Lechmere versus Richardson.

[Trevor Marriott]

So that means that those wishing to acquire internal organs could only do so if there was a body in the mortuary that had undergone ripper-like mutilations?

Your being silly now. you know as well as i do that with a post mortem the abdomen is usually opened up to determeine the cause of death, and organs would be removed and examained for that purpose. Follwoing this the organs were simply placed back in the abdominal cavity and the abdomen stitched up. The task of that would i would imagine fall with the mortuary attendants, and so you can see how mortuary attendants became involved with the body dealers in the illegal trade in organs.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes the reason being is that their abdomens were not opened up to the point that organs coud be removed un-noticed

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So that means that those wishing to acquire internal organs could only do so if there was a body in the mortuary that had undergone ripper-like mutilations?

[Trevor Marriott]

Have you answered why no parts were taken from Nichols or Stride in the mortuary? Ok.

Yes the reason being is that their abdomens were not opened up to the point that organs coud be removed un-noticed

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have already answered these points

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Have you answered why no parts were taken from Nichols or Stride in the mortuary? Ok.

[Trevor Marriott]

And the suggestion that these body parts were removed in the mortuary is not an irrefutable fact, Trevor. Just because something exists (like the trade in body parts) it doesn’t mean that it must have occurred in this case. We might ask why no body parts were stolen from Nichols or Stride?

I have already answered these points

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

But the fact that two differenet methods were used, and the bodies taken to two differnet mortuaries, and given the illegal trade in body parts, and given the fact that mortuary keepers were also involved in this illegal trade all speaks for itself are irrefutable facts.

The sugestion that the killer removed the organs is not an irrefutable fact !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And the suggestion that these body parts were removed in the mortuary is not an irrefutable fact, Trevor. Just because something exists (like the trade in body parts) it doesn’t mean that it must have occurred in this case. We might ask why no body parts were stolen from Nichols or Stride?

[Trevor Marriott]

From the Daily Telegraph account of the inquest of Catherine Eddowes:

Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown
Mr. Crawford: I understand that you found certain portions of the body removed? - Yes. The uterus was cut away with the exception of a small portion, and the left kidney was also cut out. Both these organs were absent, and have not been found.
[Coroner] Would you consider that the person who inflicted the wounds possessed anatomical skill? - He must have had a good deal of knowledge as to the position of the abdominal organs, and the way to remove them.
[Coroner] Would the parts removed be of any use for professional purposes? - None whatever.
[Coroner] How long would it take to make the wounds? - It might be done in five minutes. It might take him longer; but that is the least time it could be done in.
[Coroner] Can you, as a professional man, ascribe any reason for the taking away of the parts you have mentioned? - I cannot give any reason whatever.

Cheers, George

Brown was not likely to go public and say that they could be used for medical research, that would put the cat firmly among the pigeons and opened up a can of worms which the police would not want for obvious reasons.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

So you know for a ''fact'' the killer only knew ''one'' way to remove organs? .The fact that you claim that two different types or methods used in removing the organs is exactly why the same person who was removing them might also have known different ways, and could just as easily have done so with two different womens bodies. So in the end all you have is THEORY [which as someone has pointed out already] and not fact that youve solved the mystery of jack the ripper .

But the fact that two differenet methods were used, and the bodies taken to two differnet mortuaries, and given the illegal trade in body parts, and given the fact that mortuary keepers were also involved in this illegal trade all speaks for itself are irrefutable facts.

The sugestion that the killer removed the organs is not an irrefutable fact !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FISHY1118]

I would suggest that in 1888 it would, and if the same killer extracted a uterus from Chapman why would he not extract the uterus from Eddowes in the same way?

Too many coincidences !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So you know for a ''fact'' the killer only knew ''one'' way to remove organs? .The fact that you claim that two different types or methods used in removing the organs is exactly why the same person who was removing them might also have known different ways, and could just as easily have done so with two different womens bodies. So in the end all you have is THEORY [which as someone has pointed out already] and not fact that youve solved the mystery of jack the ripper .

[FISHY1118]

From the Daily Telegraph account of the inquest of Catherine Eddowes:

Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown
Mr. Crawford: I understand that you found certain portions of the body removed? - Yes. The uterus was cut away with the exception of a small portion, and the left kidney was also cut out. Both these organs were absent, and have not been found.
[Coroner] Would you consider that the person who inflicted the wounds possessed anatomical skill? - He must have had a good deal of knowledge as to the position of the abdominal organs, and the way to remove them.
[Coroner] Would the parts removed be of any use for professional purposes? - None whatever.
[Coroner] How long would it take to make the wounds? - It might be done in five minutes. It might take him longer; but that is the least time it could be done in.
[Coroner] Can you, as a professional man, ascribe any reason for the taking away of the parts you have mentioned? - I cannot give any reason whatever.

Cheers, George

"None whatsoever" ,makes you wonder why then someone removed them at the mortuary if that be the case. Im sure someone will come up with the answer and try to convince everybody that be the real truth .

[GBinOz]

From the Daily Telegraph account of the inquest of Catherine Eddowes:

Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown
Mr. Crawford: I understand that you found certain portions of the body removed? - Yes. The uterus was cut away with the exception of a small portion, and the left kidney was also cut out. Both these organs were absent, and have not been found.
[Coroner] Would you consider that the person who inflicted the wounds possessed anatomical skill? - He must have had a good deal of knowledge as to the position of the abdominal organs, and the way to remove them.
[Coroner] Would the parts removed be of any use for professional purposes? - None whatever.
[Coroner] How long would it take to make the wounds? - It might be done in five minutes. It might take him longer; but that is the least time it could be done in.
[Coroner] Can you, as a professional man, ascribe any reason for the taking away of the parts you have mentioned? - I cannot give any reason whatever.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

I agree with you about Long, but Cadosh is a different matter for me. He wasn’t sure about where the “No” came from, the garden of No. 25 or 29, but had no doubts about that the thud against the fence came from the yard of No. 29. Whether such a sound was nothing out of the ordinary is irrelevant as far as I’m concerned. What’s relevant is that he heard the sound and the question we have to answer is: how likely is it that the sound was made by someone who who’d entered the garden, saw a mutilated Chapman and then didn’t go for the police/help, but instead disappeared into anonymity?

Cheers,
Frank

Hi Frank,

You make a very valid point.

I originally thought that in Cadosch testifying "They are packing-case makers" he was referring to Bayley's at No 23 and wondered how he could be hearing " a great case goes up against the palings" at 5:20 when the workers there, Kent and Green, testified they usually started at 6am and were late that day. In The Times account of the inquest Cadosch clarified that he was referring to No 29, and Mrs Richardson stated that she carried on the business of a packing-case maker in the yard and cellar. She added that her employee, Tyler, was due to start at 6am.

So how can Cadosch claim that he was used to hearing bumps against the fence before he went to work at about 5:30am, when the workman to whom he attributed the source of those noises didn't start until 6:00am? Leaving that conundrum to one side, it is certain that on the morning of the murder there were no packing cases involved in falling against the fence. Short of classifying Cadosch as a totally unreliable witness, it is very difficult to argue any other solution than the one you propose - the bump against the fence was produced by the murder in progress of Chapman.

Best regards, George

P.S. I've just tried some imported Hollandia Premium.....you guys can certainly make great Lager.

[Trevor Marriott]

But this is what you’re doing Trevor. Basically you are saying “I have suggested a possible alternative scenario therefor it must be true and any other scenarios should be dismissed.” How is that productive? A scenario isn’t a solution. It’s a proposed solution according to one persons interpretation. The fact that there was a market for body parts isn’t proof that this is what happened in this case. Suggesting that the time period was tight to perform the mutilations isn’t proof that the killer couldn’t have performed them.

There’s no ‘evidence’ that body parts were removed in the mortuary.

Well we wil agree to disagree, and have you taken my advice and looked at the organs removal as fact and then try to negate that fact, You will then see that the evidence to show the organs were not taken by the killer far outweighs the evidence to show he did.

and just to show the evidence you seek to rely on is that

1. 3 murders took place
2. In the case of two organs were found missing when the post mortem was carried out some 12 hours later.
3. The inference was from the post mortem that the killer had removed the organs

Not very good is it ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

The chances of 2 different methods pale into insignificance compared to the suggestion that Chapman and Eddowes were killed by 2 different killers. Why couldn’t he same killer have used 2 different methods? Let’s face it he wasn’t working to a text book.

Well then ask yourself if the killer had taken a uterus from Chapman, why would he take another one from Eddowes?

I have not suggested there were two different killers you have rasied that as an issue

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FrankO]

Come on Frank. They did a lot of belly wall replacement operations in late Victorian England. I think we were a bit ahead of the Dutch in that field.

You're quite right, Mike: we had the polders, but you had the belly wall replacement operations!