Did The Ripper Remove Organs?

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

Well you clearly have a warped sense of humour as well as losing the plot !!!!!!!!

if it will keep you quiet and I doubt it will, and give everybody a chance to get a word in on this thread, post the questions again and I will answer them

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fiver]

And you are clearly no detective.

That was established by one of the Mods in 2022.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well you clearly have a warped sense of humour as well as losing the plot !!!!!!!!

if it will keep you quiet and I doubt it will, and give everybody a chance to get a word in on this thread, post the questions again and I will answer them

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

My first two questions are in regard to your claim that the killer wouldn’t have had time to do what it is stated that he had done in Mitre Square which is the starting point of your theory about organ thieves.


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 definitively how long the killer required 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 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)

These two questions are about the minimum time required versus the maximum time available.


Then

3. Would you now accept the obvious fact that organ thieves would always have taken organs from a body that was due for a post mortem after that post mortem had taken place (due to the fact that they wouldn’t have opened up a corps’s abdomen before the doctors had done so. To have done so would have revealed the act of theft and led to an investigation, tightening of security, possible sackings etc and the loss of that mortuary as a source of organs)

4. As we now know that Dr Phillips was at the mortuary long before the inquest and we know that he was asked to attend by Brown to compare Eddowes injuries to Chapman’s, and we know that Brown and Sequiera were still at the mortuary around 2 hours after the body arrived then we can very safely assume that the three examined the body. Anyone working at the mortuary would have been aware of this examination but they wouldn’t have been privy to the doctors findings (and doctors wouldn’t have written anything down of course because this would have been done at the post mortem). So why would organ thieves have risked their entire operation in removing an organ which, for all that they would have known, the doctors might have seen before the theft?


Then

5. Do you accept that it would have been much easier to remove organs in mortuary conditions as opposed to out in the street in poor lighting? - If you accept this point could you explain how our organ thieves managed (on a table in a lit mortuary) to take out, in Chapman’s case, just two thirds of a bladder and the upper third of a vagina and in Eddowes case a uterus with a piece missing (which caused Dr Brown to say that it would have been of no use whatever for professional purposes)? Surely you can concede that such dodgy workmanship speaks of a man operating in the street in poor lighting than someone operating indoors, on a well lit table.

You might also want to suggest why an organ thief would want ‘certain portions of the abdominal wall, including the navel’?

[Patrick Differ]

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.

Just an observation but Dr Gabe's comment regarding the appearance if the body to a sheep carcass may not be insignficant. Not if you consider the similarities between the sheep and human anatomy. Sheep were not always hung and gutted. They were also laid on their back for organ removal and inspection of the organs to ensure they were kosher. The sheep kidney while slightly smaller than a humans was also hidden behind other organs. How hard would it be for a killer of animals to find a comparison with that of a human? By the time he got to Eddowes he would have likely had an idea in real time which would have cut his time to execute. Here again just an observation based on Dr Gabes statement.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just an observation but Dr Gabe's comment regarding the appearance if the body to a sheep carcass may not be insignficant. Not if you consider the similarities between the sheep and human anatomy. Sheep were not always hung and gutted. They were also laid on their back for organ removal and inspection of the organs to ensure they were kosher. The sheep kidney while slightly smaller than a humans was also hidden behind other organs. How hard would it be for a killer of animals to find a comparison with that of a human? By the time he got to Eddowes he would have likely had an idea in real time which would have cut his time to execute. Here again just an observation based on Dr Gabes statement.

It’s a fair point Patrick. And let’s face it, this guy wasn’t concerned about technique or whether the ‘patient’ lived or died and he certainly wasn’t thinking health and safety. He was cutting out an object. I’m not suggesting that anyone could have done it but he wasn’t exactly performing delicate eye surgery. I wonder, if the killer did the same thing 6 times, under the same conditions, would the kidney and uterus have been in exactly the same condition as in Mitre Square? I’m guessing that some of the times there would have been more damage. This guy wasn’t being careful and Bond had little regard for his skills.

[Trevor Marriott]

My first two questions are in regard to your claim that the killer wouldn’t have had time to do what it is stated that he had done in Mitre Square which is the starting point of your theory about organ thieves.


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 definitively how long the killer required which is disputed by no one?

This is a badly worded question for a start simply because we have no definitive times to work with, and I have said before if the couple seen by Lawnde were Eddowes and her killer we dont 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


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 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)

Theoretically, we don't know, but perhaps before going out on duty that night the police may have synchronised their timepieces with each other


3. Would you now accept the obvious fact that organ thieves would always have taken organs from a body that was due for a post mortem after that post mortem had taken place (due to the fact that they wouldn’t have opened up a corps’s abdomen before the doctors had done so. To have done so would have revealed the act of theft and led to an investigation, tightening of security, possible sackings etc and the loss of that mortuary as a source of organs.

I will reiterate what I have said many times on this topic. Eddowes and Chapman's bodies were taken to two different mortuaries and we see two different methods of extraction of the uterus. With Chapman, the uterus and the fallopian tubes, still attached, were removed undamaged. Whereas with Eddowes, damage was done to the abdomen in trying to remove the kidney and the uterus. Now, if the killer had removed Chapman's uterus undamaged, we have to ask why did he have difficulty in removing Eddowes, now to me that clearly points to two different persons, and why take a uterus from Eddowes when he had a perfect specimen from Chapman.

Please note out of all the Victims, dont you think it strange that the only two victims that were found missing organs were the two victims who had their abdomens ripped open to the point where the organs could have been removed before the post-mortem

4. As we now know that Dr Phillips was at the mortuary long before the inquest and we know that he was asked to attend by Brown to compare Eddowes injuries to Chapman’s, and we know that Brown and Sequiera were still at the mortuary around 2 hours after the body arrived then we can very safely assume that the three examined the body. Anyone working at the mortuary would have been aware of this examination but they wouldn’t have been privy to the doctors findings (and doctors wouldn’t have written anything down of course, because this would have been done at the post-mortem). So why would organ thieves have risked their entire operation in removing an organ which, for all that they would have known, the doctors might have seen before the theft?

You can safely say what you like, but its facts and evidence we rely on, and there is no evidence to show Eddowes body was examined at the crime scene or prior to the post mortem and organs were found missing. If the corrupt mortuary attendant was present and he would have been as he would have had to open the mortuary and would have been present and would be aware of any cursory examination as to whether organs were missing.
Phillips didnt attend the mortuary till just before the post mortem commenced. He was dealing with Stride.

The body of Eddowes was left at the mortuary unguarded for at least 8 hours before post mortem


5. Do you accept that it would have been much easier to remove organs in mortuary conditions as opposed to out in the street in poor lighting? - If you accept this point could you explain how our organ thieves managed (on a table in a lit mortuary) to take out, in Chapman’s case, just two thirds of a bladder and the upper third of a vagina and in Eddowes case a uterus with a piece missing (which caused Dr Brown to say that it would have been of no use whatever for professional purposes)? Surely you can concede that such dodgy workmanship speaks of a man operating in the street in poor lighting than someone operating indoors, on a well lit table.

You might also want to suggest why an organ thief would want ‘certain portions of the abdominal wall, including the navel’?

The answer is quite simple, there was more than one group of body dealers operating in the East End at the time of the murders, some were more anatomically knowledgeable than others thats why we see a near perfect removal of Chapmans uterus, and not so perfect removal of Eddowes and explains the 2 different mortuaries and 2 different methods of extractions, and perhaps time was of essence to whoever removed the organs from Eddowes causing the damage referred to

Staying with Eddowes the kidney is one of the most difficult organs to locate as it is covered by renal fat and is very difficult to remove by anyone in haste.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[seanr]

Just an observation but Dr Gabe's comment regarding the appearance if the body to a sheep carcass may not be insignficant. Not if you consider the similarities between the sheep and human anatomy. Sheep were not always hung and gutted. They were also laid on their back for organ removal and inspection of the organs to ensure they were kosher. The sheep kidney while slightly smaller than a humans was also hidden behind other organs. How hard would it be for a killer of animals to find a comparison with that of a human? By the time he got to Eddowes he would have likely had an idea in real time which would have cut his time to execute. Here again just an observation based on Dr Gabes statement.

Now, I want to ask you a curious question; have you ever seen a sheep killed? If not, I would advise you the next time you are near Aldgate market, just to look at the thing for yourselves. Just before all the blood is gone from the sheep, it is horribly convulsed; remember that fact also in weak children who are convulsed.

The Retrospect of Medicine. United Kingdom: Simpkin, Marshall, and Company, 1858, pp 29

[Herlock Sholmes]

Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

My first two questions are in regard to your claim that the killer wouldn’t have had time to do what it is stated that he had done in Mitre Square which is the starting point of your theory about organ thieves.


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 definitively how long the killer required which is disputed by no one?

This is a badly worded question for a start simply because we have no definitive times to work with, and I have said before if the couple seen by Lawnde were Eddowes and her killer we dont 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

This is evasion yet again Trevor. There is a yes or no answer to this. I’ve have asked you if you can give me a definitive time and all that you’ve done is to tell me that it’s a poor question BECAUSE we don’t have a definitive time. But you can’t bring yourself to admit this obvious fact.

The only answer to this question is - no, we don’t have a definitive time telling us how long the killer would have required. Therefore we don’t know how long the killer needed to have done what he did.

This question remains unanswered despite your claim to be willing to answer it.



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 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)

Theoretically, we don't know, but perhaps before going out on duty that night the police may have synchronised their timepieces with each other

Seriously Trevor? I’m not talking about the clocks/watches from police officer to police officer (which I made perfectly clear to you and which anyone could understand) I’m talking about the clock/watches from used by Lawende to the one used by Watkin. If you can’t prove that their clocks/watches were synchronised (and you absolutely can’t) then you have to accept the possibility that they weren’t synchronised. This clearly and obviously means that it’s entirely reasonable and possible that the killer had more time available to him than the stated times allow. I don’t see how anyone could dispute this Trevor.

So to sum up questions 1 and 2.

Do we know how long the killer would have required - no

Do we know how long the killer had available to him - no


Therefore it is logically and factually impossible to state, as you have, that the killer didn’t have time.



3. Would you now accept the obvious fact that organ thieves would always have taken organs from a body that was due for a post mortem after that post mortem had taken place (due to the fact that they wouldn’t have opened up a corps’s abdomen before the doctors had done so. To have done so would have revealed the act of theft and led to an investigation, tightening of security, possible sackings etc and the loss of that mortuary as a source of organs.

I will reiterate what I have said many times on this topic. Eddowes and Chapman's bodies were taken to two different mortuaries and we see two different methods of extraction of the uterus. With Chapman, the uterus and the fallopian tubes, still attached, were removed undamaged. Whereas with Eddowes, damage was done to the abdomen in trying to remove the kidney and the uterus. Now, if the killer had removed Chapman's uterus undamaged, we have to ask why did he have difficulty in removing Eddowes, now to me that clearly points to two different persons, and why take a uterus from Eddowes when he had a perfect specimen from Chapman.

Please note out of all the Victims, dont you think it strange that the only two victims that were found missing organs were the two victims who had their abdomens ripped open to the point where the organs could have been removed before the post-mortem

Unbelievable…I ask you about whether you accept that organ thieves would only have taken organs after a PM and you go on about something completely different. You should have been a politician Trevor. When it comes to avoiding answering questions you’re a natural.

This question remains unanswered despite your claim to be willing to answer it.



4. As we now know that Dr Phillips was at the mortuary long before the inquest and we know that he was asked to attend by Brown to compare Eddowes injuries to Chapman’s, and we know that Brown and Sequiera were still at the mortuary around 2 hours after the body arrived then we can very safely assume that the three examined the body. Anyone working at the mortuary would have been aware of this examination but they wouldn’t have been privy to the doctors findings (and doctors wouldn’t have written anything down of course, because this would have been done at the post-mortem). So why would organ thieves have risked their entire operation in removing an organ which, for all that they would have known, the doctors might have seen before the theft?

You can safely say what you like, but its facts and evidence we rely on, and there is no evidence to show Eddowes body was examined at the crime scene or prior to the post mortem and organs were found missing. If the corrupt mortuary attendant was present and he would have been as he would have had to open the mortuary and would have been present and would be aware of any cursory examination as to whether organs were missing.

Phillips didnt attend the mortuary till just before the post mortem commenced. He was dealing with Stride.

The body of Eddowes was left at the mortuary unguarded for at least 8 hours before post mortem

I’d have preferred honesty but ok, this is what I get.

- PC Long stated on record that he handed the apron piece to Doctor Phillips at Leman Street Station. This had to have been sometime after 4.00am.

- Dr Brown, while he was still in Mitre Square, requested Dr Phillips presence at the mortuary because of his knowledge of the Chapman murder.

- At 5.20 Drs Brown and Sequiera are still at the mortuary and the Press are fully aware that Brown is awaiting Phillips arrival.

You should try reading the evidence before making claims just to suit your theory Trevor. So unless you’re suggesting that Dr Brown was intending to sit in that mortuary for another 9 hours until Phillips arrived for the PM then yours is a lost cause.

That there was an examination is proven. Why else would Brown and Sequiera still be with the body at the mortuary 2 hours later? Why were they awaiting Phillips arrival? Follow the evidence and not your own agenda Trevor.

This question remains unanswered despite your claim to be willing to answer it.



5. Do you accept that it would have been much easier to remove organs in mortuary conditions as opposed to out in the street in poor lighting? - If you accept this point could you explain how our organ thieves managed (on a table in a lit mortuary) to take out, in Chapman’s case, just two thirds of a bladder and the upper third of a vagina and in Eddowes case a uterus with a piece missing (which caused Dr Brown to say that it would have been of no use whatever for professional purposes)? Surely you can concede that such dodgy workmanship speaks of a man operating in the street in poor lighting than someone operating indoors, on a well lit table.

You might also want to suggest why an organ thief would want ‘certain portions of the abdominal wall, including the navel’?

The answer is quite simple, there was more than one group of body dealers operating in the East End at the time of the murders, some were more anatomically knowledgeable than others thats why we see a near perfect removal of Chapmans uterus, and not so perfect removal of Eddowes and explains the 2 different mortuaries and 2 different methods of extractions, and perhaps time was of essence to whoever removed the organs from Eddowes causing the damage referred to

Staying with Eddowes the kidney is one of the most difficult organs to locate as it is covered by renal fat and is very difficult to remove by anyone in haste.

I’m not going to bother with this as it doesn’t answer my question.

This question remains unanswered despite your claim to be willing to answer it.

Refusal to directly respond to questions and points, changing the subject when it suits you, responding to a question with a question, poorly thought out responses (the one about the clocks was a jaw-dropper) answering a question that I hadn’t asked, and a complete disregard for the evidence as you continue to make claims not backed up by evidence (I’ve explained the evidence about Phillips going to the mortuary hours before the PM before but you still ignore it because it’s inconvenient.)

Find me one single person who will come forward and say that your ‘responses’ were actually answers. Or that they were even close to reasonable.

I’ll let the above stand…showing the emptiness and desperation of your argument. That you need to avoid, obfuscate and make things up.

[Patrick Differ]

The Retrospect of Medicine. United Kingdom: Simpkin, Marshall, and Company, 1858, pp 29

Deer yes. Sheep no. If the throat is cut and the victim dies instantly then I cant imagine any convulsing. The throat cutting and bleeding out is the 2nd step after stunning when butchering an animal in the Kosher method. In that method the throat cutting is performed to minimize any pain for the animal
Im not sure what point you are making with convulsing? I live in Maryland but would love to get back to UK again.

[Lewis C]

Please note out of all the Victims, dont you think it strange that the only two victims that were found missing organs were the two victims who had their abdomens ripped open to the point where the organs could have been removed before the post-mortem

Hi Trevor,

I say that the correct number is three, but whether the right number is two or three, no, I don't think it's strange at all that the only victims that had missing organs were the only ones in which steps had been taken that had to be taken to make the removal of organs possible. What would be strange would be if organs had been removed without first opening the victims' abdomens.