Organ removal ? Warning Graphic Photos

[Trevor Marriott]

I’ve posted nothing ‘incorrect’ Trevor. Just things that you want swept under the carpet.

what is wrong with you? despite all that has been said you still keep suggesting that a preliminary post mortem took place at which Phiilips joins in sometime after he arrived at the mortuary around 5.20am it didnt happen. If such an examination did take place it would have taken place after the body was stripped when the body was laid out and in front of those who were there at the time, There would be no need to wait for Phillips Dr Brown only wanted Phillips to see the wounds.

So what would you suggest the doctors were doing for 3 hours while waiting for Phillips. I would imagine they would have gone home to bed as a time had been set for the actual post mortem to be conducted later that day. There is no evidence at all to suggest that Phillips took part in any post mortem procedure.

Staying with Dr Phillps Brown states "Before we removed the body (from the crime scene) Dr. Phillips was sent for, as I wished him to see the wounds" The body was left in situ until about 2,55am so it could be suggested that in fact Dr Phillips only attended the crime scene and then returned to Leman St police station where the apron piece from GS had been taken after its find, which he at 5.20am took it to the mortuary

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

But how can we know that the organs weren’t discovered as missing during the PE? Dr. Phillips was called to the mortuary by Bond for obvious reasons. So if they were checking for similarities or dissimilarities between Chapman and Eddowes why isn’t it possible that they would have checked for missing organs? I’m not saying that this definitely happened because none of us can know this.

See post #196

[Herlock Sholmes]

We are trying to prove the unprovable. Trevor has a theory based on 2 suggestions. 1) That the killer didn’t have time to commit the murder/mutilations/extractions in the time that he had available to him, and 2) that there was a trade in body parts.

To begin with 2) No one would doubt that this trade existed if there is evidence for it so this is not being doubted or criticised but, in itself, this proves absolutely nothing except that a motive ‘might’ exist. We have no reports of the mortuary being broken into or reports of any suspicions about anything at that specific mortuary. So at best this only gives us a ‘possible’ motive.

1) Its impossible to tie down the time available to the killer. There’s just no way that any responsible person could assume that all clocks and watches were accurate, they were all synchronised with each other and that people estimating period of time were all spot-on accurate. The fact that there is resistance in some quarters for this point makes me deeply suspicious about motive. An allowance of a margin-for-error in matters of time in the LVP is so basic that it should not require discussion. It’s simply a fact that allowances have to be made. So why the resistance?

Therefore we have margins-for-error with Lawende and Watkins which could easily see the killer having 12 minutes to do what he did. Can I prove this? Of course I can’t. No more than anyone can ‘prove’ that he’d had 6 minutes. The fact that the possibility exists is all that is required though. If no one can prove that the killer only had x amount of time then we can get no further forward.

On the issue of how long it would have taken. We certainly have varied opinions. The 3 experts in the video said that it couldn’t have been done in 9 minutes in the circumstances described (I have to ask if this was in conditions darker than it actually was? Sequiera seemed to have no issue in terms of light available and he was actually there at the time unlike us or those 3 experts) Nick Warren, who was a surgeon, said that the killer collected trophies, so he believed that the killer took body parts away. The 3 Doctors who were actually there at the time and actually saw the wounds and actually saw the conditions (light levels etc) all had no issue with the killer taking the body parts at the scene.

So we have a murder that no one agrees how long it would have taken, during a time period that we can’t tie down accurately, in conditions that we can’t recreate because none of us were there. And we have the existence of a trade in body parts.

Nothing that I’ve said above is untrue. Nothing is as a result of any adherence to a theory. Nothing is a result of an exaggeration. I hope no one is too offended by this.

[Herlock Sholmes]

what is wrong with you? despite all that has been said you still keep suggesting that a preliminary post mortem took place at which Phiilips joins in sometime after he arrived at the mortuary around 5.20am it didnt happen. If such an examination did take place it would have taken place after the body was stripped when the body was laid out and in front of those who were there at the time, There would be no need to wait for Phillips Dr Brown only wanted Phillips to see the wounds.

So what would you suggest the doctors were doing for 3 hours while waiting for Phillips. I would imagine they would have gone home to bed as a time had been set for the actual post mortem to be conducted later that day. There is no evidence at all to suggest that Phillips took part in any post mortem procedure.

Staying with Dr Phillps Brown states "Before we removed the body (from the crime scene) Dr. Phillips was sent for, as I wished him to see the wounds" The body was left in situ until about 2,55am so it could be suggested that in fact Dr Phillips only attended the crime scene and then returned to Leman St police station where the apron piece from GS had been taken after its find, which he at 5.20am took it to the mortuary

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor, please understand this because I’ve told you enough times. Just because you say something I don’t automatically accept it as true. I form my own opinion. If fact experience tells me that if it comes from you then it’s usually in support of some theory and so incorrect. So please stop telling me the same thing. I don’t accept your biased opinion. On anything. Ok?

“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”

And you said that Phillips didn’t attend the inquest.

“At 2:30, that afternoon, the post-mortem examination is held on the body of the Mitre Square victim. Present are Drs. F. Gordon Brown, Bagster Phillips, G. W. Sequeira and William S. Saunders, public analyst for the City of London. The London Times reports that Dr. Mackellar, chief surgeon for the Metropolitan Police was also in attendance. The inquest would last for four hours.

Written inquest testimony of Drs Brown,Sequeira and Saunders filed in the Corporation of London Records Office. Daily News, Oct. 1, 1888.”

I’m not interested in what ‘you imagine’ Trevor. Why would Brown have sent for Phillips if not to examine the body? A game of Scrabble perhaps?

[Trevor Marriott]

We are trying to prove the unprovable. Trevor has a theory based on 2 suggestions. 1) That the killer didn’t have time to commit the murder/mutilations/extractions in the time that he had available to him, and 2) that there was a trade in body parts.

To begin with 2) No one would doubt that this trade existed if there is evidence for it so this is not being doubted or criticised but, in itself, this proves absolutely nothing except that a motive ‘might’ exist. We have no reports of the mortuary being broken into or reports of any suspicions about anything at that specific mortuary. So at best this only gives us a ‘possible’ motive.

1) Its impossible to tie down the time available to the killer. There’s just no way that any responsible person could assume that all clocks and watches were accurate, they were all synchronised with each other and that people estimating period of time were all spot-on accurate. The fact that there is resistance in some quarters for this point makes me deeply suspicious about motive. An allowance of a margin-for-error in matters of time in the LVP is so basic that it should not require discussion. It’s simply a fact that allowances have to be made. So why the resistance?

Therefore we have margins-for-error with Lawende and Watkins which could easily see the killer having 12 minutes to do what he did. Can I prove this? Of course I can’t. No more than anyone can ‘prove’ that he’d had 6 minutes. The fact that the possibility exists is all that is required though. If no one can prove that the killer only had x amount of time then we can get no further forward.

On the issue of how long it would have taken. We certainly have varied opinions. The 3 experts in the video said that it couldn’t have been done in 9 minutes in the circumstances described (I have to ask if this was in conditions darker than it actually was? Sequiera seemed to have no issue in terms of light available and he was actually there at the time unlike us or those 3 experts) Nick Warren, who was a surgeon, said that the killer collected trophies, so he believed that the killer took body parts away. The 3 Doctors who were actually there at the time and actually saw the wounds and actually saw the conditions (light levels etc) all had no issue with the killer taking the body parts at the scene.

So we have a murder that no one agrees how long it would have taken, during a time period that we can’t tie down accurately, in conditions that we can’t recreate because none of us were there. And we have the existence of a trade in body parts.

Nothing that I’ve said above is untrue. Nothing is as a result of any adherence to a theory. Nothing is a result of an exaggeration. I hope no one is too offended by this.

I am offended I think your post is an insult to those who are prepared to consider alternatives to the old accpted theory

Yours post suggest a desperate attempt yet again to prop up your what you believe happened, a belief that is full of mis information and lacks supportive evidence

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, please understand this because I’ve told you enough times. Just because you say something I don’t automatically accept it as true. I form my own opinion. If fact experience tells me that if it comes from you then it’s usually in support of some theory and so incorrect. So please stop telling me the same thing. I don’t accept your biased opinion. On anything. Ok?



And you said that Phillips didn’t attend the inquest.



I’m not interested in what ‘you imagine’ Trevor. Why would Brown have sent for Phillips if not to examine the body? A game of Scrabble perhaps?

I should have said the post mortem Phillips did not attend the post mortem !

Yous keep asking me questions that I have alreday answered do you not read the posts thoroughly
e

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi FM,

Just a few comments.

As an initiated member of the conspiracy theorists and lunatic fringe, I my theory is that Jack cut himself early in the attack on Eddowes and cut the apron to use as a bandage.

In your formula for the margin of error you neglected to multiply by Millikin's number.

I have just measured the square from a map of the time and it measures about 75ft x 65ft.

It seems anomalous that for Nichols and Stride Jack scarpered at the first sign of danger, but for Chapman he stuck around with Cadosch only feet away, and for Eddowes he may have persisted with Harvey within viewing distance, although we don't really know that he didn't scarper at that point of time.

Watkins had 17 years of faultless service so I would hesitate to suspect him, but Morris made several statements that have aroused my suspicion about him.

Cheers, George

Aye, I'm getting my feet and metres mixed up, George. Mind you, I claimed the WM was a mathematician, not me! I think it's fair to say it was a small square though, and in the event PC Watkins arrived at 1.30am, after checking doors and looking in corners and the like he will have left the square at approx. 1.32am.

In terms of the timings being stretched due to watches and clocks being fast or slow, in fairness we shouldn't discard this scenario either. It's plausible but it should be recognised for what it is which is creating a few minutes by bending the times down one way and stretching the times up the other way. It may even be argued that what's happening here is starting from the premise that we need to create a few minutes and then finding them. That said, in fairness, it's a plausible option among a few and should be considered because whatever answer we come up with we're gonna be bending something, e.g. witness statements.

With that in mind, I wouldn't discount much, including the cutting of the apron to use as a bandage, as we are looking for a bit of magic to make sense of it all.

What I would say is the following:

In the event we had no knowledge of this case, 'not invested in any theory, 'not particularly interested; and someone came along and said: "I tell you what, there was a murder, a policeman had a beat of 12-14 minutes so let's say 13 minutes and that 13 minutes included checking the square first time 'round so let's say 11 to 12 minutes, and in that time a couple walked into the square without being seen, the man murdered the woman and mutilated her, cut out some organs in a dark corner of the square and took them away with him, and cut a piece of the woman's clothes and took that with him, without being seen in the square, nobody saw a man looking stressed in the immediate environs of the square and this was while policemen were walking around the square and while other people were known to have been around the square; in the small square itself, a man opened a door facing the crime scene about 8 minutes into this and a different policeman walked down a passage and was say 25 metres away about 7 minutes into this." We would all say: you're joking aren't you.

And all of that assumes Lawende and associates did not see Catherine and the WM, which to me is becoming increasingly likely.

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

Bit of an odd statement there. Do we discard all views and theories held by the now deceased as invalid? Also, it's a bold to assert that Nick Warren never had a "valid debate" in his lifetime.

Hi Al,

I was thinking that an old opinion should not be included with modern opinions. I wasn't asserting anything negative about Nick Warren, but having thought about your post I can see that you are correct so I will withdraw that comment.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

But how can we know that the organs weren’t discovered as missing during the PE? Dr. Phillips was called to the mortuary by Bond for obvious reasons. So if they were checking for similarities or dissimilarities between Chapman and Eddowes why isn’t it possible that they would have checked for missing organs? I’m not saying that this definitely happened because none of us can know this.

Hi Herlock,

I think that Brown wanted Phillips to view the mutilations and when Phillips arrived he said he would like to participate in the post mortem, which he did. Since Brown and Sequiera had been up half the night it seems logical that they would have gone home to get some sleep. The post mortem took 4 hours. Virchow's standard procedure took only three hours. IMO Brown may have considered checking the organs at the preliminary examination had not Phillips requested (or Brown requested) that he be at the post mortem. I'm not trying to be contrary, I just see this as the logical progression. I'm also not here to score points, but to gather clues and discuss them.

Here are a couple of more interesting newspaper articles:
Morning Advertiser 2 Oct:
Last evening Dr. Thomas Stevenson, lecturer on medical jurisprudence at Guy's Hospital, and official analyst to the Home Office, being asked by a reporter to express an opinion on the recent murders at the East-end, observed that he would rather not advance a theory on the subject of the commission of the tragedies; but with regard to the extraordinary disclosure made by Mr. Wynne E. Baxter, the coroner, in the course of his summing up, he (Dr. Stevenson) thought that if the crimes were committed by a pathologist, as had been suggested, the only possible place that a demand for the organ alluded to could emanate from was a quack museum, such as existed in the West-end of London down to a few years ago. It was well known, the doctor added, that no English medical man would need specimens;

Morning Advertiser 5 Oct:
It is obvious from what Dr. GORDON BROWN says that considerable anatomical skill was displayed in the mutilation. The cuts on the body were workmanlike cuts. They were not meaningless. The murderer did his work with professional certainty and rapidity. Without dwelling upon details it is clear that yesterday's evidence strongly fortifies, if it does not indisputably establish, the conclusion that the criminal is a skilled anatomist. If against this it be said that Dr. GORDON BROWN is of opinion that the knowledge shown in inflicting the mutilations is knowledge likely to be possessed by one accustomed to cutting up animals, we may remind the public that Dr. PHILLIPS, in the Hanbury-street instance, distinctly expressed the opposite opinion. It is among possessors of anatomical knowledge the police must look for their man. It is idle to speculate what the miscreant does with the portions of the body he carries away, how he manages to avoid self-betrayal, or to avert from him the suspicion of those among whom he is moving.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

I should have said the post mortem Phillips did not attend the post mortem !

Yous keep asking me questions that I have alreday answered do you not read the posts thoroughly
e
www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But the quote I posted suggests that he did attend the post mortem. Can it be proven otherwise or is this just your opinion.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I am offended I think your post is an insult to those who are prepared to consider alternatives to the old accpted theory

Yours post suggest a desperate attempt yet again to prop up your what you believe happened, a belief that is full of mis information and lacks supportive evidence

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

My apologies that my having an alternative opinion offends so much.

There is no problem considering a theory but it doesn’t mean that everyone had to accept it’s validity and this is the point that you never seem to get Trevor. You seem reluctant to accept that people can assess and interpret and come to a different conclusions to yourself. Do you really believe that every proposition that you make should be accepted as a fact because this is how it always appears?

Would you care to point out the ‘misinformation’ in my post please. I can’t see any.

[Varqm]

I don't think "that's it".

Dr Brown did not state: "my opinion is the murderer did this is in 5 minutes".

He gave an entirely different statement: It might be done in five minutes. It might take him longer; but that is the least time it could be done in.

So, let's not claim Dr Brown was confident the murderer did all of this in 5 minutes. He felt 5 minutes was one possibility.

PC Watkins was up at the inquest before Dr Brown, and so Dr Brown knew PC Watkins fixed finding Catherine's body at 1.44am.

Dr Brown believed Catherine was murdered at 1.40am at the earliest.

This is a 4 minutes timeframe.

So, when Dr Brown went on to state: I think he had sufficient time, but it was in all probability done in a hurry, what timings was he using? 4 minutes is less than Dr Brown's least time it could be done in.

And then we have PC Watkins' timings. He looked at his watch when Morris went to look for his lamp. That was 1.45am. Working backwards, PC Watkins judged that he found Catherine's body at 1.44am. PC Watkins stumbled upon Catherine's body, looked at the wounds, was taken aback, went for Morris, they had a brief conversation and Morris went to look for his lamp, PC Watkins looked at his watch. PC Watkins estimated that all of this took 1 minute, it could quite conceivably have taken 2 or 3 minutes.

PC Watkins tells us he entered Mitre Square from Mitre Street at 1.30am. He tells us his beat took 12-14 minutes. He tells us he saw nothing unusual and one plausible conclusion is that his beat took 12 minutes on that particular occasion. Quite conceivably, he could have entered Mitre Square at 1.42am and by the time he looked at his watch, while Morris went to find his lamp, it was 1.45am.

It's certainly not a case of "that's it". As with many areas of this case: 'lots of unanswered questions.

You could conjure any time you want.You are missing the point.It does not matter.If there was not enough time they would have suggested there was not enough time.They accepted the killer took it so that implied they accepted the time frame,there was enough time to do all the killer did.Brown said there was sufficient time ,done in a hurry,a butcher or a slaughterer could do it.But with some human anatomical knowledge,enough to do the job.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,


I think that Brown wanted Phillips to view the mutilations and when Phillips arrived he said he would like to participate in the post mortem, which he did. Since Brown and Sequiera had been up half the night it seems logical that they would have gone home to get some sleep. The post mortem took 4 hours. Virchow's standard procedure took only three hours. IMO Brown may have considered checking the organs at the preliminary examination had not Phillips requested (or Brown requested) that he be at the post mortem. I'm not trying to be contrary, I just see this as the logical progression. I'm also not here to score points, but to gather clues and discuss them.

Here are a couple of more interesting newspaper articles:
Morning Advertiser 2 Oct:
Last evening Dr. Thomas Stevenson, lecturer on medical jurisprudence at Guy's Hospital, and official analyst to the Home Office, being asked by a reporter to express an opinion on the recent murders at the East-end, observed that he would rather not advance a theory on the subject of the commission of the tragedies; but with regard to the extraordinary disclosure made by Mr. Wynne E. Baxter, the coroner, in the course of his summing up, he (Dr. Stevenson) thought that if the crimes were committed by a pathologist, as had been suggested, the only possible place that a demand for the organ alluded to could emanate from was a quack museum, such as existed in the West-end of London down to a few years ago. It was well known, the doctor added, that no English medical man would need specimens;

Morning Advertiser 5 Oct:
It is obvious from what Dr. GORDON BROWN says that considerable anatomical skill was displayed in the mutilation. The cuts on the body were workmanlike cuts. They were not meaningless. The murderer did his work with professional certainty and rapidity. Without dwelling upon details it is clear that yesterday's evidence strongly fortifies, if it does not indisputably establish, the conclusion that the criminal is a skilled anatomist. If against this it be said that Dr. GORDON BROWN is of opinion that the knowledge shown in inflicting the mutilations is knowledge likely to be possessed by one accustomed to cutting up animals, we may remind the public that Dr. PHILLIPS, in the Hanbury-street instance, distinctly expressed the opposite opinion. It is among possessors of anatomical knowledge the police must look for their man. It is idle to speculate what the miscreant does with the portions of the body he carries away, how he manages to avoid self-betrayal, or to avert from him the suspicion of those among whom he is moving.

Cheers, George

Hello George,

I agree that the only reason that Brown would have asked Phillips to attend the mortuary would have been to check the injuries but of course we can’t know for certain how far this examination would have gone. Perhaps for some reason the police were keen to know if there were any organs missing and they didn’t want to wait until the PM? I don’t know. Trevor disputes that Phillips was at the PM. I don’t know how this can be proven or disproven unless more evidence is discovered.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello George,

I agree that the only reason that Brown would have asked Phillips to attend the mortuary would have been to check the injuries but of course we can’t know for certain how far this examination would have gone. Perhaps for some reason the police were keen to know if there were any organs missing and they didn’t want to wait until the PM? I don’t know. Trevor disputes that Phillips was at the PM. I don’t know how this can be proven or disproven unless more evidence is discovered.

You are the one who stated Phillips was at the post mortem there is no evidence that shows that, in fact there is no evidence other than the newspaper report which puts him arriving at the mortuary at 5.20am.

There is no evidence at all to suggest that Phillips took part in any post mortem procedure.

Staying with Dr Phillps Brown states "Before we removed the body (from the crime scene) Dr. Phillips was sent for, as I wished him to see the wounds" The body was left at the crime scene until about 2,55am so it could be suggested that in that 60 mins Dr Phillips simply attended the crime scene viewed the body in situ and then returned to Leman St police station where the apron piece from GS had been taken after its find, which he then at 5.20am took to the mortuary

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello George,

I agree that the only reason that Brown would have asked Phillips to attend the mortuary would have been to check the injuries but of course we can’t know for certain how far this examination would have gone. Perhaps for some reason the police were keen to know if there were any organs missing and they didn’t want to wait until the PM? I don’t know. Trevor disputes that Phillips was at the PM. I don’t know how this can be proven or disproven unless more evidence is discovered.

Just to keep you happy I am willing to concede that after the body was stripped the body was exmained by those present which did not include Dr Phillips but not to the point of a preliminary post mortem it would have been more of a viewing of the wounds and on that basis they would not have found the organs missing for that to have happened the abdomen would have to have been opened up surgically as it was for the full post mortem, which would have meant that the official later PM would have been compromised.

There is no evidence in the murder of Chapman that any form of preliminary post mortem took place.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk