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

    I agree. Just showing that the trade existed isn’t enough.
    But if you can prove the killer did not have enough time to remove the organs it is enough because they had to have been taken by someone

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

      The overall facts and evidnce when assesed and evaluated allow us to draw a proper inference as to what happened to the organs,

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
      They certainly do Trevor. And the evidence has been assessed, re-assessed and assessed again ever since you created this. And what you should have learned by now; what should finally have sunk in is that no one agrees with it. I’ve looked back over threads on here and JTRForums to see how many have told you that you’re wrong on this. Authors, researchers and their pets have tried to bring it home to you that you really should let it go Trevor. You should have learned a lesson from the embarrassment of the apron theory. Why not just look for a new theory?
      Regards

      Sir Herlock Sholmes

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

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

        I suggest you read one of Professor Hurrens books on the activites of body and organ dealers in Whitechapel in 1888 there you will find many examples of corrupt mortuary attendants and the illict trade in bodies and organs from mortuaries.

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
        I would, but I’m not paying 70 for the pleasure of finding out that a trade existed when I’ve never doubted the fact. As I said in another post, I know that cannibals existed too but I wouldn’t claim that a cannibal took the parts.

        Yes. The uterus was cut away with the exception of a small portion
        Question - was there a market for damaged body parts too?
        Regards

        Sir Herlock Sholmes

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

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

          But if you can prove the killer did not have enough time to remove the organs it is enough because they had to have been taken by someone

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
          BUT YOU CANT DO THAT TREVOR - HOW MANY TIMES?

          Question - How long would the killer have needed?

          Answer - We don’t know.

          Question - Exactly how long did the killer have available?

          Answer - We don’t know.

          Point - You can’t prove a positive with maybe’s and possible’s and what if’s and could-have-been’s because these can equally be used by the other side of the argument. For example, every time that you say “well Eddowes and her killer might have stood around before they went into Mitre Square giving the killer less time,” I can say “yes and they might equally have gone straight there.” Every time that you point to a time i can ask how you can be confident that the time was correct? How can you know that a clock wasn’t 2 or 3 or more minutes fast or slow? How can you know that when someone estimates a time period that they weren’t wrong.

          Strange how you keep telling us that witnesses can’t be relied upon and yet here we are again, witnesses that give times that you think favour your theory are completely beyond question and have to be treated as spot on.

          You can’t say - probably A + possibly B = definitely C, and yet that’s exactly what you keep claiming that you can do.
          Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 09-23-2022, 06:05 PM.
          Regards

          Sir Herlock Sholmes

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

          Comment


          • The more I think about it the clearer it appears to me that the victims of the ripper would have been the least likely to have been plundered for body parts. One point that we should all agree upon is that those who were making a nice few on the sale would have wanted this sideline to go on and on. Likewise those that benefitted from receiving the parts. So these parts would have been taken after a PM and not before? Taking them before a PM makes absolutely no sense.

            If there was a body that hadn’t been cut open then they wouldn’t have opened them up to steal parts before the PM for very obvious reasons. And in the vanishingly rare cases when the body was already open (how many corpses had their abdomens cut open?) like the 2 ripper victims, why would they have risked taking an easy to see organ like the uterus with the very obvious risk that the Doctor performing the PM would have seen a missing organ that was present went they first saw the body and looked into the opened abdomen? As I said, this just makes no sense.

            Id suggest that when internal organs were stolen by those seeking to profit by it, it can only have been done post PM - after the abdomen had been opened up and the Doctor had finished. From looking online I see that mortuary assistants are often called upon to sew up the bodies after the PM is over. Surely this is when body parts would be taken - abdomen cut open, Doctors duties completed? And even if the Doctor sewed up the bodies it would hardly have been the work of a skilled surgeon to unpick them. And who would have checked with the body put in a coffin and sent to an undertakers.

            So would stealers of body parts have taken parts from a ripper victim before a PM. I’d say that it was close to impossible. Post PM every time.

            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes

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

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

              But if you can prove the killer did not have enough time to remove the organs it is enough because they had to have been taken by someone

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
              Good thread, Trevor. 'Some interesting points made.

              I for one agree with you that this whole scenario is unlikely to have happened between 1.35am and 1.44am. The weight of evidence supports this sentiment.

              I have another question.

              Prosector stated this:

              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. 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.

              Let's assume the organs were removed at the mortuary.

              As per the aforementioned quote from Prosector, in 1888 there were few surgeons who had ever 'ventured into the depths of the abdomen'. As part of their medical training most would have had the luxury of one body only (clearly this could have been long before the 'Autumn of Terror' and it follows the significance of that experience is rendered of lesser importance). Prosector goes on to make the point that having an assistant to 'retract the abdominal flaps and contents' facilitates this procedure. In other words, in the event someone at the mortuary removed the organs, then at least some of the same obstacles remain (depending upon level of experience) as those at Mitre Square.

              The question is:

              Who, among those at the mortuary, had the necessary experience to do this and how many people were involved? (when I say who, I don't mean a name but rather what level of experience).

              Comment


              • 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
                  Please, we have an interesting OP: let's keep this thread on track in the spirit and intention of the OP.

                  Including mature and respectful discourse.

                  Thank you in advance.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

                    Good thread, Trevor. 'Some interesting points made.

                    I for one agree with you that this whole scenario is unlikely to have happened between 1.35am and 1.44am. The weight of evidence supports this sentiment.

                    I have another question.

                    Prosector stated this:

                    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. 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.

                    Let's assume the organs were removed at the mortuary.

                    As per the aforementioned quote from Prosector, in 1888 there were few surgeons who had ever 'ventured into the depths of the abdomen'. As part of their medical training most would have had the luxury of one body only (clearly this could have been long before the 'Autumn of Terror' and it follows the significance of that experience is rendered of lesser importance). Prosector goes on to make the point that having an assistant to 'retract the abdominal flaps and contents' facilitates this procedure. In other words, in the event someone at the mortuary removed the organs, then at least some of the same obstacles remain (depending upon level of experience) as those at Mitre Square.

                    The question is:

                    Who, among those at the mortuary, had the necessary experience to do this and how many people were involved? (when I say who, I don't mean a name but rather what level of experience).
                    Why would they have done this before the PM though? The ripper’s victims were a vanishingly small rarity in that they already had their abdomen’s cut open. Clearly a body part stealer wouldn’t have opened up a corpse before the PM for very obvious reasons. So if that was the case, and it surely has to have been, then why in the case of the ripper’s victim’s would they have stepped in before the PM? The very clear addition danger being that, with the abdomen being open, the Doctors would already have had the chance of looking inside.

                    This alone makes the suggestion that the victims had body parts taken pre-PM pretty much non-existent for me. It would simply make no sense.
                    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

                      Why would they have done this before the PM though? The ripper’s victims were a vanishingly small rarity in that they already had their abdomen’s cut open. Clearly a body part stealer wouldn’t have opened up a corpse before the PM for very obvious reasons. So if that was the case, and it surely has to have been, then why in the case of the ripper’s victim’s would they have stepped in before the PM? The very clear addition danger being that, with the abdomen being open, the Doctors would already have had the chance of looking inside.

                      This alone makes the suggestion that the victims had body parts taken pre-PM pretty much non-existent for me. It would simply make no sense.
                      Then why is there no evidence to show that any preliminary post mortem took place from any of the inquest testimony, your suggestion that there was is pure conjecture. In case you are not aware there is big difference between a cursoy look at the wounds and a full post mortem

                      You have to look at the wider picture that being that there were between 5-9 victims whose murders were attributed to the ripper. The sugestion has been put forward that the killer was harvesting organs but out of those murders the only two who had their abdomens ripped open sufficienlty for organs to be removed or any that showed signs of an attempt to remove organs were Chapman and Eddowes and as we know that when their post mortems were condcuted their organs were found to be missng and in fact there is no evidence to even show that attempts were made to remove organs from those other victims save for Kelly.

                      Chapman and Eddowes were taken to two differnet mortuaries, and a modern day medical expert tells us that two differnet methods were used to extract the uterus from both of those victims, now who would have had sufficinet anatomical knowledge in 1888 to be able to do that ? if it is to be belived that it was one and the same killer for both, the answere must be no one not even a surgeon.

                      By posting the pics showing an open blood filled abdomen clearly shows the degree of difficulty in someone in the dark putting their hand in a blood filled abdomen trying to feel around and then remove these organs with a long bladed knife. In one of the previous posts another medical expert voiced their concern stating that unaided who would retract the walls of the abdomen. The uterus pic I previously posted was taken in a mortuary with retractors holding the abdominal wall open so without retractors the killer would have an almost impossible task to locate the organs and be able to remove them in the time you keep suggesting.

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                        Then why is there no evidence to show that any preliminary post mortem took place from any of the inquest testimony, your suggestion that there was is pure conjecture. In case you are not aware there is big difference between a cursoy look at the wounds and a full post mortem

                        But it’s not conjecture Trevor. It’s based on quotes of a preliminary examination taking place which you choose to disregard because it’s inconvenient. By implying that I’m saying that a ‘preliminary examination’ was a normal procedure gives you the opportunity to say that it wasn’t because it wasn’t usual procedure but that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that the evidence tells us that Phillips and Brown made a preliminary examination ‘in the case of Eddowes for a specific reason.’ Just as Phillips being sent to the north east to check on a female victim shows that Phillips was the man that they were looking to to decide who was or wasn’t a ripper victim. The fact that Brown requested Phillips presence and that Phillips turned up at the mortuary at 5.20 backs this up. If he wanted Phillips to look at the body in order to make comparisons with the Chapman murder then there we have his opportunity to have done so.

                        You say ‘cursory’ look. But what would have been the point of a ‘cursory’ look. Phillips ‘look’ was for a specific reason and the thing that made ripper victims differ from other murder victims were the mutilations and extractions, so why do you consider it unlikely that they would have taken a few seconds during this ‘cursory look’ to check if any organs were missing? Especially as the police might have been working on the theory that the killer had used the apron part to carry away organs. If there had been no body parts missing then they could immediately have abandoned that theory. No, of course I can’t prove this, but you can’t disprove it either and there’s nothing unrealistic about what I’m saying and there is evidence pointing toward it.


                        You have to look at the wider picture that being that there were between 5-9 victims whose murders were attributed to the ripper. The sugestion has been put forward that the killer was harvesting organs but out of those murders the only two who had their abdomens ripped open sufficienlty for organs to be removed or any that showed signs of an attempt to remove organs were Chapman and Eddowes and as we know that when their post mortems were condcuted their organs were found to be missng and in fact there is no evidence to even show that attempts were made to remove organs from those other victims save for Kelly.

                        But this proves nothing Trevor. How can we know the workings of the mind of a maniac? Other murders? Smith - not a victim. Tabram, possibly not a victim and no mutilations. Nichols discovered by Lechmere who might have disturbed the killer. Stride, possibly not a victim or was disturbed by Diemschitz. Chapman, killer undisturbed…..organs missing. Eddowes, killer undisturbed…..organs missing. Kelly, undisturbed….heart missing (though you disagree on this of course.) Mackenzie, debatable victim. Coles disturbed by PC Thompson’s approach. So coincidentally, the 3 accepted victims where the killer certainly wasn’t disturbed…..all had organs missing. Simple stuff.

                        Chapman and Eddowes were taken to two differnet mortuaries, and a modern day medical expert tells us that two differnet methods were used to extract the uterus from both of those victims, now who would have had sufficinet anatomical knowledge in 1888 to be able to do that ? if it is to be belived that it was one and the same killer for both, the answere must be no one not even a surgeon.

                        I’m not a surgeon but I assume they stick to their own preferred method and not change from operation to operation? Two different methods suggests someone not used to ‘method.’ Someone who just knew where the organs were and went for them. This wasn’t textbook surgery Trevor.

                        What are the chances of organs being stolen before the post mortem at 2 different mortuaries. One is hard to believe but two?


                        By posting the pics showing an open blood filled abdomen clearly shows the degree of difficulty in someone in the dark putting their hand in a blood filled abdomen trying to feel around and then remove these organs with a long bladed knife. In one of the previous posts another medical expert voiced their concern stating that unaided who would retract the walls of the abdomen. The uterus pic I previously posted was taken in a mortuary with retractors holding the abdominal wall open so without retractors the killer would have an almost impossible task to locate the organs and be able to remove them in the time you keep suggesting.

                        But it wasn’t ‘almost impossible’ was it Trevor? Bond and Sequiera didn’t think it imposdible. Nick Warren didn’t think it imposdible. Biggs and Neale didn’t think it impossible. Prosecutor found it ‘staggering’ but he didn’t call it impossible. And they were working from the suggestion that he was working in the pitch black. Was he? Sequiera didn’t seem to think so. And remember, Doctors are hardwired to caution and care for the patient. Our killer was simply cutting out chunks of meat. As long as he knew where they were and had a sharp knife how long might it have taken.

                        I reckon that if you got someone used to gutting animals and gave him a sharp knife I tend to think that we would all be surprised at how quickly he could manage it.


                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                        Can I ask why you usually place so much faith in Dr. Biggs opinion but not on this topic?
                        Regards

                        Sir Herlock Sholmes

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

                        Comment


                        • From Dissecting Jack-the-Ripper : An Anatomy of Murder in the Metropolis
                          by
                          Elizabeth Hurren

                          The body dealing business depended on a lot of petty cash payments being handed out in a complex human chain of supply every night.17 Generally an ‘undertaker’ – a convenient label to disguise a body dealer at work – had a number of support people in their personal employ. This might include the staff of the local mortuary or dead-house connected to a workhouse. At the infirmary next door, porters and nurses often agreed for a few pennies to alert a body dealer when a pauper died from an infectious disease, unfortunate accident, or pregnancy complication. It was also the case that limbs which had to be amputated following operative surgery entered the chain of dissection supply. Body parts were in fact highly profitable transactions. Breaking up a body generated more sales, compared to trading a complete cadaver for a single fee. Most medical misfortunes were thus an opportunity cost for those training to be a doctor and they helped to create a flourishing body business in the East-End of 1888.
                          “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

                          “Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.” “How do you know I'm mad?” said Alice. “You must be,” said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.”

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
                            From Dissecting Jack-the-Ripper : An Anatomy of Murder in the Metropolis
                            by
                            Elizabeth Hurren

                            The body dealing business depended on a lot of petty cash payments being handed out in a complex human chain of supply every night.17 Generally an ‘undertaker’ – a convenient label to disguise a body dealer at work – had a number of support people in their personal employ. This might include the staff of the local mortuary or dead-house connected to a workhouse. At the infirmary next door, porters and nurses often agreed for a few pennies to alert a body dealer when a pauper died from an infectious disease, unfortunate accident, or pregnancy complication. It was also the case that limbs which had to be amputated following operative surgery entered the chain of dissection supply. Body parts were in fact highly profitable transactions. Breaking up a body generated more sales, compared to trading a complete cadaver for a single fee. Most medical misfortunes were thus an opportunity cost for those training to be a doctor and they helped to create a flourishing body business in the East-End of 1888.
                            Thanks for the extract George.

                            I was thinking myself, wouldn't the smart line of illegal body parts be anonymous paupers? Natural deaths, bodies just going through the system without anyone giving them much thought? Why chose bodies that have doctors and police all over them?
                            Thems the Vagaries.....

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

                              Thanks for the extract George.

                              I was thinking myself, wouldn't the smart line of illegal body parts be anonymous paupers? Natural deaths, bodies just going through the system without anyone giving them much thought? Why chose bodies that have doctors and police all over them?
                              A body was a means to make money to those people who traded in bodies and organs from any source including mortuaries. Female bodies and body parts were sought after, so if mortuary attendants were involved they would be in a position to know that the post mortems had not yet been carried out and that no "prelimenary examinations " of the body had been carried out and so in the case of Chapman and Eddowes having regard to the fact that their abdomens had been ripped open ,it would have been easy for their organs to be removed so that when the actual official post mortem was carried out the missing organs would be attributed to the killer which in my opinion is exaclty what happened.

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                                A body was a means to make money to those people who traded in bodies and organs from any source including mortuaries. Female bodies and body parts were sought after, so if mortuary attendants were involved they would be in a position to know that the post mortems had not yet been carried out and that no "prelimenary examinations " of the body had been carried out and so in the case of Chapman and Eddowes having regard to the fact that their abdomens had been ripped open ,it would have been easy for their organs to be removed so that when the actual official post mortem was carried out the missing organs would be attributed to the killer which in my opinion is exaclty what happened.

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                                Trevor,

                                Would it have been easy to remove the organs though?

                                Prosector's posts are being used to support the notion that it is highly unlikely this was all done in 9 minutes.

                                In the interests of balance, Prosector said this also:

                                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.

                                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.

                                In my view the only one who had the slightest idea of what was involved was Bagster Philips.


                                Prosector appears to be saying that among surgeons, the removal of these organs was pretty much an unknown and Dr Phillips alone had 'the slightest idea of what was involved'. Note also that Prosector states: it is absolutely staggering that he did what he did to Chapman and Eddowes in such a short time - or at all.

                                I think it's fair to say Prosector believes that any old mortuary assistant would not have been capable of doing this.

                                It's fair to say Prosector leads us to believe that it couldn't have been someone who just came along and took advantage of Catherine's and Annie's open abdomen as they wouldn't have had the necessary experience, i.e. assuming this is an illegal trade in organs, then the person who did this must have done it several times before.

                                In practice, do we see much of this type of activity in the East End at that time?
                                Last edited by Fleetwood Mac; 09-24-2022, 07:48 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X