Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Organ removal ? Warning Graphic Photos

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

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    None of us are medical experts but I’m still waiting for a comment/response. Could two Doctors (interested in comparing Chapman to Eddowes) standing in front of a corpse laid out with the abdomen torn open have missed the fact that the woman’s uterus was missing?
    Yes is the answer you are looking for

    You clearly dont know how a post mortem takes place they dont just stick their hands in an abdomen and feel around. The procedure is that the abdomen is opened up fully from breast bone to pubis and then the skin is pulled back to reveal the abdomen fully so that and inspection of the organs can take place fully. Eddowes abdomen was not as open as that.

    They would not have done this before the post mortem if they had have done they might as well have completed the whole post mortem they have a set procedure to adhere to as you have been told

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

      Yes is the answer you are looking for

      You clearly dont know how a post mortem takes place they dont just stick their hands in an abdomen and feel around. The procedure is that the abdomen is opened up fully from breast bone to pubis and then the skin is pulled back to reveal the abdomen fully so that and inspection of the organs can take place fully. Eddowes abdomen was not as open as that.

      They would not have done this before the post mortem if they had have done they might as well have completed the whole post mortem they have a set procedure to adhere to as you have been told

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
      But you appear to be ignoring the fact that Brown specifically requested Phillips presence. And this was to look at any similarities between Chapman and Eddowes. Why are you resisting this. The only relevant points of comparison were the cuts and the organs. Why would Phillips have been called only to not bother checking?

      The PM was a different matter. It’s a systematic check of everything the results of which end up in writing so we’re not talking about exploratory PM. You are stating what they wouldn’t have done as a fact. You can’t know this because you weren’t there.
      Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 09-22-2022, 03:29 PM.
      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 Trevor,

        Agreed, and thank you, on behalf of all that are pursuing a positive debate.

        Have you had any comment from your experts on the diversion of Eddowes abdominal incision around the naval?

        Cheers, George
        consultant gynecologist

        "I am first struck by the jagged appearance of the abdominal wound. This does not look like a surgical incision. The irregular nature of it and some of the minor wounds to underlying organs suggests to me that possibly the knife (the pathologists at the time conjectured a thin blade of 6-8 inches) entered probably the upper portion of the abdomen which was then opened by pulling the knife upwards, possibly with a sawing motion, as opposed to a surgical incision where one would press down with the blade on the skin. In other words, the irregular line suggests the abdomen was opened from inside out rather than outside in"

        patholgist

        The autopsy report states that the abdomen had been opened from the bottom of the sternum as far as the pubis. It is interesting to observe that this incision appeared to be irregular, which could suggest the use of a slightly blunt knife. However, the incision had avoided the umbilicus (which is more difficult to incise), and this would perhaps be supportive evidence that the assailant knew of this from past experience.


        Hope this helps

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk





        Comment


        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

          Additional medical evidence from forensic patholgists.consultant gynecologists, and even a master butcher and others used to removing organs from dead bodies all support the belief that the killer did not have the time to do all that he is purported to have done in the Eddowes murder. All I have done is to act as the evidence gatherer and to document all the findings in an unbiased fashion.

          Simply untrue.

          You are at liberty to keep believing the old accepted theory, but please dont keep repeating and posting the same old same, as another poster stated it is getting boring now and you clearly have your mind set on what you believe and you are not going to change so is there anything more to say that hasnt already been said countless times before?

          You’re the one who has his mind set Trevor. You simply won’t accept alternatives.

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
          You keep making the same points so why are you and your echo complaining when I do? Is there one rule for you and another for the rest of us? You’re not looking for discussion and debate Trevor. Your looking for agreement. As usual.
          Regards

          Sir Herlock Sholmes

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

          Comment


          • So we have Chapman and Eddowes taken to 2 different mortuary’s. One a shed, the other a purpose built building. And these two both had body part stealers at work. Let’s not forget the obvious…that these were two murders that were about as high profile as possible and so under far more scrutiny than your average corpse. We know that a police guard was in place at Golden Lane and we even have the man’s collar number so he clearly existed. So we can’t simply dismiss the suggestion that there was security in place.

            Anyone working at the Golden Lane mortuary would have known that the Doctors had been there looking at the body prior to the PM. How could a potential stealer of body parts have known what the Doctors would have checked and what they hadn’t checked? Would they really have laid themselves so open to discovery that they would have stolen body parts only for Brown to have arrived for the PM only to say “hold on, the uterus was there when I looked earlier.”

            Is this believable?
            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 we have Chapman and Eddowes taken to 2 different mortuary’s. One a shed, the other a purpose built building. And these two both had body part stealers at work. Let’s not forget the obvious…that these were two murders that were about as high profile as possible and so under far more scrutiny than your average corpse. We know that a police guard was in place at Golden Lane and we even have the man’s collar number so he clearly existed. So we can’t simply dismiss the suggestion that there was security in place.

              Anyone working at the Golden Lane mortuary would have known that the Doctors had been there looking at the body prior to the PM. How could a potential stealer of body parts have known what the Doctors would have checked and what they hadn’t checked? Would they really have laid themselves so open to discovery that they would have stolen body parts only for Brown to have arrived for the PM only to say “hold on, the uterus was there when I looked earlier.”

              Is this believable?
              But there is no evidence of what you say happened, go away and come back with some if you think you are right you are speculating yet again as to what you think happened, but the reality is that might not have happened, and that they only looked at the body and its wounds after it had been stripped and left on the slab. There is no evidence to show how long any of those persons who were present when the body was stripped stayed at the mortuary, personally I can see no reason for them to have stayed after all they had arranged for the post mortem to be carried out the next day, they may well have all gone home leaving just the mortuary attendant, and if that be the case we get back to body dealers being involved with mortuary attendants in taking organ for financial gain.

              And I do belive that when Dr Phillps arrived at 5.20am with the apron piece they had all gone home because I stand to be corrected but the apron piece was not matched to the mortuary piece until the following day at the post mortem.

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                But there is no evidence of what you say happened, go away and come back with some if you think you are right you are speculating yet again as to what you think happened, but the reality is that might not have happened, and that they only looked at the body and its wounds after it had been stripped and left on the slab. There is no evidence to show how long any of those persons who were present when the body was stripped stayed at the mortuary, personally I can see no reason for them to have stayed after all they had arranged for the post mortem to be carried out the next day, they may well have all gone home leaving just the mortuary attendant, and if that be the case we get back to body dealers being involved with mortuary attendants in taking organ for financial gain.

                And I do belive that when Dr Phillps arrived at 5.20am with the apron piece they had all gone home because I stand to be corrected but the apron piece was not matched to the mortuary piece until the following day at the post mortem.

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                Trevor,

                To get back to the interesting OP you put forward, I found this post from Prosector, a practicing surgeon:

                As for the assertion that no 'knife skills' or special knowledge was used in the Eddowes dissection - I utterly refute that and would be happy to debate it sometime when I've got a few hours to spare. The big thing that everyone overlooks in this debate is that in 1888 abdominal surgery was virtually unknown. Sir Frederick Treves performed the first successful appendicectomy in Britain in its present sense in 1887 (and the appendix is very near the surface and therefore relatively easy to get at). Very few surgeons had ever ventured into the depths of the abdomen in 1888 except in a limited way during dissection as medical students (bodies were very difficult to come by - most students only got (and still only get) one body to dissect in their entire career, shared with several others. The bit of colon removed in the Eddowes dissection was the descending colon. This lies behind the posterior peritoneum and in front of the left kidney. It is relatively immobile compared with the rest of the intestines and JTR needed to get it out of the way in order to access the kidney. The fact that it was slightly crudely done is not surprising in the circumstances. I am certain that I could not have done any better, kneeling on the ground, in the dark with a 7 inch knife as my only instrument and no assistants to retract the abdominal flaps and contents. To me and to other surgeons that I have discussed it with like Professor Harold Ellis, it is absolutely staggering that he did what he did to Chapman and Eddowes in such a short time - or at all. Also, don't forget that Bond and others who said that JTR did not display either surgical skill or anatomical knowledge, they were not practicing surgeons. Bond was only the surgeon to Out Patients at the Westminster Hospital and he did not have operating rights. In my view the only one who had the slightest idea of what was involved was Bagster Philips.

                I think this lends weight towards what you're saying. I'd add that elsewhere in the thread, Prosector has taken it for granted that Lawende and associates saw Catherine and the WM, so when he states it's staggering in that short time; he is talking of between 1.35am and 1.44am.

                I think the weight of evidence suggests it is highly questionable that this could have been done from the point Lawende and associates saw the couple, and we should bear in mind that the opinions of some doctors involved with the inquests carry more weight than others due to their relative experience.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                  But there is no evidence of what you say happened, go away and come back with some if you think you are right you are speculating yet again as to what you think happened, but the reality is that might not have happened, and that they only looked at the body and its wounds after it had been stripped and left on the slab. There is no evidence to show how long any of those persons who were present when the body was stripped stayed at the mortuary, personally I can see no reason for them to have stayed after all they had arranged for the post mortem to be carried out the next day, they may well have all gone home leaving just the mortuary attendant,

                  You forgot about the police officer on guard. You know….the one that someone invented along with his collar number. He gets dismissed as inconvenient too.

                  and if that be the case we get back to body dealers being involved with mortuary attendants in taking organ for financial gain.

                  Would a dishonest mortuary worker have stolen body parts after they knew that Doctors had already examined the body? Of course they wouldn’t have.

                  And I do belive that when Dr Phillps arrived at 5.20am with the apron piece they had all gone home because I stand to be corrected but the apron piece was not matched to the mortuary piece until the following day at the post mortem.

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                  You really don’t understand anything do you. I keep trying to be polite and trying to have a proper discussion with you but is simply impossible when you come up with unmitigated crap like this. Why the hell os it that on your side of the debate it’s absolutely fine to use conjecture, speculation and interpretation but when I make a point you request written proof! What more evidence do we need of your entrenched bias when it comes to your own opinions. For Christ sake try thinking Trevor.

                  You suggest that someone took body parts. Go on then….prove it. Don’t say….what else could have happened because I’ll say that the killer took them. I want proof. I want specific evidence that body parts were stolen from the Golden Lane mortuary not generalities. I want proof that Brown and Phillips, checking the body for similarities to Chapman, didn’t really, actually look. They made a cursory and rather pointless, defeating-the-object viewing and the proof of this is that you need it to be the case.

                  I want proof that Phillips didn’t examine the body with Brown as these 2 quotes (and others) show.

                  “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.”

                  “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 every time you demand written proof from me I’ll demand it back from you until you stop with this obsessive theory bias.

                  Regards

                  Sir Herlock Sholmes

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

                  Comment



                  • Nothing wrong with a nice sketch.

                    Attached Files
                    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

                      Trevor,

                      To get back to the interesting OP you put forward, I found this post from Prosector, a practicing surgeon:

                      As for the assertion that no 'knife skills' or special knowledge was used in the Eddowes dissection - I utterly refute that and would be happy to debate it sometime when I've got a few hours to spare. The big thing that everyone overlooks in this debate is that in 1888 abdominal surgery was virtually unknown. Sir Frederick Treves performed the first successful appendicectomy in Britain in its present sense in 1887 (and the appendix is very near the surface and therefore relatively easy to get at). Very few surgeons had ever ventured into the depths of the abdomen in 1888 except in a limited way during dissection as medical students (bodies were very difficult to come by - most students only got (and still only get) one body to dissect in their entire career, shared with several others. The bit of colon removed in the Eddowes dissection was the descending colon. This lies behind the posterior peritoneum and in front of the left kidney. It is relatively immobile compared with the rest of the intestines and JTR needed to get it out of the way in order to access the kidney. The fact that it was slightly crudely done is not surprising in the circumstances. I am certain that I could not have done any better, kneeling on the ground, in the dark with a 7 inch knife as my only instrument and no assistants to retract the abdominal flaps and contents. To me and to other surgeons that I have discussed it with like Professor Harold Ellis, it is absolutely staggering that he did what he did to Chapman and Eddowes in such a short time - or at all. Also, don't forget that Bond and others who said that JTR did not display either surgical skill or anatomical knowledge, they were not practicing surgeons. Bond was only the surgeon to Out Patients at the Westminster Hospital and he did not have operating rights. In my view the only one who had the slightest idea of what was involved was Bagster Philips.

                      I think this lends weight towards what you're saying. I'd add that elsewhere in the thread, Prosector has taken it for granted that Lawende and associates saw Catherine and the WM, so when he states it's staggering in that short time; he is talking of between 1.35am and 1.44am.

                      I think the weight of evidence suggests it is highly questionable that this could have been done from the point Lawende and associates saw the couple, and we should bear in mind that the opinions of some doctors involved with the inquests carry more weight than others due to their relative experience.
                      umm no it dosnt lend weight to what Trevor is saying. Exactly the opposite. Prosector beleived the ripper was a DR, and that only a Dr/surgeon could have done what the ripper did in the circs he was operating under as in-doing all the mutilations and removing and taking away organs at the scene under poor lighting and operating conditions. Prosector also pointed out that the evidence of the abdominal cut going around the naval also pointed to a DR/surgeon. so a doctor exhibiting surgeon skills at the scene of the murder, not in a mortuary.
                      His whole theory was that the ripper was a dr and did everything at the scene, including taking away organs. Nothing about the ripper wasnt the one who cut out and took away organs and that they were taken at the mortuary.

                      But this kind of misunderstanding and misrepresenting is par for the course for the conspiracy brigade.

                      One simple question should really put this yet another silly theory from Trevor to rest once and for all-Do you really beleive that the ripper would murder, post mortem mutilate, pull out the guts of several victims, but wasnt the person who removed and took away the missing organs?

                      If you believe this, then I have some ocean front property in Kansas id like to sell you. lol



                      "Is all that we see or seem
                      but a dream within a dream?"

                      -Edgar Allan Poe


                      "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                      quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                      -Frederick G. Abberline

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                        umm no it dosnt lend weight to what Trevor is saying. Exactly the opposite. Prosector beleived the ripper was a DR, and that only a Dr/surgeon could have done what the ripper did in the circs he was operating under as in-doing all the mutilations and removing and taking away organs at the scene under poor lighting and operating conditions. Prosector also pointed out that the evidence of the abdominal cut going around the naval also pointed to a DR/surgeon. so a doctor exhibiting surgeon skills at the scene of the murder, not in a mortuary.
                        His whole theory was that the ripper was a dr and did everything at the scene, including taking away organs. Nothing about the ripper wasnt the one who cut out and took away organs and that they were taken at the mortuary.

                        But this kind of misunderstanding and misrepresenting is par for the course for the conspiracy brigade.

                        One simple question should really put this yet another silly theory from Trevor to rest once and for all-Do you really beleive that the ripper would murder, post mortem mutilate, pull out the guts of several victims, but wasnt the person who removed and took away the missing organs?

                        If you believe this, then I have some ocean front property in Kansas id like to sell you. lol


                        It’s ok to make selective quotes from that people can ‘read into’ to try and make it fit but here’s the killer blow from Prosecutor….a surgeon remember:

                        “At the end of the day does it matter if he performed the Eddowes killing in 1 minute or 10? He did it and we know that he certainly couldn't have taken more than about 10 minutes. Or is anyone suggesting that he had an assistant? I certainly don't espouse that possibility.”

                        So that’s the 2 Doctors at the crime scene and 2 surgeons with a specific interest in the case who have no problem with the killer removing organs at the scene.
                        Regards

                        Sir Herlock Sholmes

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

                        Comment


                        • And Prosecutor (the surgeon) had a suspect, though I’m unsure if he ever named him:

                          “If I'm right, he wasn't a doctor but he did have anatomical knowledge and a reasonable familiarity with dissecting rooms and mortuaries.”
                          Regards

                          Sir Herlock Sholmes

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

                          Comment


                          • I’m sure that Trevor will recognise this:

                            “To obtain 21st-century medical opinions, I first asked two different forensic pathologists Dr`s Calder and Biggs, and also medical expert Phillip Harrison all experienced experts in their own fields, along with Mr Edmund Neale a consultant gynaecologist. Dr Biggs and Edmond Neale both concur with Dr Brown on the “at least” 5 minutes window. After studying the postmortem reports on both Eddowes and Chapman, Dr Calder, and Phillip Harrison believed it was not possible within that time frame. In both the removals of the uterus and the kidney Mr Neal says that in his opinion it would not be the skill, but the level of anatomical knowledge that would determine the time needed at the crime scene to effect these removals. Mr Neal also believes that if the killer did remove the organs then he must have had sufficient anatomical knowledge, otherwise, he would not have had the time to search for the organs, and work out how to remove them within that “at least five-minute window”

                            And this:

                            “In both the removals of the uterus and the kidney Mr Neal says that in his opinion it would not be the skill, but the level of anatomical knowledge that would determine the time needed at the crime scene to effect these removals. Mr Neal also believes that if the killer did remove the organs then he must have had sufficient anatomical knowledge, otherwise, he would not have had the time to search for the organs, and work out how to remove them within that “at least five-minute window”

                            So Biggs and Neale were both ok with 5 minutes. Calder and Harrison felt that it would have taken the killer longer. Bearing in mind of course that the killer would have had longer.

                            So none of the 4 were saying that it was impossible for the killer to have done it, 2 of the 4 said that he would have needed longer than 5 minutes though.

                            From Jack The Ripper: The Real Truth by Trevor Marriott.
                            Regards

                            Sir Herlock Sholmes

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

                            Comment


                            • I feel like a 4 year old straying into the bigger boys playground but I have to ask,
                              If the uteri and kidney were stolen from the corpses after their removal from the crime scene by an unknown third party who was taking advantage of JTR's mutilations then why not Polly Nichols? She was also laid open as was MJK, or is posited that there was a better/more secure chain of evidence in the latter two cases so there was no opportunity for any shenanigans before autopsy?

                              Helen x

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                                I’m sure that Trevor will recognise this:

                                “To obtain 21st-century medical opinions, I first asked two different forensic pathologists Dr`s Calder and Biggs, and also medical expert Phillip Harrison all experienced experts in their own fields, along with Mr Edmund Neale a consultant gynaecologist. Dr Biggs and Edmond Neale both concur with Dr Brown on the “at least” 5 minutes window. After studying the postmortem reports on both Eddowes and Chapman, Dr Calder, and Phillip Harrison believed it was not possible within that time frame. In both the removals of the uterus and the kidney Mr Neal says that in his opinion it would not be the skill, but the level of anatomical knowledge that would determine the time needed at the crime scene to effect these removals. Mr Neal also believes that if the killer did remove the organs then he must have had sufficient anatomical knowledge, otherwise, he would not have had the time to search for the organs, and work out how to remove them within that “at least five-minute window”

                                And this:

                                “In both the removals of the uterus and the kidney Mr Neal says that in his opinion it would not be the skill, but the level of anatomical knowledge that would determine the time needed at the crime scene to effect these removals. Mr Neal also believes that if the killer did remove the organs then he must have had sufficient anatomical knowledge, otherwise, he would not have had the time to search for the organs, and work out how to remove them within that “at least five-minute window”

                                So Biggs and Neale were both ok with 5 minutes. Calder and Harrison felt that it would have taken the killer longer. Bearing in mind of course that the killer would have had longer.

                                So none of the 4 were saying that it was impossible for the killer to have done it, 2 of the 4 said that he would have needed longer than 5 minutes though.

                                From Jack The Ripper: The Real Truth by Trevor Marriott.
                                But there is no evidence to show how long the killer had with the victim, it is presumed that the couple seen standing were in fact Eddowes and the killer, that was at 1.35am but they were not seen to walk away into the square so it might have been any time between 1.35am-1,40am and even as late as 1.40 am would stiil be enough time for the killer to murder and mutilate so none of the times suggested can be relied upon to be accurate, and the later the time the couple moved off the less time the killer would have had with the victim.

                                So those who state the killer had the time to remove the organs and based on what I have posted should consider a rethink, and one other point that seems to have been missed in the discussion of times, and I refer to Dr Sequeira and by his statement where he states the killer could have done all that he did in 3 mins just goes to prove that his statement to the press along with Dr Browns 5 mins must have been made before the post mortem, because Sequeira specifically states 3 mins he doesnt say or longer, so to me the 5 mins by Brown and Sequeiras 3 mins should be ignored when trying to calculate how long the killer could have had with the victim.

                                The answer is we dont know

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X