Organ removal ? Warning Graphic Photos

[Trevor Marriott]

But Brown was clearly asked at the inquest how long it would have taken him after he’d just mentioned the missing parts.

“[Coroner] Would you consider that the person who inflicted the wounds possessed anatomical skill? - He must have had a good deal of knowledge as to the position of the abdominal organs, and the way to remove them.
[Coroner] Would the parts removed be of any use for professional purposes? - None whatever.
[Coroner]Would the removal of the kidney, for example, require special knowledge? - It would require a good deal of knowledge as to its position, because it is apt to be overlooked, being covered by a membrane.
[Coroner] Would such a knowledge be likely to be possessed by some one accustomed to cutting up animals? - Yes.
[Coroner] Have you been able to form any opinion as to whether the perpetrator of this act was disturbed? - I think he had sufficient time, but it was in all probability done in a hurry.
[Coroner] How long would it take to make the wounds? - It might be done in five minutes. It might take him longer; but that is the least time it could be done in.”

Unless you are suggesting that Brown mentioned the missing organs but then forgot about them seconds later when he was asked how long it would have taken the killer, and I assume that you aren’t, then I can’t see what you’re trying to claim.

In the part you quote the coroner makes no mention of organs he refers to wounds again we get back to mutilations

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

You posted "Has there been any Doctor between then and now who have stated categorically that the killer couldn’t have removed those body parts in the time and conditions available to him?

I have answered using Dr Phillips because if you take Sequeira who states "3 mins" to murder mutilate and to remove those organs, you have to acknowledge no one not even a doctor in 1888 could remove a uterus and a kidney in 3 mins in the dark from a blood filled abdomen.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I was actually meaning a modern expert but I accept that I didn’t make myself very clear on that point. But it’s still valid to ask why Phillips over Brown?

Do I have to accept that the killer couldn’t have removed the body parts in 3 minutes? Why should I dispute this? Doctors are trained to remove body parts with care and an overriding thought for the patients well-being. It’s difficult to see how we can be too certain on the time taken by a maniac with a sharp knife and probable anatomical knowledge. A butcher could butcher a pig a lot faster than the most skilled of surgeons. I just don’t see how sweeping statements can be made on this issue.

[Trevor Marriott]

You aren’t raining on my parade Trevor but I have to ask why you favour Phillips assessment of a different murder over Brown and Sequiera’s assessment of Eddowes (the one in question?)

You posted "Has there been any Doctor between then and now who have stated categorically that the killer couldn’t have removed those body parts in the time and conditions available to him?

I have answered using Dr Phillips because if you take Sequeira who states "3 mins" to murder mutilate and to remove those organs, you have to acknowledge no one not even a doctor in 1888 could remove a uterus and a kidney in 3 mins in the dark from a blood filled abdomen.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

The article appeared in the final edition of the star on Oct 1st and on that day the Star published 5 different editions we do not know how long the post mortem would have taken? It started at 2.30 pm and by my estimation and judging by the time's other post mortems had taken; it may have taken up to a minimum of 1.30 hours. Taking the time to 4 pm, to late for the results to be published the final edition of the newspaper? Which, as previously stated in any event makes no mention of the missing organs? and I doubt whether the results of the post mortem would have been publicly disclosed before the inquest.

There was no mention of the outcome of the post mortem in any of the editions and Brown and Sequeira were specifically asked the same question
"“How long would it have taken him (the killer) to mutilate the body as you found it?” emphasis on the word mutilate and the term "as you found it"
both go to show neither doctor knew about missing organs at the time of giving the interview but did confirm the body was mutilated.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But Brown was clearly asked at the inquest how long it would have taken him after he’d just mentioned the missing parts.

“[Coroner] Would you consider that the person who inflicted the wounds possessed anatomical skill? - He must have had a good deal of knowledge as to the position of the abdominal organs, and the way to remove them.
[Coroner] Would the parts removed be of any use for professional purposes? - None whatever.
[Coroner]Would the removal of the kidney, for example, require special knowledge? - It would require a good deal of knowledge as to its position, because it is apt to be overlooked, being covered by a membrane.
[Coroner] Would such a knowledge be likely to be possessed by some one accustomed to cutting up animals? - Yes.
[Coroner] Have you been able to form any opinion as to whether the perpetrator of this act was disturbed? - I think he had sufficient time, but it was in all probability done in a hurry.
[Coroner] How long would it take to make the wounds? - It might be done in five minutes. It might take him longer; but that is the least time it could be done in.”

Unless you are suggesting that Brown mentioned the missing organs but then forgot about them seconds later when he was asked how long it would have taken the killer, and I assume that you aren’t, then I can’t see what you’re trying to claim.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well i hate ot rain on your parade but at the inquest of Chapman where the only organ found missing was the uterus Dr Phillips stated
"Dr. Phillips: I think I can guide you by saying that I myself could not have performed all the injuries I saw on that woman, and effect them, even without a struggle, under a quarter of an hour.

Moving swiftly onto Eddowes who in addittion to having her uterus removed also had her kidney removed we know the killer didnt have 15 mins available to him in Mitre Square so I think there is your answer so if Phillips goes with a minimum of 15 mins to remove a uterus how much more time would be needed to remove a kidney?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You aren’t raining on my parade Trevor but I have to ask why you favour Phillips assessment of a different murder over Brown and Sequiera’s assessment of Eddowes (the one in question?)