Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Organ removal ? Warning Graphic Photos

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    You need to read back on the posts which describe the activities of body dealers in Whitechapel and the illict trade in organs from mortuaries and complict mortuary attendants let me refresh your memory set out below are just two examples taken from several books written on the topic of body dealers by Professor Elizabeth Hurren from Leicester University

    " I make mention of a documented case from 1887 where a body dealer who was simply referred to as ‘Ward’ who was masquerading as an ‘undertaker’ acquired the corpse of “Patrick O’Brian, a male, aged 66, who died in St. Giles and Bloomsbury Workhouse on 27th October 1887” the deal to acquire the body was made with a nod and handshake at “7pm on the 29th of October” in person with mortuary staff. At the time the body was intact. On arrival at the back of St. Bartholomew’s Hospital later that night, the body was found to be missing a limb. I am sure it didn’t fall off en route to the hospital.
    Two other cases of similar note relate to the deaths of two separate females Mary Beckett and Elizabeth Murphy both died at the Mile End Infirmary on the 13th and 14th March 1888 respectively, a body dealer named ‘Slade’ arranged to discretely collect their bodies for sale on “16th March 1888 at 6.15pm” from the mortuary attendant who was paid a supply fee.

    So there was a flourishing trade in both bodies and body parts, and in particular female body parts !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    Some of the workhouses and hospitals had a list of body dealers and the dealers had a list of what they needed.The law prevented bodies to be sold unless a next of kin is informed ,get their permission and they will be compensated.If next of kin is not found I do not know how long they wait before selling the dead body,seems like 2-3 days from your example above.
    The 1888 doctors knew this and not one,not even medical journals, complained or was suspicious that the body parts from JTR's victims was stolen from the mortuary. Not one complained the organs could not have been taken by the killer in haste.Even slaughterers could do it .Dr Brown was clear it was all possible and the organs had no professional use,implying except the killer's morbid need.You relied on Phillips TOD of Chapman.
    Last edited by Varqm; 09-20-2022, 05:12 AM.
    Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced,it started civil society).
    M. Pacana

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Varqm View Post

      Dr Brown was clear it was all possible
      I think this point could do with some meat on the bones. According to the Daily Telegraph reporting of the inquest, Dr Brown had this to say:

      [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.

      So, yes, Dr Brown does state it was possible; he states it was possible it may have taken him longer also. My reading of this is that while it was possible, it should not be taken as fact that Dr Brown was confident this was all done in 5 minutes.

      When you add in the time for the couple to decide to go into the square, and then to get to the corner of the square farthest from Church Passage, the WM positioning himself and Catherine in order to commit the murder, the murder itself, a piece of the apron being cut, the organs being gathered up and wrapped in the apron, escaping from the square unseen; then I feel it is unlikely that all of this was done between 1.35am and 1.44am. And, there is a decent argument to suggest that PC Watkins may have discovered Catherine's body slightly earlier than 1.44am.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

        Hi Herlock,

        I don't disagree with what you say, but the fact is that according to the testimony at the inquest the nurses should have found the body in the locked shed, but testified that they found it in the yard. This creates a possibility that the body could have been tampered with, but not a certainty. A question worthy of discussion is, did a similar opportunity exist in Eddowes case?

        Cheers, George
        Hello George,

        I’m certainly not claiming that it would have been impossible for someone to have removed body parts at the mortuary but Trevor appears to think that this is somehow proof that it did occur on this occasion which isn’t the case of course. We’ve got no way of knowing though what, if any, level of security was in place at the Golden Lane Mortuary. By ‘security’ I don’t mean people standing guard of course, I mean how many people were around or if the premises were locked after the body was put inside (as the mortuary was locked in the quote from Monty.) I’m unsure what time the nurses found the body so I don’t know how long it would have lain there but I’d have thought it unlikely that it had been tampered with in such a short space of time. How quickly would news have spread that a body would have been arriving at that particular mortuary? Would they have tempered with it in the yard knowing that someone was likely to arrive for it at any moment?

        I wouldn’t say that any subject isn’t worthy of discussion George only that it’s been discussed before (as you would expect) and Trevor is adamant that his case has been proven which clearly isn’t the case. Some now may feel that he has a point and that’s fine but will anyone go as far as saying that his case is proven?
        Regards

        Sir Herlock Sholmes

        “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

          You need to read back on the posts which describe the activities of body dealers in Whitechapel and the illict trade in organs from mortuaries and complict mortuary attendants let me refresh your memory set out below are just two examples taken from several books written on the topic of body dealers by Professor Elizabeth Hurren from Leicester University

          " I make mention of a documented case from 1887 where a body dealer who was simply referred to as ‘Ward’ who was masquerading as an ‘undertaker’ acquired the corpse of “Patrick O’Brian, a male, aged 66, who died in St. Giles and Bloomsbury Workhouse on 27th October 1887” the deal to acquire the body was made with a nod and handshake at “7pm on the 29th of October” in person with mortuary staff. At the time the body was intact. On arrival at the back of St. Bartholomew’s Hospital later that night, the body was found to be missing a limb. I am sure it didn’t fall off en route to the hospital.
          Two other cases of similar note relate to the deaths of two separate females Mary Beckett and Elizabeth Murphy both died at the Mile End Infirmary on the 13th and 14th March 1888 respectively, a body dealer named ‘Slade’ arranged to discretely collect their bodies for sale on “16th March 1888 at 6.15pm” from the mortuary attendant who was paid a supply fee.

          So there was a flourishing trade in both bodies and body parts, and in particular female body parts !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
          Not the best of examples Trevor as one was a case of an arm being missing and two were entire bodies taken. Why didn’t you quote a case where internal organs were taken as it would have been more relevant to the case in hand.

          Trevor, I’ve never disputed that this trade existed. I don’t think that anyone has disputed it. But this doesn’t mean that it happened in this case though. It can’t be used as proof no matter how many exclamation marks you use.
          Regards

          Sir Herlock Sholmes

          “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

          Comment


          • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

            Hi Herlock,

            I am not one that advocates the discarding of press reports, so I see no reason to doubt what is being said in this case. However, it is easy to latch onto the three and a half minutes without questioning its relevance to the circumstances of what happened in Mitre Square. That said, it does have to be admitted as another piece in the puzzle.

            Cheers, George
            Agreed George.
            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes

            “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

              I think this point could do with some meat on the bones. According to the Daily Telegraph reporting of the inquest, Dr Brown had this to say:

              [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.

              So, yes, Dr Brown does state it was possible; he states it was possible it may have taken him longer also. My reading of this is that while it was possible, it should not be taken as fact that Dr Brown was confident this was all done in 5 minutes.

              When you add in the time for the couple to decide to go into the square, and then to get to the corner of the square farthest from Church Passage, the WM positioning himself and Catherine in order to commit the murder, the murder itself, a piece of the apron being cut, the organs being gathered up and wrapped in the apron, escaping from the square unseen; then I feel it is unlikely that all of this was done between 1.35am and 1.44am. And, there is a decent argument to suggest that PC Watkins may have discovered Catherine's body slightly earlier than 1.44am.
              I thought that any veering from stated times was dishonest?
              Regards

              Sir Herlock Sholmes

              “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Varqm View Post

                Some of the workhouses and hospitals had a list of body dealers and the dealers had a list of what they needed.The law prevented bodies to be sold unless a next of kin is informed ,get their permission and they will be compensated.If next of kin is not found I do not know how long they wait before selling the dead body,seems like 2-3 days from your example above.
                The 1888 doctors knew this and not one,not even medical journals, complained or was suspicious that the body parts from JTR's victims was stolen from the mortuary. Not one complained the organs could not have been taken by the killer in haste.Even slaughterers could do it .Dr Brown was clear it was all possible and the organs had no professional use,implying except the killer's morbid need.You relied on Phillips TOD of Chapman.
                Why would they have been suspicious only a cursory examination was carried out at the crime scene, so when the post mortems were conducted and the organs found missing, suspcion then fell on the killer, and not forgetting this was the first and only murder committed under the City police juridiction.

                How would Dr Brown know if a slaughter was capable and knowledegable enough to remove these organs ? irrelevant statement

                As far as body dealers and their aquisiton of organs. their activities have been fully documented by Professor Hurren who gives many examples of illicit transactions at mortuaries involving dishonest mortuary attendants

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk


                Comment


                • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                  Not the best of examples Trevor as one was a case of an arm being missing and two were entire bodies taken. Why didn’t you quote a case where internal organs were taken as it would have been more relevant to the case in hand.

                  Trevor, I’ve never disputed that this trade existed. I don’t think that anyone has disputed it. But this doesn’t mean that it happened in this case though. It can’t be used as proof no matter how many exclamation marks you use.
                  But if the killer couldnt have removed them because he did not have the time, or was disturbed, then there has to be another explantion and you nor I cannot discount that he did not have the time or that he was disturbed. So again we are left with a situation where it is for each researcher to assess and evlauate the facts and come to their own opinions as to what they believe

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
                    Some interesting information from Lloyds Weekly News 30 Sept 1888:

                    "The poor woman's throat had been savagely cut, and there was a large wound on the face, cutting into the nose. Her legs were apart and the clothes thrown right up, revealing the mutilated abdomen. Parts of the entrails had been torn out and were twisted round the neck of the victim. Blood had flowed freely both from the neck and body, saturating the pavement. The report quickly spread that the part of the body missing from Annie Chapman had also been removed in this case, but on inquiry we found that the rumour was unfounded. Information of the crime was quickly sent to the police stations in the district, and doctors were immediately summoned, the two first to arrive being Mr. F. Gordon Brown, of 6, North-buildings, Eldon-street, Finsbury-circus; and Mr. Sequeira, of 34, Jewry-street, Aldgate. They made a minute examination of the body, Dr. Gordon Brown taking a pencil sketch of the exact position in which it was found. This he most kindly showed to the representative of Lloyd's, when subsequently explaining the frightful injuries inflicted upon the body of the deceased. The throat had been cut from the left side, the knife severing the carotid artery and other parts of the neck. The weapon had then apparently been stabbed into the upper part of the abdomen, and cut completely down. Besides the fearful wound on the face the tops of both of the thighs were cut across. The intestines, which had been torn from the body, were found twisted into the gaping wound on the right side of the murdered woman's neck."

                    "This (Sunday) morning the lamps were burning brightly, but a curious little circumstance was mentioned by the wife of a caretaker living directly opposite the spot where the murdered woman was found. As she went home with her little girl on Friday night she noticed that the lamp in the north-west corner of the square was so dull that she could scarcely see her way. This must have thrown the pavement on which the body was found into comparative darkness, and may thus have in some way contributed to the selection of the spot by the murderer."

                    "After a very careful examination of the body where it was found, it was at three o'clock removed to the City mortuary in Golden-lane, and here Drs. Brown and Sequeira continued their investigation for a considerable time."

                    "At twenty minutes past five, when we left the mortuary, after the interview most kindly accorded by Dr. Gordon Brown, there was an expectation on the part of the police that Dr. Phillips, who gave the important evidence in connection with the case of Annie Chapman, would speedily arrive there."


                    I wonder who started that unfounded rumour that turned out to be correct?
                    It appears that there was adequate custody of the body from the time of discovery until 5:20, with the doctors still awaiting Phillip's arrival.

                    Cheers, George
                    Interesting find George. The Press leaving the mortuary at 5.20 and Dr. Phillips being expected ties in with this:

                    “Phillips arrives at the Golden Lane Mortuary some time after 5:20 a.m. He hands the apron piece over to Dr. Brown, who places it with the piece found on the body of the Mitre Square victim.

                    Lloyd’s Weekly, Sept. 30, 1888. Written inquest testimony of Dr. Brown, filed in the Corporation of London Records Office.”


                    And we have this one of course:

                    Phillips assist in the preliminary examination of the body (later determined to be that of Catherine Eddowes) which was underway when he arrived.

                    London Times, Oct. 1, 1888”


                    So to me it looks like the Press asked the question about missing body parts before Phillips arrived and Brown said something like “we have no reason as yet to believe that any organs are missing. Which would have been the case up until that point. ” It’s possible that he was trying to get them out of the mortuary at that time so that he could begin the preliminary examination. The Press then took that to mean that that there was no parts missing but clearly Brown couldn’t have said this without looking more closely. They then began the preliminary examination and Dr. Phillips arrived soon after it began and only then did they discover the missing organs.

                    This would mean that our body part stealers would have had from 3.00 until 5.00 (and maybe slightly earlier) to learn of the murder, to learn of the injuries, to find out which mortuary the body was sent to, and to have got there to steal the parts before the first Doctor arrived (something that they couldn’t possibly have known.)
                    Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 09-20-2022, 08:47 AM. Reason: Added a bit
                    Regards

                    Sir Herlock Sholmes

                    “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                      But if the killer couldnt have removed them because he did not have the time, or was disturbed, then there has to be another explantion and you nor I cannot discount that he did not have the time or that he was disturbed. So again we are left with a situation where it is for each researcher to assess and evlauate the facts and come to their own opinions as to what they believe

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                      But your not just expressing an opinion Trevor you appear to be claiming that your case is somehow proven.
                      Regards

                      Sir Herlock Sholmes

                      “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                      Comment


                      • So allowing for a very reasonable and plausible 2 minute margin for error the killer could have had 10 minutes with the body. Yes he could have had less but we cannot prove more or less. All that’s required is the possibility of him having slightly longer. We have the Doctors at the scene having no issue with the killer doing what he did in the time available (and they were basing it on a lower estimate) Phillips estimated 15 minutes for Chapman but makes no comment that we know of about Eddowes.

                        It seems that we have no way of tying down how long it would have taken. Doctor’s are programmed to caution and method though when it comes to extracting organs. We’re talking about a serial killer with the adrenaline of the moment. Nick Warren for example believed that the killer took body parts and he was a surgeon.
                        Regards

                        Sir Herlock Sholmes

                        “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                          Interesting find George. The Press leaving the mortuary at 5.20 and Dr. Phillips being expected ties in with this:

                          “Phillips arrives at the Golden Lane Mortuary some time after 5:20 a.m. He hands the apron piece over to Dr. Brown, who places it with the piece found on the body of the Mitre Square victim.

                          Lloyd’s Weekly, Sept. 30, 1888. Written inquest testimony of Dr. Brown, filed in the Corporation of London Records Office.”


                          And we have this one of course:

                          Phillips assist in the preliminary examination of the body (later determined to be that of Catherine Eddowes) which was underway when he arrived.

                          London Times, Oct. 1, 1888”


                          So to me it looks like the Press asked the question about missing body parts before Phillips arrived and Brown said something like “we have no reason as yet to believe that any organs are missing. Which would have been the case up until that point. ” It’s possible that he was trying to get them out of the mortuary at that time so that he could begin the preliminary examination. The Press then took that to mean that that there was no parts missing but clearly Brown couldn’t have said this without looking more closely. They then began the preliminary examination and Dr. Phillips arrived soon after it began and only then did they discover the missing organs.

                          This would mean that our body part stealers would have had from 3.00 until 5.00 (and maybe slightly earlier) to learn of the murder, to learn of the injuries, to find out which mortuary the body was sent to, and to have got there to steal the parts before the first Doctor arrived (something that they couldn’t possibly have known.)
                          This proves that the press were ensconsed outside of the mortuary to be able to record what time Dr Phillips arrived and his vist at that time was not to take part in a preliminary post mortem examination but to take the GS apon piece where it was matched and to view the wounds

                          My belief has always been that the times given to the press of 5 mins and 3 mins were before the post mortem and before the organs were found to be missing if that be the case it is quite clear that those times should not be used to determine the suggestion that the killer had the time to remove them at the crime scene

                          The body was left from 6am-2pm before the post mortem was condcuted and the organs found missing so 8 hours for someone to acquire the organs

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                            This proves that the press were ensconsed outside of the mortuary to be able to record what time Dr Phillips arrived and his vist at that time was not to take part in a preliminary post mortem examination but to take the GS apon piece where it was matched and to view the wounds

                            My belief has always been that the times given to the press of 5 mins and 3 mins were before the post mortem and before the organs were found to be missing if that be the case it is quite clear that those times should not be used to determine the suggestion that the killer had the time to remove them at the crime scene

                            The body was left from 6am-2pm before the post mortem was condcuted and the organs found missing so 8 hours for someone to acquire the organs

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                            You’re trying to shape this to suit yourself Trevor. They didn’t record what time Phillips arrived only that he was expected.

                            "After a very careful examination of the body where it was found, it was at three o'clock removed to the City mortuary in Golden-lane, and here Drs. Brown and Sequeira continued their investigation for a considerable time."
                            This shows that further examination was done at the mortuary.
                            Regards

                            Sir Herlock Sholmes

                            “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                              So allowing for a very reasonable and plausible 2 minute margin for error the killer could have had 10 minutes with the body. Yes he could have had less but we cannot prove more or less. All that’s required is the possibility of him having slightly longer. We have the Doctors at the scene having no issue with the killer doing what he did in the time available (and they were basing it on a lower estimate) Phillips estimated 15 minutes for Chapman but makes no comment that we know of about Eddowes.

                              It seems that we have no way of tying down how long it would have taken. Doctor’s are programmed to caution and method though when it comes to extracting organs. We’re talking about a serial killer with the adrenaline of the moment. Nick Warren for example believed that the killer took body parts and he was a surgeon.
                              And other experts disagree !!!!!! and other questions for you to answer please just answer them dont go off on a tangent so as we all

                              If the killer took a uterus from Chapman and his motive was just organ harvesting why did he take an identical organ from Eddowes? having one already

                              Why is it that there were two different methods used to remove the uterus in both cases surely if it were the same killer surely he would have used the same method in both cases? and it is significant that the two differnet methods were seen at two differnet mortuaries

                              Doe that not indicate two differnet persons were responsible?

                              On that topic how can you explain that the two differnet methods of extraction were identified at the two different mortuaries does that not indicate that two differnet people were responsible for those removals?

                              Why would a surgeon want to commit murder to harvest organs when as a surgeon he could readily acquire as many organs as he wanted under the terms of the anatomy act?

                              Do you accept that there was an illicit trade in bodies and body parts in 1888? and in particular female body parts, and in particular the female reproductive system?

                              I wait in anticipation for your replies

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                                And other experts disagree !!!!!! and other questions for you to answer please just answer them dont go off on a tangent so as we all

                                So why do you choose one over another?

                                If the killer took a uterus from Chapman and his motive was just organ harvesting why did he take an identical organ from Eddowes? having one already.

                                He was a serial killer not a stamp collector Trevor. How can you claim to know what a serial killer’s thought processes were?

                                Why is it that there were two different methods used to remove the uterus in both cases surely if it were the same killer surely he would have used the same method in both cases? and it is significant that the two differnet methods were seen at two differnet mortuaries

                                He wasn’t a Doctor performing an operation. Why do you assume that he adhered to some kind of prescribed surgical technique?

                                Doe that not indicate two differnet persons were responsible?

                                No.

                                On that topic how can you explain that the two differnet methods of extraction were identified at the two different mortuaries does that not indicate that two differnet people were responsible for those removals?

                                ​​​​​​​No.

                                Why would a surgeon want to commit murder to harvest organs when as a surgeon he could readily acquire as many organs as he wanted under the terms of the anatomy act?

                                No one is saying that the killer was a surgeon. Brown was there and he said:

                                “[Coroner] Would such a knowledge be likely to be possessed by some one accustomed to cutting up animals? - Yes.”


                                Do you accept that there was an illicit trade in bodies and body parts in 1888? and in particular female body parts, and in particular the female reproductive system?

                                Yes if that’s what the evidence shows. Although the examples you quoted only mentioned a missing arm and two missing bodies.

                                I wait in anticipation for your replies

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                                Do you accept that there is a difference in opinion on how long these mutilations and extractions would have taken?

                                Do you accept that we cannot assume that all clocks weren’t accurate and synchronised?

                                Do you accept that just because a trade in organs existed this doesn’t in itself prove that the parts were stolen?

                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes

                                “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X