Organ removal ? Warning Graphic Photos

[Herlock Sholmes]

If Dr Phillips said that it would have taken him at least 15 mins to murder mutilate and remove a uterus from Chapman and he is a Victorian Doctor who should not be ignored.

How on earth could the killer murder mutilate and remove not only a uterus, but a kidney in 3-5 mins when it would have taken Dr Phillips 15 mins to just remove a uterus. Bearing in minds those 3-5 mins quoted by Brown and Sequeira could only have related to the murder and the mutilations.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor your not pulling that one again. The time included the removal of the parts. When Brown quoted that time he’d already mentioned this missing body parts so he couldn’t have just forgotten about them.

On what basis do you deduce that Dr. Phillips estimate to have been more accurate than Dr. Brown’s?

Anyway, the killer didn’t have between 3 and 5 minutes. More like anything between 6 and 12.

[Varqm]

Nichols,Chapman,McKenzie and Coles were all brought to the same Whitechapel Mortuary in Old Montague St..How come only Chapman's body was pilfered?

[Trevor Marriott]

not p*****g on any ones party but i was thinking ?
a doctors say this and that in a respective time !
but a citizen of the community who is obviously unwell mentally.
in the dark committing crimes is
speculative

sorry copy & paste.
i wouldnt be able to find organs either.
you see were i am at asking if killer is of similarity in this normality.

Exactly, the killer would have had to know the location of the organs within the abdomen, and then in the dark find them in a blood filled abdomen, take hold of organs which would be slippery and then remove them

Quotes from Dr Brown
"The way in which the kidney was cut out showed that it was done by somebody who knew what he was about"

[Coroner] Does the nature of the wounds lead you to any conclusion as to the instrument that was used? - It must have been a sharp-pointed knife, and I should say at least 6 in. long.

The attached pics show a long victorian surgeons knife with a 6 inch blade, and the other pic shows a blood filled abdomen and shows the difficulty in using such a long blaled knife to cut out the organs not to mention trying to locate and grip organs to be able to remove them from a blood filled abdomen

[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.





www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor your not pulling that one again. The time included the removal of the parts. When Brown quoted that time he’d already mentioned this missing body parts so he couldn’t have just forgotten about them.

On what basis do you deduce that Dr. Phillips estimate to have been more accurate than Dr. Brown’s?

Anyway, the killer didn’t have between 3 and 5 minutes. More like anything between 6 and 12.

Phillips stated at least 15 mins to murder mutilate and remove a uterus add onto that time extra to locate and remove a kidney didnt happen

It would not be physically possible to remove a kidney and a uterus in either 3 or 5 mins and on those times it has been shown that they were referring to the time it would have taken to carry out the murder and mutilations

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Phillips stated at least 15 mins to murder mutilate and remove a uterus add onto that time extra to locate and remove a kidney didnt happen

And Brown said 5 minutes. We can play this nonsense all day Trevor. I’ll ask again….why Phillips over Brown?

It would not be physically possible to remove a kidney and a uterus in either 3 or 5 mins and on those times it has been shown that they were referring to the time it would have taken to carry out the murder and mutilations

It hasn’t been ‘shown’ Trevor. It’s simply an idea of yours, not based on evidence, which you believe should be treated as fact.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You have no evidence for your claim Trevor. You’ve shown us a couple of photos which just show the location of the kidneys. Much appreciated but we know were the kidneys are thanks. And you’ve stated that there was a trade in body parts. And you quote Dr. Phillips but ignore Dr Brown (what is it about Phillips that inspires such obsessive loyalty from some on these threads?) And that’s proof that the body parts were removed in the mortuary.

Not even close Trevor.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Exactly, the killer would have had to know the location of the organs within the abdomen, and then in the dark find them in a blood filled abdomen, take hold of organs which would be slippery and then remove them

And that’s exactly what he did.

Quotes from Dr Brown
"The way in which the kidney was cut out showed that it was done by somebody who knew what he was about"

A man with anatomical knowledge. It’s not a myth Trevor. They do exist.

[Coroner] Does the nature of the wounds lead you to any conclusion as to the instrument that was used? - It must have been a sharp-pointed knife, and I should say at least 6 in. long.

6 inch knives exist too.

The attached pics show a long victorian surgeons knife with a 6 inch blade, and the other pic shows a blood filled abdomen and shows the difficulty in using such a long blaled knife to cut out the organs not to mention trying to locate and grip organs to be able to remove them from a blood filled abdomen

That picture doesn’t illustrate ‘difficulty’ to me. It’s just a knife and some gore. It proves nothing.

[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.

Yes Trevor anatomical knowledge. Not magic.





www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Your not posting proof here Trevor. All that’s been suggested is that the killer would have needed a sharp knife and anatomical knowledge.

[Harry D]

Ive discussed this very point with Trevor , and have suggested Mary Kelly is a problem with his theory .

Her organs were removed at the scene , there is no evidence im aware of that suggest they were hacked out of her body during the mutilation stage ,they may well have been taken out just as carefully and accurately as other victims were pryor to her specific mutilation.

He disagrees with this . That ok with me , he is entitled to his opinion as we all are . Where i do dissagree with him tho is his assurance that his theory is the ''truth'' and 100% correct. As weve seen on other threads nothing to do with jtr is 100% correct as to how the murders were committed and who the murderer was . But hey my opinion only.

If MJK's killer was only a copycat, why did he remove excess organs and not take away the ones the killer had previously snatched?

[FISHY1118]

If MJK's killer was only a copycat, why did he remove excess organs and not take away the ones the killer had previously snatched?

More than likely he wasnt.

[Fleetwood Mac]

It would not be physically possible to remove a kidney and a uterus in either 3 or 5 mins and on those times it has been shown that they were referring to the time it would have taken to carry out the murder and mutilations

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

In the event the couple seen by Lawende and associates were the WM and Catherine, then I think your 3 to 5 minutes is the conclusion supported by the evidence.

When a couple of minutes are added or deducted here and there to arrive at a conclusion of anywhere up to 12 minutes or whatever, it is not consideration of the evidence: it is merely someone adding minutes from nowhere to lend weight to an idea.

The evidence is that both doctors, Brown and Sequeira, believed Catherine was murdered at 1.40am at the earliest and this is a body with a very short PMI. PC Watkins clocked his watch at 1.45am when he called on Morris, so 1.44am discovery of Catherine's body fits. Add or deduct whatever minutes you like, but it's pretty much just making it up and ignoring the evidence put before us.

PC Watkins tells us his beat was 12 to 14 minutes, which would have had him passing the square side of Church Passage at 1.31am to 1.33am but he doesn't see a couple at the other end of the passage. Miraculously the couple turn up just after PC Watkins has turned left in the square and just before Lawende and associates walk down Duke Street, but the couple are having a chat and don't look like they've hurried from somewhere nor hurrying to somewhere.

Again miraculously, the WM has time to cut a piece of the apron and get out of the square unseen. The doctors and Lawende and associates suggest this is all done from 1.40am to 1.44am.

Clearly, there is something wrong in all of this. It's too much of an ask to believe this all happened in that short time frame.

[Trevor Marriott]

Nichols,Chapman,McKenzie and Coles were all brought to the same Whitechapel Mortuary in Old Montague St..How come only Chapman's body was pilfered?

because Chapmans body was the only one that had the abdomen opened to the extent that organs could be removed without fear of detection, the other victims did not, so any attempt to remove organs from their bodies would have been noticed becasue a cursory examniation had been made at the crime scenes so the doctors had seen the extent of the wounds to their abdomens. The same applies to Eddowes.

Two different mortuaries, two different methods of extraction of the uterus equals two different persons responsible !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GBinOz]

I can certainly see your point here Trevor. It's those particular nuances of how the language was used back then. Does the phrase "the wounds" refer to the removal of the organs, which we'd assume to be so given that it's what they're discussing, or is the coroner asking about the cutting of the throat and abdomen specifically? There's something odd about referring to an organ removal as a 'wound', but likewise, why skip to a different matter in what seems to be a vague manner, at least to our modern ears? Alas, like much else, it's a case of 'you pays your money, you takes your choice'.

Hi Al,

Just to add to your point about language, what do you make of this:
Daily Mail 12 Oct - Inquest:
To Dr Sequeira: From what you saw have you formed an opinion as to whether the perpetrator of the deed had any particular design on any particular part of the body? - I have formed an opinion that he had no particular design on any particular organ.
Judging from the injuries inflicted, do you think he was possessed of anatomical skill? - No, I do not.
By Mr. Crawford - I was present at the post mortem examination, and had ample opportunity of seeing the wounds, and I agree with Drs. Brown and Sequeire that the wounds were not inflicted by any one having great anatomical skill. I also agree that the person who inflicted the wounds had no design on any particular organ - internal organ.

The person who inflicted the wounds had no design on any particular organ??? This reads to me that the person who inflicted the wounds was not possessed of anatomical skill, but he was not the person who had designs on removing the organs.

Cheers, George

[Fleetwood Mac]

The flaw in messing around with the times and adding a couple of minutes here and there, is that the times are being bent in one direction in order to fit a theory. It's not an objective assessment of the possibilities.

To illustrate:

PC Watkins entered Mitre Square at 1.30am. He stated his beat took between 12 and 14 minutes. He did not report anything unusual, so it is reasonable to suggest his beat took him 12 minutes on that particular occasion ('not the only possibility but a reasonable one all the same). This would have him turning into Mitre Square from Mitre Street at 1.42am.

This is what Watkins and Morris had to say:

Watkins - I ran across the road to Messers Kearley & Tonge, the door was ajar, I pushed it open.

Morris - The door was knocked or pushed. I was about 2 yards from the door. I turned around and opened the door wide and saw Constable Watkins. He said "For Gods sake mate, come to my assistance". I said "Stop till I get my lamp".

Whilst Morris looked for his lamp, Watkins noted the time as 1.45am by his own watch.

Watkins clocked the time at 1.45am while Morris looked for his lamp. Between that time and Watkins finding Catherine's body: Watkins stumbled upon Catherine, in his own words took note of the wounds and was taken aback, he went across to knock for Morris, they had a brief conversation and Morris went to look for his lamp, Watkins then looked at his watch. It is feasible that this took more than 1 minute and actually took 2 to 3 minutes which would be consistent with Watkins entering Mitre Square at 1.42am. Let's say his watch was fast by a minute, I mean why not in the event we're objectively assessing the possibilities.

So, why not consider a reasonable possibility for Watkins discovering Catherine's body to be 1.41am? Because those messing around with the timings are not being objective: they're bending the times in one direction.

Why not say, well, yes, all of their times are out by a couple of minutes, but let's say some are a bit slow and others are a bit fast and when we put them together, we have the same timeframe. I mean, there's no reason to think their watches were all fast or all slow.

Bending the timings in one direction is merely suggesting one possibility and it's no more plausible than bending the times in the other direction to claim that PC Watkins discovered Catherine's body prior to 1.44am.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Al,

Just to add to your point about language, what do you make of this:
Daily Mail 12 Oct - Inquest:
To Dr Sequeira: From what you saw have you formed an opinion as to whether the perpetrator of the deed had any particular design on any particular part of the body? - I have formed an opinion that he had no particular design on any particular organ.
Judging from the injuries inflicted, do you think he was possessed of anatomical skill? - No, I do not.
By Mr. Crawford - I was present at the post mortem examination, and had ample opportunity of seeing the wounds, and I agree with Drs. Brown and Sequeire that the wounds were not inflicted by any one having great anatomical skill. I also agree that the person who inflicted the wounds had no design on any particular organ - internal organ.

The person who inflicted the wounds had no design on any particular organ??? This reads to me that the person who inflicted the wounds was not possessed of anatomical skill, but he was not the person who had designs on removing the organs.

Cheers, George

Good point George well spotted

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi Al,

Just to add to your point about language, what do you make of this:
Daily Mail 12 Oct - Inquest:
To Dr Sequeira: From what you saw have you formed an opinion as to whether the perpetrator of the deed had any particular design on any particular part of the body? - I have formed an opinion that he had no particular design on any particular organ.
Judging from the injuries inflicted, do you think he was possessed of anatomical skill? - No, I do not.
By Mr. Crawford - I was present at the post mortem examination, and had ample opportunity of seeing the wounds, and I agree with Drs. Brown and Sequeire that the wounds were not inflicted by any one having great anatomical skill. I also agree that the person who inflicted the wounds had no design on any particular organ - internal organ.

The person who inflicted the wounds had no design on any particular organ??? This reads to me that the person who inflicted the wounds was not possessed of anatomical skill, but he was not the person who had designs on removing the organs.

Cheers, George

I have formed an opinion that he had no particular design on any particular organ.

I think the doctor is suggesting that the WM wasn't looking for a particular organ but rather was just hacking away and rummaging around and took the organ/s that he came upon by chance.

[GBinOz]

Clearly, there is something wrong in all of this. It's too much of an ask to believe this all happened in that short time frame.

Hi FM,

Add "and in the circumstances involved" and I agree.

In Trevor's video he consulted modern day experts. Duncan Lees, Forensics expert, Ian Calder, Expert Pathologist with 30 years experience in sudden and un-natural death who has conducted tens of thousands of autopsies, and Mortuary Manager Phil Harrison, who in his twenty year career has removed many thousands of organs and who concluded that "it is not in the realms of possibility that somebody can do it (in 9 minutes) in the circumstances that have been described".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpQq...annel=dickcopy 19:00-22:45.

Cheers, George