Jack's Escape from Mitre Square

[Herlock Sholmes]

One again you like others seem to want to avoid the real issues surrounding this murder, because where as you say the killer did have enough time, conversely we can also say that he didnt have enough time. We cannot be precise so as to determine whether or not he did or didnt, or could have or couldnt have, or what time was avaialbe to him.

Those who postulate the killer did take them will as can be seen go for the longest time to back their horse

As long as it can be said that it’s a reasonable possibility that the killer had enough time (and it can) then that’s all that’s required. Can you prove that he didn’t have time? Categorically no you can’t. So there’s no need to look for an alternative explanation. Is there any real evidence of the rippers victims being plundered for body parts? No there isn’t. So your’e chasing a phantom.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is where I suggest the anatomical knowledge was shown, because as is known bona fide medical persons were allowed to go to mortuaries on a daily basis and obtain organs for medical research lawfully.

Yes but surely they wouldn’t have just walked in, swiped a liver or two, and then strolled out without telling anyone? They’d have asked first. And again, this was the highest profile case that they’d ever had.

[JeffHamm]

Kellys heart was not taken away by the killer there is more than enough evidence to prove that fact !

Individual Organs were in great demand both legally and illegally, and a high price paid for them as has been documented.

As to police presence that was to stop the public entering not medical personnel ! and they were outside only

Two different methods of uterus removal by the same killer, come on it was 1888 not 2020. Dr Browns expert could not effect a uterus removal without damagin the bladder in 3 minutes, something the killer avoided doing in almost total darkness .

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

There is ample evidence Kelly's heart was missing at autopsy (it's recorded as such in the autopsy notes), and it was not found at the scene of the crime, where all other organs removed are listed and documented as to their placement. There are even newspaper reports indicating that an organ other than the uterus was taken (we've gone through all this before). So, your conclusion her heart was not taken is not one I believe to be correct.

Apart from Baxter's story of an American asking for samples of uterii to go with his book there doesn't appear to be any documented uterus trade.

The "mortuaries" were basically sheds, and there were lots of complaints as to how sub-standard they were. How many medical personal do you think normally hung out there? They weren't "staffed", but used when necessary. There wouldn't be random medical staff going in and out, and the bodies were in the care of the attendants, who were not trained medical staff (and often did things like strip and clean the bodies). There's no evidence the bodies were left alone or that there were potential rouge medico's there to do organ theft. And lawful taking of organs would require permission from the doctor doing the autopsy and would occur after the autopsy - it wasn't lawful to snatch and grab. And there being two different medical thieves, in two successive murders, is far less believable or likely than a common killer doing a similar thing twice. And, Annie's bladder was damaged during the removal (which our unrushed medical thief would not do, given their trained), and Eddowes' bowel was damaged and the uterus only partially removed (again, not indicating a trained medical person with time on their hands). Finally, the fact that two different methods were used doesn't point to a medical person, as they would have been trained in the proper way, while a murderer is just cutting things out.

I don't agree with your interpretation because it seems far more complicated than necessary, and based too heavily on including non-evidenced events - it suggests the evidenced missing heart is actually present, it suggested the non-evidenced medical staff at the mortuary exist and that they routinely involve thieves, it suggests that medical procedures were widely varied but a non-medically trained murderer would be consistent, it suggests Chapman's uterus removal didn't damage her bladder, but it was damaged, it suggests Eddowes uterus removal didn't involve extra damage as well but it was a botched removal and her bowel was damaged, it suggests there is a market for a uterus that these medical thieves had access too (and at most it appears there was a rumour of a doctor overseas who would purchase them - but nobody seems to know who they were, so where's the market?), it ignores the medical testimony that there was no medical use for the organs.

In my opinion, there's just too much evidence we have that gets unaccounted for and/or dismissed, and too much speculation of things and events for which we have no support. Clearly you don't see it that way, but that's the nature of things.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

There is ample evidence Kelly's heart was missing at autopsy (it's recorded as such in the autopsy notes), and it was not found at the scene of the crime, where all other organs removed are listed and documented as to their placement. There are even newspaper reports indicating that an organ other than the uterus was taken (we've gone through all this before). So, your conclusion her heart was not taken is not one I believe to be correct.

Apart from Baxter's story of an American asking for samples of uterii to go with his book there doesn't appear to be any documented uterus trade.

The "mortuaries" were basically sheds, and there were lots of complaints as to how sub-standard they were. How many medical personal do you think normally hung out there? They weren't "staffed", but used when necessary. There wouldn't be random medical staff going in and out, and the bodies were in the care of the attendants, who were not trained medical staff (and often did things like strip and clean the bodies). There's no evidence the bodies were left alone or that there were potential rouge medico's there to do organ theft. And lawful taking of organs would require permission from the doctor doing the autopsy and would occur after the autopsy - it wasn't lawful to snatch and grab. And there being two different medical thieves, in two successive murders, is far less believable or likely than a common killer doing a similar thing twice. And, Annie's bladder was damaged during the removal (which our unrushed medical thief would not do, given their trained), and Eddowes' bowel was damaged and the uterus only partially removed (again, not indicating a trained medical person with time on their hands). Finally, the fact that two different methods were used doesn't point to a medical person, as they would have been trained in the proper way, while a murderer is just cutting things out.

I don't agree with your interpretation because it seems far more complicated than necessary, and based too heavily on including non-evidenced events - it suggests the evidenced missing heart is actually present, it suggested the non-evidenced medical staff at the mortuary exist and that they routinely involve thieves, it suggests that medical procedures were widely varied but a non-medically trained murderer would be consistent, it suggests Chapman's uterus removal didn't damage her bladder, but it was damaged, it suggests Eddowes uterus removal didn't involve extra damage as well but it was a botched removal and her bowel was damaged, it suggests there is a market for a uterus that these medical thieves had access too (and at most it appears there was a rumour of a doctor overseas who would purchase them - but nobody seems to know who they were, so where's the market?), it ignores the medical testimony that there was no medical use for the organs.

In my opinion, there's just too much evidence we have that gets unaccounted for and/or dismissed, and too much speculation of things and events for which we have no support. Clearly you don't see it that way, but that's the nature of things.

- Jeff

Kelly`s heart was described as being absent from the pericardium, there is no evidence which says it was missing from the room and taken away by the killer. Insp Reid states no organs were found to be missing. Dr Browns statement is ambiguous

The issue you raise on medical thieves is an exaggeration of the real facts.

The anatomy Act allowed bona fide medical personnel to go to mortuaries and to freely and lawfully obtain organs and in some case bodies for medical research. A uterus and a kidney would be organs which would have been desirable for research, and two separate removals from two different mortuaries shows the acute need for organs. Bona fide medical personnel includes doctors, surgeons, anatomists and medical students, note, the latter not as highly medically qualified as the rest.

Chapmans body was left outside for some considerable time and yes her bladder was damaged but Eddowes bladder was not, and the killer seems to have had more time with Chapman than he did with Eddowes and he didn't damage her bladder, now that's amazing isn't it ?

N0 permission would be required from the doctor doing the post mortem because in some cases post mortems were not even conducted, and permission was not needed from a doctor.

You suggest the killer is just cutting things out, well if that be so he was in the case of Eddowes pretty damn good and knowledgeable in medical anatomy to be able to locate a kidney in almost total darkness in a blood filled abdomen, and then take hold of it, and cut it from the renal fat that encases it with anatomical knowledge using a long bladed knife without damaging the bladder. Serial killer? if you are correct the man should have turned to medicine instead of murder.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

Kelly`s heart was described as being absent from the pericardium, there is no evidence which says it was missing from the room and taken away by the killer. Insp Reid states no organs were found to be missing. Dr Browns statement is ambiguous

The issue you raise on medical thieves is an exaggeration of the real facts.

The anatomy Act allowed bona fide medical personnel to go to mortuaries and to freely and lawfully obtain organs and in some case bodies for medical research. A uterus and a kidney would be organs which would have been desirable for research, and two separate removals from two different mortuaries shows the acute need for organs. Bona fide medical personnel includes doctors, surgeons, anatomists and medical students, note, the latter not as highly medically qualified as the rest.

Chapmans body was left outside for some considerable time and yes her bladder was damaged but Eddowes bladder was not, and the killer seems to have had more time with Chapman than he did with Eddowes and he didn't damage her bladder, now that's amazing isn't it ?

N0 permission would be required from the doctor doing the post mortem because in some cases post mortems were not even conducted, and permission was not needed from a doctor.

You suggest the killer is just cutting things out, well if that be so he was in the case of Eddowes pretty damn good and knowledgeable in medical anatomy to be able to locate a kidney in almost total darkness in a blood filled abdomen, and then take hold of it, and cut it from the renal fat that encases it with anatomical knowledge using a long bladed knife without damaging the bladder. Serial killer? if you are correct the man should have turned to medicine instead of murder.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

I would want to see a contemporary legal description that allows for the taking of organs, prior to a scheduled autopsy in a murder case, where the taking can be done without informing anyone, particularly the police when it becomes apparent the missing organ has become a highlight of the case. Demonstrate there is support for your speculations and I may reconsider them as possible. Personally, I don't think you claim that it was entirely fine for any old medically connected person to walk in to a mortuary, grab what they want, tell nobody, ask nobody for permission to do, particularly when the body is there scheduled for a post mortem.

I also think you're simply wrong with regards to Kelly's heart being missing as there is nothing ambiguous about the statement that the heart was absent at the time of autopsy and there is a complete listing of the placement of the organs found at the crime scene. There are even a number of newspaper reports that indicate an organ other than the uterus was taken, but that the police did not want the specifics released. But even if it wasn't the heart, that still means some organ was taken from the Kelly crime scene. That's what the evidence and testimony tells us, though I recognize that the taking of an organ other than the uterus makes it hard to argue for the pre-post-mortem medical thief. But evidence that contradicts a hypothesis rules against the hypothesis, not the other way round, which is what you are arguing. Insp. Reid's statement comes years later, and his understanding was that no organs were taken because the heart wasn't found to be missing until after the body was removed for autopsy. At the crime scene, they thought they had accounted for all the organs, particularly the uterus, so his memory of that was that all was accounted for. It was later determined the heart was missing, and Reid was not at the autopsy to know that. Statements made at the time trump statements made years later.

He didn't damage Eddowes' bladder, but he didn't get the whole thing, and he damaged her bowel. What's so amazing about that? It's not like he did a good job, rather, a particularly botched one. Where's your medical training in that? That's not a medical procedure, that's someone hacking things out.

And no, medical knowledge was not required. You are again conflating the term anatomical knowledge with human medical knowledge. Even Dr. Phillips states that sufficient knowledge would be had by someone used to cutting up animals. Also, the medical opinion at the time varied from Dr. Phillips statement of medical knowledge (which he did say, but later acknowledges it was not necessary) all the way down to "no knowledge whatsoever, not even that of a slaughterman". And we know, from subsequent murderers, that mutilations and removal of kidneys, etc, have been done by those with no formal knowledge (William Chase, for example, removed both kidneys from one victim, and he was a paranoid schizophrenic with no medical training, although to be fair, he did have some familiarity with the internals of some animals as he cut up dogs and rabbits).

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

I would want to see a contemporary legal description that allows for the taking of organs, prior to a scheduled autopsy in a murder case, where the taking can be done without informing anyone, particularly the police when it becomes apparent the missing organ has become a highlight of the case. Demonstrate there is support for your speculations and I may reconsider them as possible. Personally, I don't think you claim that it was entirely fine for any old medically connected person to walk in to a mortuary, grab what they want, tell nobody, ask nobody for permission to do, particularly when the body is there scheduled for a post mortem.

I also think you're simply wrong with regards to Kelly's heart being missing as there is nothing ambiguous about the statement that the heart was absent at the time of autopsy and there is a complete listing of the placement of the organs found at the crime scene. There are even a number of newspaper reports that indicate an organ other than the uterus was taken, but that the police did not want the specifics released. But even if it wasn't the heart, that still means some organ was taken from the Kelly crime scene. That's what the evidence and testimony tells us, though I recognize that the taking of an organ other than the uterus makes it hard to argue for the pre-post-mortem medical thief. But evidence that contradicts a hypothesis rules against the hypothesis, not the other way round, which is what you are arguing. Insp. Reid's statement comes years later, and his understanding was that no organs were taken because the heart wasn't found to be missing until after the body was removed for autopsy. At the crime scene, they thought they had accounted for all the organs, particularly the uterus, so his memory of that was that all was accounted for. It was later determined the heart was missing, and Reid was not at the autopsy to know that. Statements made at the time trump statements made years later.

He didn't damage Eddowes' bladder, but he didn't get the whole thing, and he damaged her bowel. What's so amazing about that? It's not like he did a good job, rather, a particularly botched one. Where's your medical training in that? That's not a medical procedure, that's someone hacking things out.

And no, medical knowledge was not required. You are again conflating the term anatomical knowledge with human medical knowledge. Even Dr. Phillips states that sufficient knowledge would be had by someone used to cutting up animals. Also, the medical opinion at the time varied from Dr. Phillips statement of medical knowledge (which he did say, but later acknowledges it was not necessary) all the way down to "no knowledge whatsoever, not even that of a slaughterman". And we know, from subsequent murderers, that mutilations and removal of kidneys, etc, have been done by those with no formal knowledge (William Chase, for example, removed both kidneys from one victim, and he was a paranoid schizophrenic with no medical training, although to be fair, he did have some familiarity with the internals of some animals as he cut up dogs and rabbits).

- Jeff

Jeff
i don’t have the time or the inclination to keep going over the same things over and over again on here all the answers to you questions and more are to be found in the chapter on Eddowes in my book Jack the Ripper-The real truth

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

Jeff
i don’t have the time or the inclination to keep going over the same things over and over again on here all the answers to you questions and more are to be found in the chapter on Eddowes in my book Jack the Ripper-The real truth

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No worries Trevor. I would have thought you would have had those legal statutes close at hand as demonstrating the validity of such claims would be fundamental to your line of speculation. Without them, though, we're at an impass, but as I see, I think it's good to isolate the point at which we diverge with regards to the Eddowes' case at least. Cheers.

- Jeff

[Joshua Rogan]

The anatomy Act allowed bona fide medical personnel to go to mortuaries and to freely and lawfully obtain organs and in some case bodies for medical Research

It absolutely does not, as far as my reading of it goes. It allows them to request a body (not pieces of one) for the purposes of dissecion from someone legally in posession of the deceased, and to remove said body only if a) permission is granted, b) they present their certificate c) remove the corpse in a proper coffin, and d) at least 24 hours have elapsed since death. They cannot simply rock up at a mortuary and fill their pockets with organs.

N0 permission would be required from the doctor doing the post mortem because in some cases post mortems were not even conducted, and permission was not needed from a doctor.

This is nonsense. No permission could be granted by the doctor because section fifteen of the Anatomy Act specifically states that it doesn't apply to bodies awaiting a post mortem exam.

[DJA]

Trev has been told that many,many times.

He doesn't allow facts get in the way of book sales and lectures.

Truth is,his last post was nothing more than an advertisement.

[JeffHamm]

It absolutely does not, as far as my reading of it goes. It allows them to request a body (not pieces of one) for the purposes of dissecion from someone legally in posession of the deceased, and to remove said body only if a) permission is granted, b) they present their certificate c) remove the corpse in a proper coffin, and d) at least 24 hours have elapsed since death. They cannot simply rock up at a mortuary and fill their pockets with organs.



This is nonsense. No permission could be granted by the doctor because section fifteen of the Anatomy Act specifically states that it doesn't apply to bodies awaiting a post mortem exam.

Thanks for that. I am not well versed in the medical statues of the day, but it seemed beyond reasonable to suggest that a med student on up could just rock up to a body and cut out bits, let alone prior to a murder investigation autopsy and without having to get permission from anyone. But, since I don't know the statues all I could do was present my hypothesis that Trevor's claim was incorrect, and put that open to refutation by him presenting his evidence. He decided against that course of action, but glad someone picked up the ball. I admit, the above makes far more sense and I would have been truly flabbergasted had it been otherwise.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Here's a link to the Anatomy Act,

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1832/act/75/enacted/en/print.html

First, people needed to have a licence (section I), so not any medically connected individual could practice anatomy (i.e. rock up and take bits). Also, specific locations where Anatomy is carried on had to under go inspection (section II; also relevant is section III concerning the designation of Places where Anatomy is carried on), and the temporary morgues were not to my knowledge licenced for the practice of anatomy (noting, that autopsy is not anatomical research or anatomy, it's a medical examination, but what Trevor describes is people taking organs for research purposes and that would be anatomy). So, even someone with a licence to conduct anatomy can't just rock up to the mortuary and do their research willy nilly, because the location is not a licenced location for such purposes. Section IV describes how the inspectors have to write reports listing all bodies upon which Anatomy was conducted, so Trevor's claim nobody had to be told or asked permission is incorrect. Section VII, VIII, and IX are all covering the various permissions that must be obtained from those in possession of the body prior to conducting anatomy, so again, the claim that no permission was required is incorrect. Section XV also explicitly states that autopsy trumps anatomy (it reads: XV. And be it enacted, That nothing in this Act contained shall be construed to extend to or to prohibit any post-mortem Examination of any Human Body required or directed to be made by any competent legal Authority.) so the idea that it was lawful to take bits prior to autopsy is incorrect.

In short, there is absolutely nothing in the Anatomy Act that is consistent with Trevor's assertions. In fact, the Anatomy Act is the direct opposite of those claims.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

The theory that body parts were stolen rather than removed by the killer is dead-in-the-water as it was when it was first mentioned. The posts above by Jeff and others show this. It’s always worthwhile to look at things from new angles but this suggestion is simply an attempt to stake the claim of being the discover of something that no one else had previously seen. Another attempt at backing up the tired old mantra about the “old accepted theories.” Many things in this case aren't accepted and we debate them and disagree on them but when some ideas are generally agreed upon it’s probably because lots of people have looked into something in depth and arrived at the same (and often quite obvious) conclusion. This issue is a case in point. We have zero to suggest that he didn’t have time to have done what he did. We have Reid’s easily explicable error (conspiracy theorists absolutely love errors even more than they love a good coincidence - though I’m not calling Trevor a conspiracy theorist of course) We have a clumsy organ collector that simply walks in and pilfers body parts, from a corpse in the most notorious, high profile series of murders ever, before the autopsy (thereby destroying evidence) and without seeking permission.

It doesn’t hold water. It never has.

[Trevor Marriott]

It absolutely does not, as far as my reading of it goes. It allows them to request a body (not pieces of one) for the purposes of dissecion from someone legally in posession of the deceased, and to remove said body only if a) permission is granted, b) they present their certificate c) remove the corpse in a proper coffin, and d) at least 24 hours have elapsed since death. They cannot simply rock up at a mortuary and fill their pockets with organs.



This is nonsense. No permission could be granted by the doctor because section fifteen of the Anatomy Act specifically states that it doesn't apply to bodies awaiting a post mortem exam.

We have no idea what went on at mortuaries during this period of time, they had one official who covered many mortuaries who was supposed to check relevant paperwork for the removal of bodies and organs etc but that seems he was only going through the motions and only visted each mortuary infrequently.

So you are correct bodies awaiting post mortems were not supposed to have been tampered with but as stated in the case of Chapman and Eddowes their abdomens were open in such a way that their organs could have been removed un noticed and when the post mortems were carried out the missing organs was as is known attributed to the killer taking them.

The attached newspaper article show a bigger picture ORGAN PRICES.doc

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

The theory that body parts were stolen rather than removed by the killer is dead-in-the-water as it was when it was first mentioned. The posts above by Jeff and others show this. It’s always worthwhile to look at things from new angles but this suggestion is simply an attempt to stake the claim of being the discover of something that no one else had previously seen. Another attempt at backing up the tired old mantra about the “old accepted theories.” Many things in this case aren't accepted and we debate them and disagree on them but when some ideas are generally agreed upon it’s probably because lots of people have looked into something in depth and arrived at the same (and often quite obvious) conclusion. This issue is a case in point. We have zero to suggest that he didn’t have time to have done what he did. We have Reid’s easily explicable error (conspiracy theorists absolutely love errors even more than they love a good coincidence - though I’m not calling Trevor a conspiracy theorist of course) We have a clumsy organ collector that simply walks in and pilfers body parts, from a corpse in the most notorious, high profile series of murders ever, before the autopsy (thereby destroying evidence) and without seeking permission.

It doesn’t hold water. It never has.

Wheres your conclusive proof that the killer even had enough time to carry out all that he is supposed to have done, there is none, because you cant prove categorically the time the killer and Eddowes left the spot where they were seen standing talking. Yes we see posters quoting up to 11 minutes but that is a guess based on the time they want to fit the killer having enough time, and minutes are crucial in the grand scheme of things. The longer they stood talking the less time the killer had with the victim so there are two side to this issue. So my theory is not as wack as you and other seem to want to suggest.

The secert to ripperology is to prove or disprove the old accepted facts, and in this case based on the timings alone we are unable to do that.

But when you add to either theory the other facts and evidence the balance of probability fall in favour of the killer not having enough time, and so if the killer did not remove them there has to be another plausible explanation.

Also ask yourself if one killer why was there no attempt or removal of any of the other victims, and why would he want to take a uterus from Eddowes when he has taken not only a uterus from Chapman but complete with the fallopian tubes attcahed ?

You and others need to take the blinkers off

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Wheres your conclusive proof that the killer even had enough time to carry out all that he is supposed to have done, there is none, because you cant prove categorically the time the killer and Eddowes left the spot where they were seen standing talking. Yes we see posters quoting up to 11 minutes but that is a guess based on the time they want to fit the killer having enough time, and minutes are crucial in the grand scheme of things. The longer they stood talking the less time the killer had with the victim so there are two side to this issue. So my theory is not as wack as you and other seem to want to suggest.

The secert to ripperology is to prove or disprove the old accepted facts, and in this case based on the timings alone we are unable to do that.

But when you add to either theory the other facts and evidence the balance of probability fall in favour of the killer not having enough time, and so if the killer did not remove them there has to be another plausible explanation.

Also ask yourself if one killer why was there no attempt or removal of any of the other victims, and why would he want to take a uterus from Eddowes when he has taken not only a uterus from Chapman but complete with the fallopian tubes attcahed ?

You and others need to take the blinkers off

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

We can never prove exact timings of course but this actually works against your theory as you can’t prove times exactly either. If you could show, without any doubt, that the killer only had say 4 minutes then it certainly would call things into doubt but you can’t. It’s pointless saying “what if he didn’t have enough time?” We know that it’s entirely plausible/possible/probable that did have enough time based on the witnesses and the police. So it’s a bit like saying “ what if John Richardson had a neck disability which might have prevented him from looking properly to his left. If that was the case then he mightn’t have seen the body after all.”

Also ask yourself if one killer why was there no attempt or removal of any of the other victims, and why would he want to take a uterus from Eddowes when he has taken not only a uterus from Chapman but complete with the fallopian tubes attcahed ?

Part of Chapmans uterus and Kelly’s heart? Who can say how a killer is thinking at the time of each murder? What the exact circumstances are. You are very conveniently thinking as if the killer was working to some serial killer manual. Maybe he became more confident as the murders progressed? Who knows?

You and others need to take the blinkers off

And it would help matters if you removed the blindfold. You constantly post with the attitude of “well this is the conclusion that I’ve come to so why don’t these idiots all agree with me?” Perhaps you might for once Trevor consider the possibility that posters are disagreeing with you because there’s an extremely good chance that you’re wrong?