Kates Cuts

[Sam Flynn]

Annies killer was thought to have made the cuts he did so as to acquire the exact organ he eventually takes complete.

Of course he did. All that was said was that the mutilations were committed as a necessary precursor to securing the uterus -the killer couldn't have removed it without making a hole in the abdominal wall. We could just as well say that Kate's abdominal incision was made "for the purpose of obtaining her uterus and kidney", or that Mary's diaphragm was cut "for the purpose of removing her heart". In either instance, such a statement says nothing about the skill of the perpetrator - it's merely stating a truism that pertains to the practicality of removing internal organs.

"No meaningless cuts".

Baxter's words, which come amid a flurry of similarly dramatic pronouncements.

[Trevor Marriott]

Jon,

On the issue of the focus of the search for suspects, its well noted that a handful of prospects were identified within the specific profession of medicine in September. You mentioned the three. Its because that profession and/or training academies were thought to be likely places to find men with the requisite skills they determined the killer had. That happened only in September, at no later time did they focus on people with that level of knowledge/skill. I never did say they limited their search to those kinds of prospects, just that they focused.

On the excision of uteri, Annies killer was thought to have made the cuts he did so as to acquire the exact organ he eventually takes complete. "No meaningless cuts". In Kates case, there were meaningless cuts..in terms of what needed to be done to get the kidney he takes. In Marys case, most of what is done to her has no meaning or relationship with the act of obtaining her heart. That's the difference Wick. The manner and places and kinds of cuts he uses in Annies case are designed to facilitate the removal of her uterus. Tell me what other Unsolved murder of that period has that kind of specific design..be it on a uterus, a kidney, a heart, a foot...

There were none, which either make the WM murders unique and one off`s, or as i keep saying the killer did not remove them

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Michael W Richards]

Of course he did. All that was said was that the mutilations were committed as a necessary precursor to securing the uterus -the killer couldn't have removed it without making a hole in the abdominal wall. We could just as well say that Kate's abdominal incision was made "for the purpose of obtaining her uterus and kidney", or that Mary's diaphragm was cut "for the purpose of removing her heart". In either instance, such a statement says nothing about the skill of the perpetrator - it's merely stating a truism that pertains to the practicality of removing internal organs.


Baxter's words, which come amid a flurry of similarly dramatic pronouncements.

Actually Sam, we couldn't say that any specific organ was sought from either Mary or Kate based on the cuts that were made. Kates kidney could have been located by a grab and cut, there was no belief that her killer specifically sought her kidney based on the cutting, and in Marys case you cannot say the cuts were made specifically to obtain her heart, stripping the flesh from her thighs was not a natural path to removal and obtaining that organ. The one he takes. The fact he excises others, even one taken in some form twice before, and leaves them behind only serves to punctuate that he didn't want to obtain a uterus when she started cutting Mary. But Annies killer did.

[Michael W Richards]

There were none, which either make the WM murders unique and one off`s, or as i keep saying the killer did not remove them

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I think it makes some of them unique Trevor. Liz Strides murder is in no way unique. I think the fact that Pollys murder is very much in keeping with Annies in all relevant categories almost confirms a shared killer, and we know from Annies murder he was seeking a uterus, so Pollys cuts likely reflect a similar motive. But its not a certainty.

Your belief that none of the victims had organs removed at the scene is obviously contrasted by contemporary statements that some were, so regardless of that belief you will always have those to explain. Deliberate lies would be the only feasible explanation, and in this area of study, we already have enough deliberate misrepresentations, thanks.

[Trevor Marriott]

I think it makes some of them unique Trevor. Liz Strides murder is in no way unique. I think the fact that Pollys murder is very much in keeping with Annies in all relevant categories almost confirms a shared killer, and we know from Annies murder he was seeking a uterus, so Pollys cuts likely reflect a similar motive. But its not a certainty.

Your belief that none of the victims had organs removed at the scene is obviously contrasted by contemporary statements that some were, so regardless of that belief you will always have those to explain. Deliberate lies would be the only feasible explanation, and in this area of study, we already have enough deliberate misrepresentations, thanks.

Stride wasnt a ripper victim so that rules her out of the equation !

Thats the trouble you dont knw what he was seeking if anything, because if he didnt take any organs then you statement is worthless.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

Actually Sam, we couldn't say that any specific organ was sought from either Mary or Kate based on the cuts that were made.

I'm not saying that. All I'm saying is that anyone who wants to take possession of an abdominal organ - any abdominal organ - it is necessary to cut open the abdomen in the first place. To that end, what was said about the mutilations being "for the purpose of" obtaining the organ is a simple truism, nothing more and nothing less.

[Michael W Richards]

I'm not saying that. All I'm saying is that anyone who wants to take possession of an abdominal organ - any abdominal organ - it is necessary to cut open the abdomen in the first place. To that end, what was said about the mutilations being "for the purpose of" obtaining the organ is a simple truism, nothing more and nothing less.

That fine Sam, what I have been pointing out is that Annies cuts were not interpreted as ones that would enable taking just anything out of her abdomen..."I think I can guide you by saying that I myself could not have performed all the injuries I saw on that woman, and effect them, even without a struggle, under a quarter of an hour. If I had done it in a deliberate way, such as would fall to the duties of a surgeon, it would probably have taken me the best part of an hour. The whole inference seems to me that the operation was performed to enable the perpetrator to obtain possession of these parts of the body." Phillips quoted.

His target was what was eventually taken, and the whole "operation" was geared to that. I wont bother repeating that the same pronouncement would not be applicable to the cuts made on Kate, or Mary. Kates facial cuts and colon cut and apron cuts did not facilitate removing her kidney, nor did stripping Marys thighs of flesh serve any purpose if his goal was her heart. What was done, what was targeted, vs what was taken.

[Michael W Richards]

Stride wasnt a ripper victim so that rules her out of the equation !

Thats the trouble you dont knw what he was seeking if anything, because if he didnt take any organs then you statement is worthless.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Since you used WM as the parameter, my comment on Stride...since she is broadly considered part of that that group, was entirely appropriate in context. At least I have the good sense to suggest she should be removed based on the existing evidence, not "wasn't a Ripper victim" like you did above.

And as I pointed out numerous gd times Trevor... for anyone who can read, yes, there WAS a medical opinion on what Annies killer sought...specifically. Since you want to reply nasty, lets just remind everyone that you are the only Casebook member who think organs were taken after the fact, not at the scene. The rest of us don't believe that because there is ample evidence its a load of bull. And directly contradicted by people who saw the women as they lay on the spots they were killed. Bond had all the parts to examine in room 13, except the heart.

Kates kidney wasn't in her face or colon, nor was Marys heart in her face or a thigh.

[Sam Flynn]

I wont bother repeating that the same pronouncement would not be applicable to the cuts made on Kate, or Mary. Kates facial cuts and colon cut and apron cuts...

Steady on! The facial cuts would have taken no time, the apron cut is irrelevant, and Annie's colon was cut as well.

The whole inference seems to me that the operation was performed to enable the perpetrator to obtain possession of these parts of the body." Phillips quoted.

Yes, and the "operation" on Catherine Eddowes was performed to enable the perpetrator to obtain certain parts of her body, too. Like I said, Phillips' words there are a truism, a statement of the bleedin' obvious.

[Trevor Marriott]

Steady on! The facial cuts would have taken no time, the apron cut is irrelevant, and Annie's colon was cut as well.


Yes, and the "operation" on Catherine Eddowes was performed to enable the perpetrator to obtain certain parts of her body, too. Like I said, Phillips' words there are a truism, a statement of the bleedin' obvious.

Sam

Its not as bleedin` obvious as you believe

If this killer is harvesting organs, no one can explain why no organs were taken from any other victims other than Eddowes and Chapman. No examination was made at their crime scenes to say that the organs were found missing at that time, and if harvesting organs was the motive why would he take another uterus from Eddowes when he had taken a uterus with the fallopian tubes attached from Chapman, that make no sense, and weakens the harvesting theory, as does the fact none were taken from the other victims.

So why are you and certain other parties on here so adamant that the killer took them, and why should you be believed? Where is your evidence ? there is none, all that there is ,is the old accepted theory that he did but that theory 131 years later does not stand up to close scrutiny, and the belief that this mythical killer was blessed with such skill and expertise that he was able to remove organs faster than the medical men of the day, do you really believe that?

But wait. we then have those who say he was not blessed with any skill but of course no one could remove a uterus complete with its appendages unless they had skill, and not only skill in there removal, but having sufficient knowledge to actually locate the organs in the first place the same applies to Eddowes kidney. So there was skill in removing these organs, and how many people would have had those skills, certainly not butchers as has been suggested, Doctors or medical students not a chance they could freely go to mortuaries and obtain organs under the Anatomy Act.

Take away the organ removal aspect from thes murder because it is masking the real motive for these crimes, that being nothing more than murder and mutilation carried out by a frenzied killer, who killed in a frenzy and then if you and others are to be belived is supposed to have gained his composure to be able to remove these organs.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

Sam

Its not as bleedin` obvious as you believe

If this killer is harvesting organs, no one can explain why no organs were taken from any other victims other than Eddowes and Chapman. No examination was made at their crime scenes to say that the organs were found missing at that time, and if harvesting organs was the motive why would he take another uterus from Eddowes when he had taken a uterus with the fallopian tubes attached from Chapman, that make no sense, and weakens the harvesting theory, as does the fact none were taken from the other victims.

That's because you're only thinking of harvesting organs for a purpose such as Baxter suggested (for sale, etc) but that's just setting up straw men to knock down. Serial killers who take bits do so for their own bizarre reasons. He took another uterus because he did. And he took Kelly's heart, though you refuse to acknowledge that, finding ambiguity where none exists.

So why are you and certain other parties on here so adamant that the killer took them,

Because that's what the medical reports indicate, by people who were there, at the time, and would know. There is 0% evidence for your claim that in both cases a different individual stole the uterus from the victims after they were at the morgue.

and why should you be believed? Where is your evidence ? there is none,

There is the testimony and notes from the examining doctors. The only one with no evidence is you for your organ thief.

all that there is ,is the old accepted theory that he did but that theory 131 years later does not stand up to close scrutiny, and the belief that this mythical killer was blessed with such skill and expertise that he was able to remove organs faster than the medical men of the day, do you really believe that?

damaging bladders, colons, and only gettng half a uterus in one case is extremely unsafe evidence to base a claim of expertise upon.

But wait. we then have those who say he was not blessed with any skill but of course no one could remove a uterus complete with its appendages unless they had skill, and not only skill in there removal, but having sufficient knowledge to actually locate the organs in the first place the same applies to Eddowes kidney. So there was skill in removing these organs, and how many people would have had those skills, certainly not butchers as has been suggested, Doctors or medical students not a chance they could freely go to mortuaries and obtain organs under the Anatomy Act.

Take away the organ removal aspect from thes murder because it is masking the real motive for these crimes, that being nothing more than murder and mutilation carried out by a frenzied killer, who killed in a frenzy and then if you and others are to be belived is supposed to have gained his composure to be able to remove these organs.


www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Seriously Trevor, the organ thief, and the refusal to acknowledge that Kelly's heart was take from the crime scene, is an argument that nobody but yourself is buying. What you put forth as your evidence is really just conjecture, and based upon straw man arguments. The medical examination indicates the organs were taken away, the heart wasn't there, and simply repeating there's no evidence for JtR to have taken organs from those three crimes will not make it so.

You're desire to reject everything that has been presented before is blinding you to what the evidence is, let alone it's interpretation.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

That's because you're only thinking of harvesting organs for a purpose such as Baxter suggested (for sale, etc) but that's just setting up straw men to knock down. Serial killers who take bits do so for their own bizarre reasons. He took another uterus because he did. And he took Kelly's heart, though you refuse to acknowledge that, finding ambiguity where none exists.

Because that's what the medical reports indicate, by people who were there, at the time, and would know. There is 0% evidence for your claim that in both cases a different individual stole the uterus from the victims after they were at the morgue.

There is the testimony and notes from the examining doctors. The only one with no evidence is you for your organ thief.

damaging bladders, colons, and only gettng half a uterus in one case is extremely unsafe evidence to base a claim of expertise upon.


Seriously Trevor, the organ thief, and the refusal to acknowledge that Kelly's heart was take from the crime scene, is an argument that nobody but yourself is buying. What you put forth as your evidence is really just conjecture, and based upon straw man arguments. The medical examination indicates the organs were taken away, the heart wasn't there, and simply repeating there's no evidence for JtR to have taken organs from those three crimes will not make it so.

You're desire to reject everything that has been presented before is blinding you to what the evidence is, let alone it's interpretation.

- Jeff

So you are adamant that the killer took the organs ? But lets look at the testimony you seek to rely on to prove this, and if you are going to make that stand you have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

The testimony shows that when the doctors carried out the post mortems they found the organs missing, the inference then being that the killer took them, and that is just that an inference made at the time, in the light of what I have now theorized it is questionable.

The testimony also shows that the bodies of Chapman and Eddowes were left for 8 hours or more at the mortuaries before the doctors came back to carry out the post mortems.

The testimony also show that the bodies were not examined in detail at the crime scenes, and that there was no evidence or organ removals found at those crime scenes.

What the testimony doesn't make clear, and we can now clarify is that the abdomens of those two victims were opened in two different ways suggesting two different persons were responsible, and the uteri also removed in two different ways. Chapmans with expertise and knowledge Eddowes with partial skill, again more weight to point to two different people.

To back that up, the testimony tells us that the two victims were taken to two different mortuaries.

What the testimony doesnt show is what happened, or could have happened to the bodies of those two victims at those mortuaries before the post mortems were carried out. leaving the door wide open for an alternative explanation, having regards to the workings of the anatomy act in 1888 and the freely obtaining of organs by the medical profession from mortuaries.

Of course if I am right this would explain the medical and partial medical expertise as described.

What the testimony doesn't show is that in the case of Eddowes the killer would not have had time to do all that he is supposed to have done when times are closely scrutinized and compared with the original inquest testimony

In the case of Kelly there is the ambiguous statement of Brown, and whatever you say it is ambiguous.

But you and others also choose to ignore what Insp Reid says that no organs were missing, and what he says is supported by numerous newspaper reports all saying the same.

If Kellys heart was not taken then it adds even more weight to the fact that the killer did not remove the organs from Chapman and Eddowes

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

So you are adamant that the killer took the organs ? But lets look at the testimony you seek to rely on to prove this, and if you are going to make that stand you have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Many fringe theorists will demand the conventional wisdom must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
History has accepted and will continue to accept the killer removed the organs at the crime scene in each case. Anyone like yourself who chooses to theorize otherwise carries the burden of proof.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The testimony shows that when the doctors carried out the post mortems they found the organs missing, the inference then being that the killer took them, and that is just that an inference made at the time, in the light of what I have now theorized it is questionable.

Sorry, that does not fly.
Because you question something does not make it "questionable".

The testimony also shows that the bodies of Chapman and Eddowes were left for 8 hours or more at the mortuaries before the doctors came back to carry out the post mortems.

You forgot to add the bodies were "under police guard".

The testimony also show that the bodies were not examined in detail at the crime scenes, and that there was no evidence or organ removals found at those crime scenes.

The lack of a statement to the existence or removal of the organs at the crime scene does not support either theory.
Your case depends on a statement to the effect that the bodies were intact when found, you have produced no such statement, and you know you cannot.

What the testimony doesn't make clear, and we can now clarify is that the abdomens of those two victims were opened in two different ways suggesting two different persons were responsible, and the uteri also removed in two different ways. Chapmans with expertise and knowledge Eddowes with partial skill, again more weight to point to two different people.

There is no example of carbon copy murders for you to use as a standard.

To back that up, the testimony tells us that the two victims were taken to two different mortuaries.

What the testimony doesnt show is what happened, or could have happened to the bodies of those two victims at those mortuaries before the post mortems were carried out. leaving the door wide open for an alternative explanation, having regards to the workings of the anatomy act in 1888 and the freely obtaining of organs by the medical profession from mortuaries.

Of course if I am right this would explain the medical and partial medical expertise as described.

What the testimony doesn't show is that in the case of Eddowes the killer would not have had time to do all that he is supposed to have done when times are closely scrutinized and compared with the original inquest testimony

In the case of Kelly there is the ambiguous statement of Brown, and whatever you say it is ambiguous.

But you and others also choose to ignore what Insp Reid says that no organs were missing, and what he says is supported by numerous newspaper reports all saying the same.

If Kellys heart was not taken then it adds even more weight to the fact that the killer did not remove the organs from Chapman and Eddowes

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

All the rest was too speculative and Reid was writing too long after the murders to be reliable. You also leave out the fact Reid made other inaccurate claims.
Reid had a faulty memory.

[Trevor Marriott]

Many fringe theorists will demand the conventional wisdom must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
History has accepted and will continue to accept the killer removed the organs at the crime scene in each case. Anyone like yourself who chooses to theorize otherwise carries the burden of proof.

But history is there to be challenged not readily accepted as being correct., and the burden of proof also rests with those who suggset the old accepted theory is correct and all you have to support that old accpted theory is an inference

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

And I have presented extraordinary evidence, evidence which was overlooked, or not considered because like you they had the blinkers on and showed there naivety back then

Sorry, that does not fly.
Because you question something does not make it "questionable".

Well if anyone questions anything surely that makes it questionable

You forgot to add the bodies were "under police guard".

With Chapman there was an officer outside for a period of time, but we do not know for how long, but we have no record of whether or not the mortuary was out of bounds to one and all, or access was allowed for bona fide medical personnel going about their daily routines, and staying with her body it was left outside for several hours. With Eddowes there is no record of a police officer staying with her body.

The lack of a statement to the existence or removal of the organs at the crime scene does not support either theory.
Your case depends on a statement to the effect that the bodies were intact when found, you have produced no such statement, and you know you cannot.

Your statement that they were missing at the crime scene also needs corroboration, there is none, all you have is that they were found missing when they did the post mortems, 8 hours or more later

If the organs were found to be missing at the crime scene firstly it would have been documented especially with Eddowes because they were aware that this was a similar murder to hers, and that supposedly organs were taken from her, so you would have thought when they found her with her abdomen ripped open they would have at least took a cursory look, another example of naivety and shoddy work by the doctors, as we saw with Nichols at her crime scene.

But we have evidence of medical personnel going to mortuaries and freely taking organs for medical research under The terms of the Anatomy Act

There is no example of carbon copy murders for you to use as a standard.

And likewise there is no evidence of any other similar murders committed by a serial killer where organs were taken from female victims in Victorian times.

All the rest was too speculative and Reid was writing too long after the murders to be reliable. You also leave out the fact Reid made other inaccurate claims.
Reid had a faulty memory.

Reid did not have a faulty memory. Do you think that someone who attended such an horrific crime scene would forget that, and all connected to it because if you do you are mistaken. Go back and read the interview as far as the Kelly`s murder was concerned everything he said about everything connected to the murder is spot on with only one minor time error. He was head of Whitechapel CID so he ought to have known would he not?

This explanation of a faulty memory is another feeble attempt to negate important evidence which kicks a big hole in the old accepted theories surrounding these murders

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

Many fringe theorists will demand the conventional wisdom must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
History has accepted and will continue to accept the killer removed the organs at the crime scene in each case. Anyone like yourself who chooses to theorize otherwise carries the burden of proof.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.



Sorry, that does not fly.
Because you question something does not make it "questionable".



You forgot to add the bodies were "under police guard".



The lack of a statement to the existence or removal of the organs at the crime scene does not support either theory.
Your case depends on a statement to the effect that the bodies were intact when found, you have produced no such statement, and you know you cannot.



There is no example of carbon copy murders for you to use as a standard.



All the rest was too speculative and Reid was writing too long after the murders to be reliable. You also leave out the fact Reid made other inaccurate claims.
Reid had a faulty memory.

I believe that covers it nicely Wickerman.

- Jeff