Organ removal ? Warning Graphic Photos

[Trevor Marriott]

I agree. So why do we have FM for example criticising this?

So when you say that you believe that the killer wouldn’t have had time do you accept that other people, including a surgeon, disagree with you? Do you accept that, although we can’t stretch the available time to ridiculous lengths we can’t deny a reasonable and understandable margin for error and so we can’t say for certain how long the killer had available to him?

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.

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?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GBinOz]

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?

Hi Herlock,

We know now which organs were missing but the doctors didn't at that time. All the same, the uterus is right out front in plain view. I suppose it has to be considered that the small intestines that had been removed were originally in the body in compact form, but wouldn't have gone back in that way, so they may have been restricting the view of the abdominal contents. I thought they had been completely detached from the body, but Trevor is saying there were still attachments, in which case they would have been put back in the body for transport. We are deep in conjecture territory on this, the actual answer being we don't know if they could see or if they were even interested in finding out pre post mortem.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

If we seek to rely on very general language then we are on pretty thin ground. Why would Phillips have been called in to check only the wounds and not spend a very few seconds on checking to see if there were organs missing as in the case of Chapman? Especially when the police had the apron piece to consider? Simply by repeatedly using phrase like ‘going around in circles’ only when it’s in regard to points that don’t conform to the theory is just a hindrance. Why try to airbrush events? There is much that we don’t have written record of….do we ignore all of these? It’s been suggested that the couple might have waited some time before entering Mitre Square. Fair enough but there’s no record of this so should we discard the possibility?

More importantly though we have this diagram of an opened female abdomen.

https://www.google.com/search?q=view...WacCp-vfvnsPpM.

Phillips and Brown were faced with an opened female abdomen in the mortuary. So it’s not just a question of ‘did they check the organs’ but ‘how could 2 Doctors not have noticed that the uterus was missing?’

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?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Cheers Trevor.

In terms of Dr Phillips and when he saw Catherine's body, I'd add that it's pretty much a red herring, and one of those rabbit holes that Sherlock enjoys dragging a discussion down. In the end there is no authoritative statement on record to the effect that the internal organs were examined prior to the post-mortem, and Dr Brown leaves us a record of exactly why he wanted Dr Phillips' presence: to look at the wounds.

There's nothing more to be defended on that point because all you can possibly receive in return is: "could have, perhaps, why not" and so on. As somebody who studied history at university, I can categorically state that the study of history is a mix of science and art, but the art has to be underpinned by the science, i.e. the primary source documents; and the primary source documents must be of an authoritative nature. There is no primary source document of an authoritative nature that records the examination of the internal organs prior to the post-mortem. So, the claim that the internal organs were examined prior to the post-mortem is lacking in science and is merely art, in other words magic/imagination/whatever you want to call it, but not supported by the science; and ultimately it is an idea that would not be entertained in the world of rigorous historical study of analysing source documents and arriving at a conclusion.

On this point:

In concluding if the organs were removed at the mortuary there is a distinct possibility and in order to remove them quickly further damage could easily have been done to the already ripped abdomens all of which would still have been attributed to the killer.

Aye, that makes sense to me. 'Was merely wondering whether or not something pretty noticeably different may have happened to the visible parts of the body. To be honest, I'm massively out of my depth talking about pathology and the like, but I do recall a lad called Prosector posting quite a bit relating to the post-mortems, so I reckon I'll have a look back through his posts to see if he came up with something related to this.

Cheers for the info.

Still making it personal I see when others are trying to discus the case openly and not simply trying to find ways of shoehorning a theory into place.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Th reason being is that I have assesed and evaluated evidence for alomst 40 years so i think that allows me to say whether evidence is unsafe.

Trevor, the stupidest, most unbelievably dumb thing that has ever been said on the subject of this case was said by a modern day senior police officer. So we can’t assume that just because you were a police officer that you get everything right. Again, I’ll bring up the fact that for years you had the apron strings attached to the wrong part of the apron. No one is perfect. Stewart Evans was a police officer as was Donald Rumbelow and I can’t recall either of them doubting that the killer removed organs.

The trouble you have with evidence is you seem to want belive everything you read from inquest testimony to newspaper reports. Do you not realise that people do lie,people are mistaken, and people do make things up, all three we see constantly when assesing and evaluating all the facts and evidence throughout all of these murders.

Yes I do realise that but that doesn’t mean that we can indiscriminately toss out evidence that is inconvenient.

With all the best will in the world none of us can speculate about what might have have happened and thats why Ripperology is made up of "What if`s/maybes/I think/Could have/Might have

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I agree. So why do we have FM for example criticising this?

So when you say that you believe that the killer wouldn’t have had time do you accept that other people, including a surgeon, disagree with you? Do you accept that, although we can’t stretch the available time to ridiculous lengths we can’t deny a reasonable and understandable margin for error and so we can’t say for certain how long the killer had available to him?

[Trevor Marriott]

Then according to FM we should ignore any suggestion that anything amiss went on as we don’t have any written record of it and, again according to FM, you’re just ‘going round in circles’ by mentioning it.

My question to you is an obvious one and one that I’ve put to you numerous times. Why is it that any evidence that works against one of your theories or interpretations is always, without fail, ‘unsafe to rely on.’ You have not a shred of evidence that the bodies were tampered with except your ‘opinion’ that the killer couldn’t have done what he did and the fact of the existence of some form of market for body parts. You ‘assume’ a connection between the two but this isn’t a fact. It’s simply your opinion and you fail to consider the alternative.

Th reason being is that I have assesed and evaluated evidence for alomst 40 years so i think that allows me to say whether evidence is unsafe

The trouble you have with evidence is you seem to want belive everything you read from inquest testimony to newspaper reports. Do you not realise that people do lie,people are mistaken, and people do make things up, all three we see constantly when assesing and evaluating all the facts and evidence throughout all of these murders.

With all the best will in the world none of us can speculate about what might have have happened and thats why Ripperology is made up of "What if`s/maybes/I think/Could have/Might have

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fleetwood Mac]

You have raised a good point and it is a point I did cover with my medical experts who reviewed the post mortem reports, firstly this pre examination is clearly being blown up out of all proporsion by Herlock who seems to think that before the main post mortem the doctors made an pre post mortem examination of the body and I dont doubt for one moment that after the body had been stripped those present at the mortuary at that time did look at the wounds but I doubt that they would have gone further, and there is no evidence to support that and surely the coroner would have asked if the organs were missing at that time.

In answer to your question I will digress momentarily and highlight the fact that out of all the victim Mackenzie and Coles included no attempt was made to remove organs from their bodies, by the killer, so if the killer was harvesting organs the obvious question is why did none of those victims have organs removed by the killer at the crime scene. There is an obvious answer and that is that all of those victims save for Eddowes and Chapman did not have their abdomens ripped open to the extent of Eddowes and Chapman, and as the doctors would have noted those facts at the crime scenes, there would have been no way that any organs from their bodies could have been removed at the mortuaries undetected.

Where as with Chapman and Eddowes their abdomens were ripped open to the extent that it would have been easy for their organs to be removed un=noticed with the end result that when then doctors retuned to do the post mortem and they found organs missing which they wrongly attributed to the killer.

In concluding if the organs were removed at the mortuary there is a distinct possibility and in order to remove them quickly further damage could easily have been done to the already ripped abdomens all of which would still have been attributed to the killer. My experts concur on this .

Can I also say that Dr Phillps was sent for whilst the body was still in Mitre Square he could have easily attended the crime scene because the body didnt leave there until 2.55am, and from there he went back to Leman St police station where he was presented with the apron piece from GS which he then takes with him to the mortuary at 5.20am

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Cheers Trevor.

In terms of Dr Phillips and when he saw Catherine's body, I'd add that it's pretty much a red herring, and one of those rabbit holes that Sherlock enjoys dragging a discussion down. In the end there is no authoritative statement on record to the effect that the internal organs were examined prior to the post-mortem, and Dr Brown leaves us a record of exactly why he wanted Dr Phillips' presence: to look at the wounds.

There's nothing more to be defended on that point because all you can possibly receive in return is: "could have, perhaps, why not" and so on. As somebody who studied history at university, I can categorically state that the study of history is a mix of science and art, but the art has to be underpinned by the science, i.e. the primary source documents; and the primary source documents must be of an authoritative nature. There is no primary source document of an authoritative nature that records the examination of the internal organs prior to the post-mortem. So, the claim that the internal organs were examined prior to the post-mortem is lacking in science and is merely art, in other words magic/imagination/whatever you want to call it, but not supported by the science; and ultimately it is an idea that would not be entertained in the world of rigorous historical study of analysing source documents and arriving at a conclusion.

On this point:

In concluding if the organs were removed at the mortuary there is a distinct possibility and in order to remove them quickly further damage could easily have been done to the already ripped abdomens all of which would still have been attributed to the killer.

Aye, that makes sense to me. 'Was merely wondering whether or not something pretty noticeably different may have happened to the visible parts of the body. To be honest, I'm massively out of my depth talking about pathology and the like, but I do recall a lad called Prosector posting quite a bit relating to the post-mortems, so I reckon I'll have a look back through his posts to see if he came up with something related to this.

Cheers for the info.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The evidence you seek to rely on is clearly compomised and unsafe to rely on. If the mortuary attendant was involved who knows, and the body was left for many hours before the post mortem was conducted so we dont know who came and went and what people had legitimate access to the mortuary.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Then according to FM we should ignore any suggestion that anything amiss went on as we don’t have any written record of it and, again according to FM, you’re just ‘going round in circles’ by mentioning it.

My question to you is an obvious one and one that I’ve put to you numerous times. Why is it that any evidence that works against one of your theories or interpretations is always, without fail, ‘unsafe to rely on.’ You have not a shred of evidence that the bodies were tampered with except your ‘opinion’ that the killer couldn’t have done what he did and the fact of the existence of some form of market for body parts. You ‘assume’ a connection between the two but this isn’t a fact. It’s simply your opinion and you fail to consider the alternative.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Trevor,

I've a question regarding Dr Phillips being called to examine the wounds.

Before that it's worth saying that there is no written record, from an authoritative source, mentioning the internal organs being examined until Dr Brown's post-mortem on the Sunday afternoon.

Furthermore, Dr Brown clearly states the purpose of calling Dr Phillips to the mortuary: I wished him to see the wounds. 'No mention of examining the internal organs. The internal organs are examined at the post-mortem in accordance with procedure.

Historical record and post-mortem procedure clearly lend towards the internal organs first being examined at the post-mortem on the Sunday afternoon. In the event people want to believe otherwise, then they're entitled to do so but it should be noted that there is nothing on record to support that claim. There is nothing more anyone can say on this point except go 'round in circles. Among all of the people who have looked at this on both Casebook and JTRForums, nobody has come up with written record of the internal organs being examined prior to the post-mortem.

If we seek to rely on very general language then we are on pretty thin ground. Why would Phillips have been called in to check only the wounds and not spend a very few seconds on checking to see if there were organs missing as in the case of Chapman? Especially when the police had the apron piece to consider? Simply by repeatedly using phrase like ‘going around in circles’ only when it’s in regard to points that don’t conform to the theory is just a hindrance. Why try to airbrush events? There is much that we don’t have written record of….do we ignore all of these? It’s been suggested that the couple might have waited some time before entering Mitre Square. Fair enough but there’s no record of this so should we discard the possibility?

More importantly though we have this diagram of an opened female abdomen.

https://www.google.com/search?q=view...WacCp-vfvnsPpM.

Phillips and Brown were faced with an opened female abdomen in the mortuary. So it’s not just a question of ‘did they check the organs’ but ‘how could 2 Doctors not have noticed that the uterus was missing?’

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

How can you sleep at a time like this?

Yes it sounds familiar but, as I said in my simultaneous post above, Chapman's body was found in the yard unattended, not in the shed under guard where it was supposed to be.

Let's re-examine the "preliminary examination". From the Chapman Inquest:
[Coroner] Was the whole of the body there? - No; the absent portions being from the abdomen.
[Coroner] Are those portions such as would require anatomical knowledge to extract? - I think the mode in which they were extracted did show some anatomical knowledge.
[Coroner] You do not think they could have been lost accidentally in the transit of the body to the mortuary? - I was not present at the transit. I carefully closed up the clothes of the woman. Some portions had been excised.

Bear in mind that the small intestines and other abdominal parts had been removed from the body by the murderer. The doctor would have had to replace them back in the abdominal cavity for the transit of the body. Phillips also testified that he closed up the clothing. So when the body arrived at the mortuary it was not opened up for quick viewing.

Having received instructions soon after two o'clock on Saturday afternoon, I went to the labour- yard of the Whitechapel Union for the purpose of further examining the body and making the usual post-mortem investigation. I was surprised to find that the body had been stripped and was laying ready on the table. It was under great disadvantage I made my examination.

This a clue that the preliminary examination was the removal of the clothing and perhaps the washing of the body. Phillips was complaining that this had been done before he arrived and should not have been done without him being present.

This from Brown's autopsy report on Eddowes:
When the body arrived at Golden Lane, some of the blood was dispersed through the removal of the body to the mortuary. The clothes were taken off carefully from the body. A piece of deceased's ear dropped from the clothing.

I made a post mortem examination at half past two on Sunday afternoon.

Brown talks about the body arriving at Golden Lane and the clothing being removed. Again, the intestines that were removed by the murderer would have been back in the abdominal cavity. We know a list was also made of the clothing and possessions. I am forming an opinion that this is what was called a preliminary examination.

From the Eddowes autopsy report:
The abdominal walls were divided in the middle line to within a quarter of an inch of the navel. The cut then took a horizontal course for two inches and a half towards the right side. It then divided round the navel on the left side, and made a parallel incision to the former horizontal incision, leaving the navel on a tongue of skin. Attached to the navel was two and a half inches of the lower part of the rectus muscle on the left side of the abdomen. The incision then took an oblique direction to the right and was shelving. The incision went down the right side of the vagina and rectum for half an inch behind the rectum.

I have read that the avoidance of cutting of the naval is a technique employed when opening the body during during an autopsy or dissection. Since it is certain that this cut was inflicted by the murderer, it adds weight to the theory that the killer was familiar with the dissection methods employed for humans. I may be wrong, but I wouldn't think that a pig (or horse) slaughterer would employ this technique. The post mortem commenced with the face and worked down the body, so there didn't appear to be any urgency in examining the abdomen for missing organs to satisfy any police demands.

At this stage my opinion leans towards that there were security measures implemented for the bodies but, in Chapman's case at least, they proved ineffective. I think that the preliminary examination was confined to the removal, and inventory, of the clothing and possessions and perhaps washing the body, in preparation for the post mortem. I think that either the Ripper had both anatomical knowledge of the human body and surgical skills and he removed the organs, or the organs were removed after the fact and the Ripper had little medical knowledge or practical application. At this stage I lean slightly towards the former.
Disclaimer: These opinions are subject to change at any time should new evidence be presented.

Cheers, George

I had an early start George so I needed sleep.

I interpret that one differently George. I’ll stand correcting but I don’t really see the clothing and possessions as being in the remit of the Doctor. Yes we know that Phillips found certain items at Hanbury Street but I don’t see that as his job, just something that he did and perhaps the police just allowed Phillips to do his job before they did a detailed check so he, in effect, beat them to it? We know that the clothing was listed by Collard but I don’t know if Brown actually wanted to be their for the stripping of the body or whether it was just a case of circumstances allowing him to have been there when it was. In difference circumstances might not the staff have arrived at the mortuary considerably before the Doctor and then proceeded to strip the body?

My interpretation is that the preliminary examination was a medical one (we don’t know the details of course) I base this on the fact that Brown specifically requested Phillips input for which I see no other explanation except to compare what the killer did to Eddowes to what the killer did to Chapman. I think that this is strengthened by the fact that Phillips had just returned from the North East where he’d been sent to view the body of a potential ripper victim.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi George,

And that’s a fair point to make but that would have just left the period until the body was taken inside as I’m guessing that the staff wouldn’t usually start at such an early hour unless specifically called in. We would have to consider how soon people (potential stealers of body parts) would have found out about the murder and the nature of the injuries. I can’t see anyone getting there that quickly.

The evidence you seek to rely on is clearly compomised and unsafe to rely on. If the mortuary attendant was involved who knows, and the body was left for many hours before the post mortem was conducted so we dont know who came and went and what people had legitimate access to the mortuary.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,

I've a question regarding Dr Phillips being called to examine the wounds.

Before that it's worth saying that there is no written record, from an authoritative source, mentioning the internal organs being examined until Dr Brown's post-mortem on the Sunday afternoon.

Furthermore, Dr Brown clearly states the purpose of calling Dr Phillips to the mortuary: I wished him to see the wounds. 'No mention of examining the internal organs. The internal organs are examined at the post-mortem in accordance with procedure.

Historical record and post-mortem procedure clearly lend towards the internal organs first being examined at the post-mortem on the Sunday afternoon. In the event people want to believe otherwise, then they're entitled to do so but it should be noted that there is nothing on record to support that claim. There is nothing more anyone can say on this point except go 'round in circles. Among all of the people who have looked at this on both Casebook and JTRForums, nobody has come up with written record of the internal organs being examined prior to the post-mortem.

I want to ask about the wounds which Dr Phillips was called to examine.

Assuming the organs were removed at the mortuary after the pre-examination, would the removal of the organs have caused noticeable tear or damage to a part of the body that was visible at the pre-examination?

For example, Dr Brown had this to say as a result of his post-mortem examination: the peritoneal lining was cut through on the left side and the left kidney carefully taken out and removed. This suggests to me that the peritoneal lining was cut through as a pre-requisite for removing the kidney, and this is a membrane that lines the inside of the abdomen. Would this lining have been visible upon examining the wounds at the pre-examination?

You have raised a good point and it is a point I did cover with my medical experts who reviewed the post mortem reports, firstly this pre examination is clearly being blown up out of all proporsion by Herlock who seems to think that before the main post mortem the doctors made an pre post mortem examination of the body and I dont doubt for one moment that after the body had been stripped those present at the mortuary at that time did look at the wounds but I doubt that they would have gone further, and there is no evidence to support that and surely the coroner would have asked if the organs were missing at that time.

In answer to your question I will digress momentarily and highlight the fact that out of all the victim Mackenzie and Coles included no attempt was made to remove organs from their bodies, by the killer, so if the killer was harvesting organs the obvious question is why did none of those victims have organs removed by the killer at the crime scene. There is an obvious answer and that is that all of those victims save for Eddowes and Chapman did not have their abdomens ripped open to the extent of Eddowes and Chapman, and as the doctors would have noted those facts at the crime scenes, there would have been no way that any organs from their bodies could have been removed at the mortuaries undetected.

Where as with Chapman and Eddowes their abdomens were ripped open to the extent that it would have been easy for their organs to be removed un=noticed with the end result that when then doctors retuned to do the post mortem and they found organs missing which they wrongly attributed to the killer.

In concluding if the organs were removed at the mortuary there is a distinct possibility and in order to remove them quickly further damage could easily have been done to the already ripped abdomens all of which would still have been attributed to the killer. My experts concur on this .

Can I also say that Dr Phillps was sent for whilst the body was still in Mitre Square he could have easily attended the crime scene because the body didnt leave there until 2.55am, and from there he went back to Leman St police station where he was presented with the apron piece from GS which he then takes with him to the mortuary at 5.20am

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

That is quite a good logical progression, but you left out the part where the nurses found Chapman's body unattended in the yard when it should have been locked in the shed under guard. Unfortunately, the next logical deduction is, as you said, "if that was the case with Chapman why couldn’t they have done this with Eddowes?".

Cheers, George

Hi George,

And that’s a fair point to make but that would have just left the period until the body was taken inside as I’m guessing that the staff wouldn’t usually start at such an early hour unless specifically called in. We would have to consider how soon people (potential stealers of body parts) would have found out about the murder and the nature of the injuries. I can’t see anyone getting there that quickly.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi George
Just for clarification the term used "some portions had been excised" refers to the results from the post mortem and not from the crime scene, other wise if they had been found to be missing at the crime scene the coroner would not have asked the question could they have been lost in transit

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor,

I've a question regarding Dr Phillips being called to examine the wounds.

Before that it's worth saying that there is no written record, from an authoritative source, mentioning the internal organs being examined until Dr Brown's post-mortem on the Sunday afternoon.

Furthermore, Dr Brown clearly states the purpose of calling Dr Phillips to the mortuary: I wished him to see the wounds. 'No mention of examining the internal organs. The internal organs are examined at the post-mortem in accordance with procedure.

Historical record and post-mortem procedure clearly lend towards the internal organs first being examined at the post-mortem on the Sunday afternoon. In the event people want to believe otherwise, then they're entitled to do so but it should be noted that there is nothing on record to support that claim. There is nothing more anyone can say on this point except go 'round in circles. Among all of the people who have looked at this on both Casebook and JTRForums, nobody has come up with written record of the internal organs being examined prior to the post-mortem.

I want to ask about the wounds which Dr Phillips was called to examine.

Assuming the organs were removed at the mortuary after the pre-examination, would the removal of the organs have caused noticeable tear or damage to a part of the body that was visible at the pre-examination?

For example, Dr Brown had this to say as a result of his post-mortem examination: the peritoneal lining was cut through on the left side and the left kidney carefully taken out and removed. This suggests to me that the peritoneal lining was cut through as a pre-requisite for removing the kidney, and this is a membrane that lines the inside of the abdomen. Would this lining have been visible upon examining the wounds at the pre-examination?

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

I read the "some portions had been excised" differently. I see Phillips as talking about what he did at the crime scene and referring to this:
The abdomen had been entirely laid open: the intestines, severed from their mesenteric attachments, had been lifted out of the body and placed on the shoulder of the corpse;
He says he closed up the clothes, but what did he do with the detached intestines? Were they placed back in the abdominal cavity or transported separately?

Cheers, George

My interpretation is that those organs had not been detached but simply removed from the abdomen and draped over the shoulder by cutting them away from the mesenteric attachment and the intestines were place back in the abdominal cavity

www.trevormarriott.co.uk