” argument because no one could have needed a uterus and a kidney so desperately that they couldn’t have waited a very few hours. And please remember that organ thieves wouldn’t have wanted their scam being discovered so…after a PM so that no one could see that the body had been tampered with because no one would have paid the body any further attention, when no police or doctors were sniffing around (especially with such a high profile corpse which would have had far more scrutiny than most) and under the cover of darkness when things in general are quieter?


They aren’t difficult. Stop ducking and diving. Answer them.

[Trevor Marriott]

No answers just irrelevancies.

I asked you 4 questions. You didn’t answer any of them. I answered yours fully so stop embarrassing yourself and answer mine.


1. Would you accept that no one can give us a definitive time that the killer would have required in Mitre Square to have killed and mutilated Catherine Eddowes and then removed her uterus and kidney? And by saying this Trevor I’m not asking for one or two people’s estimations. I’m asking if we know exactly how long he required with a number which is disputed by no one?

2. Would you accept that we cannot possibly know how closely the clocks used by Joseph Lawende and PC Watkins were synchronised, which means that it is impossible for us to state with any real accuracy how much time might have elapsed between the killer seeing Eddowes and her killer and the discovery of her body? (And please don’t bother mentioning how long the couple waited after Lawende passed before entering Mitre Square because this is an unknown and we are ONLY looking at how much time the killer could theoretically have had)

3. Would you accept the obvious FACT that organ thieves would always have taken organs from a body due for a post mortem after that post mortem had taken place? (Please don’t tell me that I need to explain why this is obvious Trevor)

4. If you accept point 3 (and if you don’t you will be the only person on the entire planet that doesn’t) then could you provide an explanation for these alleged organ thieves stealing body parts prior to the PM. Please don’t use the “needs must” argument because no one could have needed a uterus and a kidney so desperately that they couldn’t have waited a very few hours. And please remember that organ thieves wouldn’t have wanted their scam being discovered so…after a PM so that no one could see that the body had been tampered with because no one would have paid the body any further attention, when no police or doctors were sniffing around (especially with such a high profile corpse which would have had far more scrutiny than most) and under the cover of darkness when things in general are quieter?


They aren’t difficult. Stop ducking and diving. Answer them.

In your quest to challenge all that I post, you have missed my replies and I notice you have nothing to say regarding what Dr Gabe and Supt Arnold said on Kelly I sense desperation setting in with your posts and what both of them said corroborates Reid so if Kelly was killed by the same killer as the other victims and you believe the killer took the organs from the other victims what is your explantion for the killer not taking any organs from Kelly when he had the time to take multipule organs

You seem to have your own agenda, and no matter facts/evidence is presented to you it is not going to change that agenda

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

In your quest to challenge all that I post, you have missed my replies and I notice you have nothing to say regarding what Dr Gabe and Supt Arnold said on Kelly I sense desperation setting in with your posts and what both of them said corroborates Reid so if Kelly was killed by the same killer as the other victims and you believe the killer took the organs from the other victims what is your explantion for the killer not taking any organs from Kelly when he had the time to take multipule organs

You seem to have your own agenda, and no matter facts/evidence is presented to you it is not going to change that agenda

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Simply putting words below my questions doesn’t constitute answers.

Question 1 - Required a yes or a no answer. Realising the hollowness of your position you simply changed the subject

Question 2 - Required a yes or no answer. Realising that the only honest answer is one that utterly refutes the starting point of your comedy theory you simply waffled about a general but unrelated point.

Question 3 - Was a classic. From your response we now see that you believe that an organ thief would open up the abdomen of a corpse and steal organs before a post mortem. They would then hope, fingers-crossed, that the doctors at the post mortem somehow wouldn’t notice that someone had opened up the abdomen. Perhaps it was mice?

Question 4 - You didn’t even bother to respond.

0 out of 4


The difference between you and I is one of approach. I answer questions directly and in detail when required. You, as evidenced above, change the subject, ignore and change the subject. Then, after that embarrassing performance, you have the nerve to add…

“I have the answers, the problem is that the answers are not what you want to hear or wont accept as being the right answers.”

Well if you have the answers it’s standard procedure to insert them after my questions. Or didn’t you know that? Then you expect me to answer your silly points about Swanson and Gabe.

I’ll answer them with pleasure after you have given 4 reasoned answers to my 4 questions. Come on Trevor, show everyone that your not simply waffling (which you certainly are of course)

No proper answers mean that you cannot answer properly.

[Herlock Sholmes]

How long does it take to answer 4 simple questions?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Clearly they were more difficult questions than I first thought. First Trevor totally dodged them. Then he changed the subject. Now he’s on ‘ignore’ mode.

The equivalent of the guilty man’s “no comment.”

[Trevor Marriott]

Clearly they were more difficult questions than I first thought. First Trevor totally dodged them. Then he changed the subject. Now he’s on ‘ignore’ mode.

The equivalent of the guilty man’s “no comment.”

Your trouble is you can't handle the truth, and you have the cheek to imply I dodge questions.

and on the topic of dodging questions, I see you do not comment on the new material I posted on the Kelly murder, and I say again the fact that no organs were taken away by her killer proves my point beyond a reasonable doubt and you describe the questions on this point "silly" there is only one silly person on here and its not me

and you are right I cant be arsed to engage with you anymore you do not want to listen and clearly after all that has been said you still think the killer removed these organs from these victims at the crime scenes from blood filled abdomens with no light available to him in double quick time and without the aid of retractors to hold the abdomens open

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Your trouble is you can't handle the truth, and you have the cheek to imply I dodge questions.

and on the topic of dodging questions, I see you do not comment on the new material I posted on the Kelly murder, and I say again the fact that no organs were taken away by her killer proves my point beyond a reasonable doubt and you describe the questions on this point "silly" there is only one silly person on here and its not me

and you are right I cant be arsed to engage with you anymore you do not want to listen and clearly after all that has been said you still think the killer removed these organs from these victims at the crime scenes from blood filled abdomens with no light available to him in double quick time and without the aid of retractors to hold the abdomens open

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No answers but more question dodging. What an embarrassment.

[FrankO]

Superintendent Arnold who was in overall charge of Whitechapel policing, and visited the crime scene shortly after the discovery of the body. The relevant part of the article reads “The kidneys and heart had also been removed from the body, and placed on the table by the side of the breasts

Why should we believe that Arnold said this? And why isn't this an 'unsafe' piece of evidence to rely on?

The second piece of corroboration comes from The New York Herald dated November 10th and is a quote from Dr Gabe who also attended the crime scene while the body was still in situ:
“The nose and ears were sliced away. The throat was cut from left to right, so that the vertebrae alone prevented a heads manlike severance. Below the neck the trunk suggested a sheep's carcass in a slaughter house. Ribs and backbone were exposed and the stomach, entrails, heart and liver had been cut out and carefully placed beside the mutilated trunk.

It's rather funny that you didn't incorporate more of that quote in the New York Herald of 10 November 1888. The sentence right after what you posted is: "As in previous cases, certain portions of the body were missing."

[Herlock Sholmes]

Your trouble is you can't handle the truth, and you have the cheek to imply I dodge questions.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I’m not implying it Trevor. I’m stating it openly as a provable fact. And here is the proof.



I asked this - Would you accept that no one can give us a definitive time that the killer would have required in Mitre Square to have killed and mutilated Catherine Eddowes and then removed her uterus and kidney? And by saying this Trevor I’m not asking for one or two people’s estimations. I’m asking if we know exactly how long he required with a number which is disputed by no one?

You wrote - The question of timing is academic because firstly we dont know if the couple seen by Lawende were Eddowes and her killer and secondly if it was Eddowes and her killer we do not know how long they stood talking before entering the square the longer they stood talking the less time the killer had to do all that he is alleged to have done.

As we can all see. This is not an answer to the question which was about how long it would have taken the killer to do what he did. The answer required a definitive time. No definitive time was given therefore the question was NOT answered.

I next asked - Would you accept that we cannot possibly know how closely the clocks used by Joseph Lawende and PC Watkins were synchronised, which means that it is impossible for us to state with any real accuracy how much time might have elapsed between the killer seeing Eddowes and her killer and the discovery of her body? (And please don’t bother mentioning how long the couple waited after Lawende passed before entering Mitre Square because this is an unknown and we are ONLY looking at how much time the killer could theoretically have had)

You wrote - Theorising is not an option the facts are what you need to deal with.

Again, as clear as day, this is not an answer to a very straightforward question. It’s typical avoidance.

I then asked - Would you accept the obvious FACT that organ thieves would always have taken organs from a body due for a post mortem after that post mortem had taken place? (Please don’t tell me that I need to explain why this is obvious Trevor)

You wrote - No I dont accept that because once a body has been the subject of a post mortem the abdomen is sown back up making it impossible to remove organs

I’ll admit that this is ‘an answer’ but it’s one of the most embarrassing that I’ve ever heard. So it’s impossible to cut stitches and take organs but it’s not impossible for organ thieves to take organs before a PM (according to you) where the thief would have had to cut open the abdomen? I predict that you won’t mention this absolute howler again. You’ll just hope that no one mentions it.

Finally, I asked - If you accept point 3 (and if you don’t you will be the only person on the entire planet that doesn’t) then could you provide an explanation for these alleged organ thieves stealing body parts prior to the PM. Please don’t use the “needs must” argument because no one could have needed a uterus and a kidney so desperately that they couldn’t have waited a very few hours. And please remember that organ thieves wouldn’t have wanted their scam being discovered so…after a PM so that no one could see that the body had been tampered with because no one would have paid the body any further attention, when no police or doctors were sniffing around (especially with such a high profile corpse which would have had far more scrutiny than most) and under the cover of darkness when things in general are quieter?

You gave absolutely no response.

so

1. You wrote on a different subject to avoid having to answer the question.
2. You wrote a sentence unconnected to the question to avoid answering.
3. You gave possibly the most embarrassing answer I’ve heard in 8 years of posting on here (and from a former police officer!!)
4. You just didn’t bother giving an answer.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why should we believe that Arnold said this? And why isn't this an 'unsafe' piece of evidence to rely on?


It's rather funny that you didn't incorporate more of that quote in the New York Herald of 10 November 1888. The sentence right after what you posted is: "As in previous cases, certain portions of the body were missing."

Thanks for that Frank. A bit of selective quoting by Trevor I see.

It’s remarkable how Trevor manages to judge who is ‘safe’ and who isn’t. Macnaghten makes two mistakes about Druitt and Trevor says that we should consign everything that he ever said to the dustbin of history. On the other hand Inspector Reid, in his News of The World article makes around 20 errors (in one of them he can’t even remember what year the Eddowes murder took place and gives an either/or with two years which were both wrong!) and yet Trevor considers him ‘safe.’ You couldn’t make it up Frank, but this is a man who has just said that an organ thief was capable of slicing open an abdomen but he just couldn’t manage to cut some stitches.

[Herlock Sholmes]

We can all dispute details and interpretations but some things are just a question of logic and shouldn’t be denied.


If person A said “Frank took the book from the top shelf without having to stand on anything.”

And person B said “Frank couldn’t have reached the book from that shelf.”


We would have to know two things to decide on whether it was possible or not. How high Frank could reach and how high the shelf was. Surely no one could dispute this?


I say that the killer removed organs in Mitre Square. Trevor says that he wouldn’t have had time to do it.


Therefore just as in the ‘Frank scenario’ we need to know 2 things to assess Trevor’s claim.


We need to know, A) what the indisputable minimum time was that the killer would have required to kill and mutilate Eddowes and then remove the two organs? and,

B) what was the maximum time that the killer had available to him in Mitre Square?


If A is bigger than B then Trevor would be correct. If B is bigger than A then I would be correct.

Is there anyone on earth that disagrees with this simple logic? We can see of course why Trevor refuses to respond.

[Trevor Marriott]

We can all dispute details and interpretations but some things are just a question of logic and shouldn’t be denied.


If person A said “Frank took the book from the top shelf without having to stand on anything.”

And person B said “Frank couldn’t have reached the book from that shelf.”


We would have to know two things to decide on whether it was possible or not. How high Frank could reach and how high the shelf was. Surely no one could dispute this?


I say that the killer removed organs in Mitre Square. Trevor says that he wouldn’t have had time to do it.


Therefore just as in the ‘Frank scenario’ we need to know 2 things to assess Trevor’s claim.


We need to know, A) what the indisputable minimum time was that the killer would have required to kill and mutilate Eddowes and then remove the two organs? and,

B) what was the maximum time that the killer had available to him in Mitre Square?


If A is bigger than B then Trevor would be correct. If B is bigger than A then I would be correct.

Is there anyone on earth that disagrees with this simple logic? We can see of course why Trevor refuses to respond.

You have clearly lost the plot

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

You have clearly lost the plot

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And you are clearly no detective. Your point about the stitches was the funniest comment I’ve heard on this subject for years.

And I’ll just point out again….not one single answer to the questions despite me answering yours in detail.