Organ removal ? Warning Graphic Photos

[Joshua Rogan]

And one again for the last time so please listen. Brown and Sequeira gave the 5 mins and 3 mins estimates before the post mortems were carried out and those times they gave relate solely to the murder and mutilations.

And once again, this is not a fact. This is just your supposition based upon your mistaken belief that the Star article was published on the same day as the PM took place, when in fact it was published the day after.

[Trevor Marriott]

And once again, this is not a fact. This is just your supposition based upon your mistaken belief that the Star article was published on the same day as the PM took place, when in fact it was published the day after.

Doesnt matter when it was published, it was a matter as to when the doctors were interviewed besides I have outlined the potential flaws in the timings

This from the Star newsaper confirms that a Star Reporter was at the Eddowes crime scene before the body was moved to the mortuary

"If the Star man had been in search of gore instead of news he need not have feared molestation as he went on to Duke-street. There was not even a policeman in sight, notwithstanding the extra force. When he had turned down through Church-passage into the square, however, he found four. He recalled the old proverb about locking the barn after the horse had been stolen. Certainly the red-hand would get a warm grip if it was stretched out there again this morning. It was now just five-and-twenty minutes of two. There were six people in the square all told, but no one was making any noise. Presently footsteps were heard coming along the narrow passage leading from the other square, and when the newcomers appeared, their blue jackets and white aprons discovered their calling at once, and one could not escape thought that here was evidence that were no strangers to Mitre Square

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Joshua Rogan]

Doesnt matter when it was published, it was a matter as to when the doctors were interviewed

And since there is no evidence at all that the interview took place before the PM, this is, by your own argument, unsafe to rely on. So kindly stop repeating it and nauseum.

This from the Star newsaper confirms that a Star Reporter was at the Eddowes crime scene before the body was moved to the mortuary

"If the Star man had been in search of gore instead of news he need not have feared molestation as he went on to Duke-street. There was not even a policeman in sight, notwithstanding the extra force. When he had turned down through Church-passage into the square, however, he found four. He recalled the old proverb about locking the barn after the horse had been stolen. Certainly the red-hand would get a warm grip if it was stretched out there again this morning. It was now just five-and-twenty minutes of two. There were six people in the square all told, but no one was making any noise. Presently footsteps were heard coming along the narrow passage leading from the other square, and when the newcomers appeared, their blue jackets and white aprons discovered their calling at once, and one could not escape thought that here was evidence that were no strangers to Mitre Square

Once again, you have the day wrong. The reporter was in the square 24 hours after the murder, in the early hours of Monday morning.

[Trevor Marriott]

And since there is no evidence at all that the interview took place before the PM, this is, by your own argument, unsafe to rely on. So kindly stop repeating it and nauseum.

Once again, you have the day wrong. The reporter was in the square 24 hours after the murder, in the early hours of Monday morning.

and what would the purpose of that be where was a story 12 hours later? do you not think the press would not have been alerted to the murder soon after it was discovered, and would have wanted to have someone on the scene asap after all the Star had a reporter ensconed outside of the mortuary until 5.20am after the body was taken there

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Joshua Rogan]

and what would the purpose of that be where was a story 12 hours later?

To entertain and inform their readers?
Read the whole story. Near the start it states that "The Star man started from the Bishopsgate Police-station soon after eight o'clock to make a comprehensive tour of the disturbed territory."

do you not think the press would not have been alerted to the murder soon after it was discovered, and would have wanted to have someone on the scene asap after all the Star had a reporter ensconed outside of the mortuary until 5.20am after the body was taken there

Lloyds had a representative at the mortuary at 05:20, but were earlier denied entry to the murder site itself, along with everyone else. Are you sure you're not confusing the two papers? Drs Brown and Sequeira even gave them an interview beforehand (published on Sunday) but it mentions nothing about the length of time the attack would have taken.

What you seem to be suggesting is that the Star reporter was on the spot in Mitre Square at the exact time that the murder was perpetrated.

[Losmandris]

As we are dealing with some kind of homicidal maniac in some kind of frenzy anything i.e. when it comes to timings, locating the organs and removing them as well as no apparent fear of being discovered is possible. This kind of thing just cannot be replicated in any form of test. It is just pointless to even try.

[FISHY1118]

If you work on the premise that the killers motive for murder was to harvest organs then you to have to ask why did he not take away any organs from Kelly when he had the time and the opportunity to take away almost every organ.

If the killers motive was simply to murder and mutilate then that is what he achieved with all the victims, and he therfore did not remove organs at the crime scenes from Chapman and Eddowes

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But if we work on the premise that the killer was not organ harvesting but took organs from Chapman and Eddowes for his own gratification ,that being the excepted theory .

So because he decided to leave Kellys organs behind for whatever the reason that it somehow means two different killers?

Im sure if debated at lengh the possiblities and suggestions of such an act as to why he didnt take kellys organs would be many.

Like all things Ripper related that would come under the catagory of speculation ,conjecture, opinion and guesswork . Is it really enough tho just to say because he didnt take kellys organs that this somehow supports the organ havesting theory ?. Lets just say im not in favour of it for that reason for starters .

[DJA]

My head hurts.

[Abby Normal]

If you work on the premise that the killers motive for murder was to harvest organs then you to have to ask why did he not take away any organs from Kelly when he had the time and the opportunity to take away almost every organ.

If the killers motive was simply to murder and mutilate then that is what he achieved with all the victims, and he therfore did not remove organs at the crime scenes from Chapman and Eddowes

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

your starting with a faulty premise as usual. the killer removed many internal organs from kelly, removed external parts and removed and took away her heart.

[Trevor Marriott]

your starting with a faulty premise as usual. the killer removed many internal organs from kelly, removed external parts and removed and took away her heart.

You are right the killer of Kelly did remove many organs but there was no anatomical knowledge shown in doing so, unlike Chapman and Eddowes where the doctors agreed that whoever had removed the organs must have had some anatomical knowledge, So if you dont mind I will stick rigidly to the belief that the killers motive for these murders was nothing more than murder and mutilation.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

But if we work on the premise that the killer was not organ harvesting but took organs from Chapman and Eddowes for his own gratification ,that being the excepted theory .

who has come up with that so called excepted theory?

So because he decided to leave Kellys organs behind for whatever the reason that it somehow means two different killers?

Well if the motive you and others suggest is true then it has to be asked why did he not take away any of Kellys organs when he could have taken all the organs?

Im sure if debated at lengh the possiblities and suggestions of such an act as to why he didnt take kellys organs would be many.

Well I would be enthralled to hear them

[Abby Normal]

You are right the killer of Kelly did remove many organs but there was no anatomical knowledge shown in doing so, unlike Chapman and Eddowes where the doctors agreed that whoever had removed the organs must have had some anatomical knowledge, So if you dont mind I will stick rigidly to the belief that the killers motive for these murders was nothing more than murder and mutilation.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

he removed and took away the heart trevor, by going through the ribs at the scene of the murder as well as removing internal organs found on the table and in the room. repeat removed and TOOK AWAY THE HEART.

and as a former detective, you should know more than any that the history of post mortem mutilators show that they remove and many times take away body parts, for trophies and to relive their sick fantasies.

[FISHY1118]

Well I would be enthralled to hear them

Based on the the evidence provided Trevor, most people here on casebook have accepted the theory that the killer did remove the organs from the victims , do you disagree with that ? just a simple yes or no will do .

Please dont come back with'' but ''who'' came up with this accepted theory'' . i dont wish to get into semantics with you, as that is the speciality of certain posters ,im bored and tired of that game. Lets just keep it simple shall we.?



''Well I would be enthralled to hear them''

Well heres one reason Trevor , Maybe because he didnt have the time to marvel at his accomplishments after removing the organs at the Chapman and Eddowes murder scenes so he took them away to study, look at, play with , etc,. But with Kelly he had time to do all that, so in the end he might have possible decided to leave them all over the room after he had his fun with them .

My point is, just because he didnt take kellys organs, doesnt in anyway prove the organ harvesting theory.

[FISHY1118]

You are right the killer of Kelly did remove many organs but there was no anatomical knowledge shown in doing so, unlike Chapman and Eddowes where the doctors agreed that whoever had removed the organs must have had some anatomical knowledge, So if you dont mind I will stick rigidly to the belief that the killers motive for these murders was nothing more than murder and mutilation.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

''you are right the killer of Kelly did remove many organs but there was ''no anatomical knowledge shown'' in doing so''

Which Doctor said this in regards to the removal of kellys organs ?

[Trevor Marriott]

''you are right the killer of Kelly did remove many organs but there was ''no anatomical knowledge shown'' in doing so''

Which Doctor said this in regards to the removal of kellys organs ?

Dr Bond in his report to Anderson

“In each case the mutilation was inflicted by a person who had no scientific or anatomical knowledge. In my opinion he does not even possess the technical knowledge of a butcher or horse slaughterer or any person accustomed to cut up dead animals.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk