Organ removal ? Warning Graphic Photos

[Trevor Marriott]

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?

yes there is clearly a difference of opinion if you are relying on Dr Brown saying 5 mins at least and Sequeira 3 mins there is no way the killer could have carried out the murder and mutilations in those times stated, and those times were given to the press before the post mortems were conducted and the organs found missing.

It deoesnt matter whether or not the clocks were synchronised the killer did not have time to remove the organs from Eddowes. and with Chapman if your later time of death is to be belived he did not have 15 mins or more available to him in Hanbury Street according to Dr Phillips.

If the killer didnt remove them at the crime scene can you come up with a better explanation?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Even you must see how weak these answers are Trevor. I mean….come on!

yes there is clearly a difference of opinion if you are relying on Dr Brown saying 5 mins at least and Sequeira 3 mins there is no way the killer could have carried out the murder and mutilations in those times stated,

So the 3 Doctors had no problem with it, surgeon Nick Warren had no problem with it but Trevor Marriott doesn’t think it’s possible. And that’s somehow to be taken as proof?

and those times were given to the press before the post mortems were conducted and the organs found missing.

The coroner asked and received a response from Dr. Brown: “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.”

The Coroner was clearly talking about the whole operation. Why would he have only wanted to know how a part of what the killer did? It makes no sense. And of course Brown had earlier said in the same questioning: 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.”

So are you suggesting that, when asked, Dr. Brown forgot about the kidney and the uterus being removed. Be serious Trevor. Of course Brown included them in his estimation; it would have been pointless to have done otherwise.

It deoesnt matter whether or not the clocks were synchronised the killer did not have time to remove the organs from Eddowes.

That’s simply your layman’s opinion. You have nothing to back it up except for the existence of a trade in body parts.

and with Chapman if your later time of death is to be belived he did not have 15 mins or more available to him in Hanbury Street according to Dr Phillips.

Yet again i have to ask why you favour Phillips assessment over the Bond and Sequiera?

If the killer didnt remove them at the crime scene can you come up with a better explanation?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The killer clearly removed them. We don’t need a conspiracy theory to tell us this Trevor.

[Trevor Marriott]

The killer clearly removed them. We don’t need a conspiracy theory to tell us this Trevor.

Well you keep believing that and in doing so you will no doubt keep making up your own baseless explantions.

I am more than happy that the facts, the evidence the pics and my own personal assessment and my evaluation of all those facts support the suggestion that the killer did not remove the organs at the crime scenes from either Chapman and Eddowes and if Insp Reid is to be believed the killer of Kelly did not take away her heart

That being said I do not intend to engage further with you on this topic as all you want to do is argue for the sake of arguing, just as you did on the Richardson thread and it becomes tireseome to have to keep repeating the same facts and evidence to you over and over again to you when you cleary have your head buried firmly in the sand. You may have the time to sit here all day and every day but I do not have that luxury available to me.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[DJA]

[Varqm]

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.

All the things the ripper have done to body was done between the time from Lawende and co's sighting to Watkins's discovery.If it wasn't wouldn't Brown and the other doctors suggest there was not enough time and the organs were taken sometime after the murder's discovery somewhere else?

[Abby Normal]

Well you keep believing that and in doing so you will no doubt keep making up your own baseless explantions.

I am more than happy that the facts, the evidence the pics and my own personal assessment and my evaluation of all those facts support the suggestion that the killer did not remove the organs at the crime scenes from either Chapman and Eddowes and if Insp Reid is to be believed the killer of Kelly did not take away her heart

That being said I do not intend to engage further with you on this topic as all you want to do is argue for the sake of arguing, just as you did on the Richardson thread and it becomes tireseome to have to keep repeating the same facts and evidence to you over and over again to you when you cleary have your head buried firmly in the sand. You may have the time to sit here all day and every day but I do not have that luxury available to me.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

yeah but apparently you have all the time in the world to come up with these crackpot theories and post them on here. And then when someone logically and clearly and with real evidence and research shoots them down you get all indignant and resort to personal attacks. You and your little conspiracy brigade did the same thing on the JR thread and you continue to clog up the boards with this kind of garbage Trevor.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well you keep believing that and in doing so you will no doubt keep making up your own baseless explantions.

I am more than happy that the facts, the evidence the pics and my own personal assessment and my evaluation of all those facts support the suggestion that the killer did not remove the organs at the crime scenes from either Chapman and Eddowes and if Insp Reid is to be believed the killer of Kelly did not take away her heart

That being said I do not intend to engage further with you on this topic as all you want to do is argue for the sake of arguing, just as you did on the Richardson thread and it becomes tireseome to have to keep repeating the same facts and evidence to you over and over again to you when you cleary have your head buried firmly in the sand. You may have the time to sit here all day and every day but I do not have that luxury available to me.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It doesn’t bother me in the slightest Trevor. You’ve done what you usually do. You’ve come up with a theory then simply expected everyone to pat you on the back and tell you that you are right. I’ve responded to every oneof your points using facts and reason and now you’re sulking. Tough.

You’ve showed us a couple of photos - as if it’s taken us 134 years to find out where the kidney sits in the body. So what?
You’ve told us about a trade in body parts as if that proves anything. It doesn’t.
You’ve dismissed Brown and Sequiera because they didn’t say what you want to hear but you support Phillips because he does.
You support Reid’s memory of events 8 years previously because it appears to support your theory but you casually dismiss Hutt and Robinson’s evidence of the night before because it doesn’t support your point.
You ignore the fact about clocks because it’s inconvenient to your case.
You claimed that Phillips wasn’t at the inquest when there’s evidence that he was.
You claim that there was no preliminary examination but the evidence tells us that there was.
You ignore the inconvenient fact that Nick Warren (surgeon) believed that the killer took trophies and so had time to do what he did.
Youve provided not a solitary shred of evidence that these parts were taken at the mortuary and you only invented your apron theory to support your body parts theory so maybe you could invent a new theory.

So I don’t mind if you don’t engage with me because you never properly engage with anyone. You make pronouncements and expect everyone to agree. You’ve been doing it for years and years and you would have to spend months scouring these two forums to find anyone who agrees with any of your theories. I have to mention the apron theory that you pedalled for years. You claimed that Eddowes couldn’t have been wearing an apron because it wasn’t a complete apron. No one could understand what you were talking about until I worked out that you had the strings attached to the wrong part of the apron and you had to grudgingly admit that you were wrong but you still held on desperately to a completely shredded theory.

Do what you want Trevor, I’m past caring about people performing summersaults to defend their theories at all costs.

[Herlock Sholmes]

yeah but apparently you have all the time in the world to come up with these crackpot theories and post them on here. And then when someone logically and clearly and with real evidence and research shoots them down you get all indignant and resort to personal attacks. You and your little conspiracy brigade did the same thing on the JR thread and you continue to clog up the boards with this kind of garbage Trevor.

Well said Abby. It’s becoming the case where logic, reason and common sense are things to be mocked on here. To many people sulking when they don’t get their own way.

[Fleetwood Mac]

All the things the ripper have done to body was done between the time from Lawende and co's sighting to Watkins's discovery.If it wasn't wouldn't Brown and the other doctors suggest there was not enough time and the organs were taken sometime after the murder's discovery somewhere else?

You mention PC Watkins finding Catherine. In PC Watkins' own words, that was 1.44am. Dr Brown believed, as per the inquest, that Catherine was murdered no earlier than 1.40am. In other words, while Dr Brown stated he believed the murderer had enough time, it is not clear what was underpinning that conclusion given that between him and PC Watkins there was a 4 minutes timeframe and Dr Brown stated it would have taken 5 minutes at the least.

It is worth considering that when Dr Brown stated the murderer had enough time, on what basis did he draw that conclusion. What did he mean? What timings was he working to?

[Varqm]

You mention PC Watkins finding Catherine. In PC Watkins' own words, that was 1.44am. Dr Brown believed, as per the inquest, that Catherine was murdered no earlier than 1.40am. In other words, while Dr Brown stated he believed the murderer had enough time, it is not clear what was underpinning that conclusion given that between him and PC Watkins there was a 4 minutes timeframe and Dr Brown stated it would have taken 5 minutes at the least.

It is worth considering that when Dr Brown stated the murderer had enough time, on what basis did he draw that conclusion. What did he mean? What timings was he working to?

There was enough time between the 2 events ,that's it.If the killer took it or somebody else took it it would have been a big marked difference.For one look at Baxters argument with Phillips who was reluctant to give evidence about the things done to Chapman's body.

[Herlock Sholmes]

One more point about Phillips 15 minutes.

Dr. Brown called him in because of his close connection to the case. Phillips was there for the preliminary examination and the PM so he would have followed the case and would have known that the killer would have had a relatively narrow window of time. He would also have known of the estimates of Brown and Sequiera and how they had no timing issues. Why did Phillips never raise this issue? Did he just not want to disagree with a colleague or did he come to realise that his estimate of how long the killer would have needed with Chapman was too much?

Its also worth pointing out that Sequiera said:

“I am well acquainted with the locality and the position of the lamps in the square. Where the murder was committed was probably the darkest part of the square, but there was sufficient light to enable the miscreant to perpetrate the deed.”

He was there after all.

[Parisi North Humber]

As a relative newbie to all things casebook this thread seems to have become somewhat convoluted. As such please bear with me.
This is just me trying to make sense of the basics.
(Deep breath)
Soooooo...just for clarification is Trevor (Hi Trevor) positing that certain victims of the C5 had their uteri and/or kidney removed from there bodies not by JTR /their killer but by a hitherto "randomer" (that is my daughter's expression)? And that said unknown person took advantage of the serial killers mutilations whilst the bodies of the deceased were in the mortuary under the protectorate of the police and/or legal system. I'm saying this as I assume in 1888 there would have been (even if basic) protocols for dealing with a murder victim which the post mortem evidence and inventory of belongings lends credence to. If this is the case then are we talking just Chapman and Eddowes and if I've got Trevor's theory completely wrong then I stand by to repel borders for the wrath I am about to incur.

Helen x

[GBinOz]

As a relative newbie to all things casebook this thread seems to have become somewhat convoluted. As such please bear with me.
This is just me trying to make sense of the basics.
(Deep breath)
Soooooo...just for clarification is Trevor (Hi Trevor) positing that certain victims of the C5 had their uteri and/or kidney removed from there bodies not by JTR /their killer but by a hitherto "randomer" (that is my daughter's expression)? And that said unknown person took advantage of the serial killers mutilations whilst the bodies of the deceased were in the mortuary under the protectorate of the police and/or legal system. I'm saying this as I assume in 1888 there would have been (even if basic) protocols for dealing with a murder victim which the post mortem evidence and inventory of belongings lends credence to. If this is the case then are we talking just Chapman and Eddowes and if I've got Trevor's theory completely wrong then I stand by to repel borders for the wrath I am about to incur.

Helen x

Hi Helen,

You have got the gist of the matter, but you still may well have to defend borders from wrath. I, for one am interested in this topic and would not like to see it derailed by those who oppose, on principle, any theory that Trevor has to propose. This feud has become tiresome to all who observe it. So might I propose that those who wish to contribute only criticism and insult go and start another thread where you can all agree with each other, and let this thread be a debate between those who can make positive contributions and logical analysis on the subject.

Man the battlements Helen, winter is coming.

Cheers, George

[Enigma]

As a relative newbie to all things casebook this thread seems to have become somewhat convoluted. As such please bear with me.
This is just me trying to make sense of the basics.
(Deep breath)
Soooooo...just for clarification is Trevor (Hi Trevor) positing that certain victims of the C5 had their uteri and/or kidney removed from there bodies not by JTR /their killer but by a hitherto "randomer" (that is my daughter's expression)? And that said unknown person took advantage of the serial killers mutilations whilst the bodies of the deceased were in the mortuary under the protectorate of the police and/or legal system. I'm saying this as I assume in 1888 there would have been (even if basic) protocols for dealing with a murder victim which the post mortem evidence and inventory of belongings lends credence to. If this is the case then are we talking just Chapman and Eddowes and if I've got Trevor's theory completely wrong then I stand by to repel borders for the wrath I am about to incur.

Helen x

Hi Helen,
As George said, you have the gist of things. Though there is no reason for you to expect to have to repel borders when you are only seeking clarification.

Regards
Gazza

[GBinOz]

So folks, here is the story so far:

Three modern day experts in forensics and pathology have stated that the organ extractions would be very difficult technically under the prevailing conditions, and not in the realms of possibility.

Dr Phillips, the only doctor that saw the bodies of both Chapman and Eddowes, was of the opinion that their injuries were by a different hand.

There were questions raised by Baxter as to whether organs could have been lost between the discovery of Chapman's body and the autopsy. Baxter concluded in his summary that the aim of the murder was the procurement of body parts. The nurses found the body where it should not have been, so it must be conceded that the provenance of the body was not secure, and there could have been time for interference with the organs.

The news report shows that Eddowes body was secure until Phillips arrived sometime after 5:20, but the fact that organs were missing was not established until after 2:30pm as a result of the autopsy. This provides a time gap were the organs could have been harvested.

What I hope for is that research will provide evidence for discussion, rather than just opinion.

Cheers, George