Organ removal ? Warning Graphic Photos

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

For me there is too much doubt.

Now, in the event we discussed each particular link in the chain, then we would say each is possible. That's not what's under consideration, however. What is been considered is this: when we consider the scenario in its entirety, with the doubt attached to each link in that scenario, are all of those doubts associated with each link unfounded? I would suggest that is unlikely.

We have the doubt associated with when PC Watkins entered Mitre Square (it may have been earlier than 1.44am), we have Morris opening the door 2-3 minutes prior to PC Watkins' arrival and PC Harvey walking down Church Passage: there is doubt associated with whether or not the WM would have carried on in both of those events, there is the doubt associated with Dr Brown's statement in that in his own words he said: "it might have taken him longer", there is the doubt associated with Catherine being identified by her clothes, there is the doubt associated with modern medical opinion suggesting it couldn't have been done in that time (let's be clear, this is not a consensus in the medical world given it is the opinions of two or three people, but it remains two or three qualified people), there is doubt that he left in a hurry given he had time to cut the apron and presumably use it to gather up and wrap up the organs.

And then of course there is the doubt associated with the timings and the almost miraculous entry and exit by the WM. It's been claimed that the WM knew the police beats and everyone's watch was a couple of minutes fast or a couple of minutes slow. Well, as luck would have it, the WM was one of the few people around to own a watch and his watch was exact to the second. He was a mathematician also, so while he was busy relieving Catherine of a kidney he ran it through his mind: "well, everyone's running around with a watch that is slow or fast, so margin for error to the square root of 6 divided by 2 knots per hour absorbed by the integer -5 = I have 'til 1.43:13 before PC Watkins returns so 'best get these organs wrapped up and we're done."

In fairness, in the event we argue that the couple seen by Lawende associates were not Catherine and the WM, then most of those doubts remain. PC Watkins entered the square at 1.30am. It's a small square, I believe something like 25ft x 25ft, but PC Watkins will have been checking doors and corners and the like, so he will have left the square perhaps 1.32am. You would have to believe either Catherine and the WM were stalking him without being seen or they miraculously turned into the square just as PC Watkins left. Then we have the same issues with PC Harvey walking down Church Passage, Morris opening the door 2-3 minutes prior to the arrival of PC Watkins and when PC Watkins actually arrived. Again, this has all got to go like clockwork with the WM not being fazed by Morris a short distance across the square and a policeman walking down Church Passage.

'Possible but is it likely?

I'm sure this has been proposed before, but it certainly is worth considering whether or not one of the main characters at the inquest was not telling all that he knew, with the most likely candidates being PC Watkins and Morris, or both.

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

[GBinOz]

Could you remind me who those three experts are please George.

Can we add the late Nick Warren, a surgeon, editor of Ripperana, and a man who believed that the ripper was a trophy collector (who took body parts)

Can you comment on the preliminary examination that Phillips was invited to attend and did attend? Don’t you think that they would have checked for missing organs like in the murder of Chapman (especially with Phillips being there?)

Hi Herlock,

1. post #90.

2. That would not be appropriate as he may have changed his mind in the light of valid debate.

3. The fact that the organs were missing were, in both cases, discovered during the autopsy. Autopsies were conducted according to the procedures laid down by Virchow, which involved examining each organ one at a time. There was no preliminary examination in the case of Chapman and no evidence that the organs were noticed to have been missing for Eddowes at that time. The autopsy report is laid out in an orderly fashion, in accordance with the Virchow method, and the missing organs are specified towards the end of the report.

Cheers, George

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi FM

The Lawende and associates siting was of a woman dressed in dark clothing talking to a man near the murder site just before the murder. It may or may not have been Eddowes.

Watkins time intervals are the key. Police times are considered to be the most accurate. The average of thirteen minutes seems a reasonable estimate, from which has to be subtracted the interval at each end required to avoid the scrutiny of Watkins. It could be assumed that Cathy and Jack would have waited for Watkins to leave the square before moving into place, and Jack would have left the square before Watkins actually re-entered. Say two to three minutes? So perhaps Jack had 10-11 minutes maximum. The three modern day experts were using 9 minutes when they stated it was not in the realms of possibility.

The night watchman, George Morris, was adamant that the murder could not have taken place where the body was found. Dave has a theory on this possibility, but the weakness in that argument is the lack of evidence for how the body could have been moved leaving no trace.

Phillips was the only doctor to see both Chapman and Eddowes bodies, so his opinion cannot be dismissed out of hand. If his opinion is to be given any credence, there were either two killers or two different people harvesting the organs after the fact.

At this point I have not formed an opinion either way. Hopefully we can have further productive debate, but realistically the answer is probably lost in time.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

For me there is too much doubt.

Now, in the event we discussed each particular link in the chain, then we would say each is possible. That's not what's under consideration, however. What is been considered is this: when we consider the scenario in its entirety, with the doubt attached to each link in that scenario, are all of those doubts associated with each link unfounded? I would suggest that is unlikely.

We have the doubt associated with when PC Watkins entered Mitre Square (it may have been earlier than 1.44am), we have Morris opening the door 2-3 minutes prior to PC Watkins' arrival and PC Harvey walking down Church Passage: there is doubt associated with whether or not the WM would have carried on in both of those events, there is the doubt associated with Dr Brown's statement in that in his own words he said: "it might have taken him longer", there is the doubt associated with Catherine being identified by her clothes, there is the doubt associated with modern medical opinion suggesting it couldn't have been done in that time (let's be clear, this is not a consensus in the medical world given it is the opinions of two or three people, but it remains two or three qualified people), there is doubt that he left in a hurry given he had time to cut the apron and presumably use it to gather up and wrap up the organs.

And then of course there is the doubt associated with the timings and the almost miraculous entry and exit by the WM. It's been claimed that the WM knew the police beats and everyone's watch was a couple of minutes fast or a couple of minutes slow. Well, as luck would have it, the WM was one of the few people around to own a watch and his watch was exact to the second. He was a mathematician also, so while he was busy relieving Catherine of a kidney he ran it through his mind: "well, everyone's running around with a watch that is slow or fast, so margin for error to the square root of 6 divided by 2 knots per hour absorbed by the integer -5 = I have 'til 1.43:13 before PC Watkins returns so 'best get these organs wrapped up and we're done."

In fairness, in the event we argue that the couple seen by Lawende associates were not Catherine and the WM, then most of those doubts remain. PC Watkins entered the square at 1.30am. It's a small square, I believe something like 25ft x 25ft, but PC Watkins will have been checking doors and corners and the like, so he will have left the square perhaps 1.32am. You would have to believe either Catherine and the WM were stalking him without being seen or they miraculously turned into the square just as PC Watkins left. Then we have the same issues with PC Harvey walking down Church Passage, Morris opening the door 2-3 minutes prior to the arrival of PC Watkins and when PC Watkins actually arrived. Again, this has all got to go like clockwork with the WM not being fazed by Morris a short distance across the square and a policeman walking down Church Passage.

'Possible but is it likely?

I'm sure this has been proposed before, but it certainly is worth considering whether or not one of the main characters at the inquest was not telling all that he knew, with the most likely candidates being PC Watkins and Morris, or both.

[Trevor Marriott]

Could you remind me who those three experts are please George.

Can we add the late Nick Warren, a surgeon, editor of Ripperana, and a man who believed that the ripper was a trophy collector (who took body parts)

If he was a trophy collector why did he take the same organ twice, ? was he going to sell the other one on e bay

Can you comment on the preliminary examination that Phillips was invited to attend and did attend? Don’t you think that they would have checked for missing organs like in the murder of Chapman (especially with Phillips being there?)

I have come back to reply to you because you keep posting incorrcet facts that are misleading to others there was no preliminary examnination of the body there is no evidence that that happend other than a newspaper report which is unreliable. Phillips did not arrive till after 5.20am so how could he have taken part.

Do you think that the doctors would have deceided to carry out a prelimary post mortem if they had why would they not have carried on and done the whole post mortem. I would think that those who had been at the mortuary for a long time were tired and besides we have no evidence as to what time the orginal doctors left the mortuary, It could have been before Phillips arrived or after he arrived, he could have taken a cursory look at the body, but we have no evidence of what he did when he arrived at the mortuary or who was there or how long he remained.

So stop posting misleading facts

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Losmandris]

I have alreday done that and his full report can be found in my book but here is the relevant part

"As stated, it has been suggested by researchers that a butcher could have been responsible for the murders, and the subsequent removals, but a modern-day master butcher, and former slaughterman Paul Langford stated he would not be able to effect such removals given the crime scene conditions, and the light available in the accepted time frame and having to work with a long-bladed knife. His full statement is to be found in “The Medical Evidence”

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Here is my point. A butcher is going to be thinking from the perspective of a butcher, they will not be able to help it because that is what they do. You just cannot get into the persons mindset. As grim as it would be to do, the only person to ask who may even come close to having a similar perspective would be another murder who has done something similar. Ask them if they could have done it and I expect a very different answer to that of a doctor and butcher. Though of course even their perspective will not be entirely reliable.

[Herlock Sholmes]

That's a good summary, George.

And, as you insinuated in an earlier post, the standard of challenging leaves a lot to be desired, chiefly the petty and childish ad hominem attacks on Trevor. I agree, they should start another thread and have a fight with one another on that thread, it seems that's what they're here for: to argue with strangers on a message board.

In the end, the timings involved suggest that it is unlikely that everything involved in that murder took place in such a short timeframe (assuming the couple seen by Lawende and associates were Catherine and the WM).

So, it leaves a problem that isn't easily explained away. Trevor's theory is worth consideration in this context. It might not be the answer, I don't know as it's not something I've looked at, but whatever the answer it's going to involve a surprise.

[Trevor Marriott]

I tend to agree with you here. I think the opinions of the doctors both contemporary and modern have clouded perspectives on this. We respect their views because technically they are the only people who were/are opening people up and carrying out surgery/removing organs etc. Their whole way of thinking is going to be bias in the sense that they will be thinking about precision, care etc. even when dealing with the deceased. They will not be thinking from the perspective of a psychopath who is intent and eviscerating a body and removing some kind of trophy, knowing that time is of the essence and only have the basics to go about his task. Even a butcher would take some kind of care not cause excessive damage. So again their opinion (when dealing with an animal carcass) though possibly more relevant, will still not be entirely useful. The person in question was entirely unique and so was their intention. I believe it is this intention (not caring about damage, under massive time pressure, stress, massive/uncontrollable urges, a lack of skill maybe) and pure chance that makes it possible to have done all of this within that very narrow window.

I think it is clear from MJK that removing parts from inside the victims (even just to pull them out) was a key driver behind the type of injuries he inflicted And evidence of his desire when he had the time. For some reason known only to him, it seems likely that he removed some organs to take away with him. Otherwise why the ripping?

Yes it is possible that the organs were removed at the mortuary. But as mentioned to me at least the type of injuries inflicted and this appearance that the murder wanted to 'get inside' his victims makes it more likely that he removed them.

Can anyone explain the ripping otherwise?

The killer simply murdered and mutilated that was his motive those traits start with Tabram and include Kelly

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

So folks, here is the story so far:

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers, George

Could you remind me who those three experts are please George.

Can we add the late Nick Warren, a surgeon, editor of Ripperana, and a man who believed that the ripper was a trophy collector (who took body parts)

Can you comment on the preliminary examination that Phillips was invited to attend and did attend? Don’t you think that they would have checked for missing organs like in the murder of Chapman (especially with Phillips being there?)

[Trevor Marriott]

as said, you should try getting a butcher to show you how long it takes.

I have alreday done that and his full report can be found in my book but here is the relevant part

"As stated, it has been suggested by researchers that a butcher could have been responsible for the murders, and the subsequent removals, but a modern-day master butcher, and former slaughterman Paul Langford stated he would not be able to effect such removals given the crime scene conditions, and the light available in the accepted time frame and having to work with a long-bladed knife. His full statement is to be found in “The Medical Evidence”

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

As a general point and in response to the small wave of ‘poor little Trevor’ posts from the usual crowd I’d request that people try actually reading what has been said and not what they ‘think’ has been said and they they also get out of this habit of selectivity. It’s nothing short of pathetic the way some posters focus on what I say and see faults but completely turn a blind-eye to Trevor’s comments. I’ve said absolutely nothing offensive or unpleasant. I’ve bought in research from other threads, I’ve responded to every single one of Trevor’s points with an assessment based on the evidence and the realities of life. Trevor has thrown a wobbler because I’ve disagreed with him.

There’s nothing wrong with having a theory but Trevor posts his reasons and when they are questioned we get a huge strop with a “but I’ve told you and you’re not listening!!!!!!” kind of reply. Basically - how dare you disagree with me. Perhaps we’d get further if people would stick to the discussion and held off with a plea for some kind of ‘safe space’ where certain posters have to be treated as if they can do know wrong.

[Losmandris]

I'd like to chime in with the viewpoint that the time needed to perform the mutilations is not accurately assessed if one takes the starting point that the killer wanted the specific organs he took.
Trevor Marriott's belief is that the killer wanted a specific organ, and by extension the various experts he consulted gave their opinion on how difficult it would be to locate and excise that organ. For instance, the kidney.

However, we do not know that the killer wanted any particular organ. So the question is not "How much anatomical knowledge is needed and how long would it take to open the abdomen and locate and cut out the kidney?". Rather, it's "How long would it take to open the abdomen and locate anything organlike - uterus or kidney - and cut it out?"

I've participated in oldfashioned pig-slaughtering and I've no doubt it's possible to locate an organ inside of four minutes. I suggest Trevor Marriott's next experiment be not with doctors but with a butcher and a freshly-slaughtered pig. Then he could time how long it would take for the butcher to cut out a kidney, liver, lung, heart or similar. It won't take five minutes, that's for sure.

To repeat: if we start with the assumption that the killer wanted the kidney, I'm sure we can find obstacles and layers of fat that would render it difficult. However, we do not know that the killer wanted a kidney. So we cannot assume those difficulties would apply.

I tend to agree with you here. I think the opinions of the doctors both contemporary and modern have clouded perspectives on this. We respect their views because technically they are the only people who were/are opening people up and carrying out surgery/removing organs etc. Their whole way of thinking is going to be bias in the sense that they will be thinking about precision, care etc. even when dealing with the deceased. They will not be thinking from the perspective of a psychopath who is intent and eviscerating a body and removing some kind of trophy, knowing that time is of the essence and only have the basics to go about his task. Even a butcher would take some kind of care not cause excessive damage. So again their opinion (when dealing with an animal carcass) though possibly more relevant, will still not be entirely useful. The person in question was entirely unique and so was their intention. I believe it is this intention (not caring about damage, under massive time pressure, stress, massive/uncontrollable urges, a lack of skill maybe) and pure chance that makes it possible to have done all of this within that very narrow window.

I think it is clear from MJK that removing parts from inside the victims (even just to pull them out) was a key driver behind the type of injuries he inflicted And evidence of his desire when he had the time. For some reason known only to him, it seems likely that he removed some organs to take away with him. Otherwise why the ripping?

Yes it is possible that the organs were removed at the mortuary. But as mentioned to me at least the type of injuries inflicted and this appearance that the murder wanted to 'get inside' his victims makes it more likely that he removed them.

Can anyone explain the ripping otherwise?

[Kattrup]

My belief if that the killer did not take the organs

yes of course, I worded that unclearly. I was thinking of your odd counterargument about "if the killer took the uterus in one case, why did he take another? I don't think he would do that!"
I meant that in the context of arguing about whether the killer would have had the time to excise an organ, you and others tend to assume that the killer would have targeted the specific organs he eventually took.

I just wanted to point out that that is unknown. That lowers the difficulty of the task, if ANY organ would have satisfied the killer. That needs to be taken into account when attempting to assess the time needed.

[Kattrup]

But of all the organs taken the kidney is the most difficult to locate and remove as is shown by the pic I posted at the start of this thread, you cannot put your hand into the abdomen and take hold of it, it has to be cut from the renal fat that surrounds it.

as said, you should try getting a butcher to show you how long it takes.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor Marriott's belief is that the killer wanted a specific organ, and by extension the various experts he consulted gave their opinion on how difficult it would be to locate and excise that organ. For instance, the kidney. .

My belief if that the killer did not take the organs

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

I'd like to chime in with the viewpoint that the time needed to perform the mutilations is not accurately assessed if one takes the starting point that the killer wanted the specific organs he took.
Trevor Marriott's belief is that the killer wanted a specific organ, and by extension the various experts he consulted gave their opinion on how difficult it would be to locate and excise that organ. For instance, the kidney.

However, we do not know that the killer wanted any particular organ. So the question is not "How much anatomical knowledge is needed and how long would it take to open the abdomen and locate and cut out the kidney?". Rather, it's "How long would it take to open the abdomen and locate anything organlike - uterus or kidney - and cut it out?"

I've participated in oldfashioned pig-slaughtering and I've no doubt it's possible to locate an organ inside of four minutes. I suggest Trevor Marriott's next experiment be not with doctors but with a butcher and a freshly-slaughtered pig. Then he could time how long it would take for the butcher to cut out a kidney, liver, lung, heart or similar. It won't take five minutes, that's for sure.

To repeat: if we start with the assumption that the killer wanted the kidney, I'm sure we can find obstacles and layers of fat that would render it difficult. However, we do not know that the killer wanted a kidney. So we cannot assume those difficulties would apply.

But of all the organs taken the kidney is the most difficult to locate and remove as is shown by the pic I posted at the start of this thread, you cannot put your hand into the abdomen and take hold of it, it has to be cut from the renal fat that surrounds it.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk