Organ removal ? Warning Graphic Photos

[Joshua Rogan]

Morning Advertiser 5 Oct, Dr Brown: "There was little or no bleeding from the abdominal injuries, showing that they were inflicted after death"

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Morning Advertiser 5 Oct, Dr Brown: "There was little or no bleeding from the abdominal injuries, showing that they were inflicted after death"

Hi Josh,

Is anyone arguing that they were inflicted before death? That'd be a brave stance to take...

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Josh,

Is anyone arguing that they were inflicted before death? That'd be a brave stance to take...

I’ve heard stranger suggestions recently Al.

[Harry D]

Welcome to the real world the things you have go got through to prove a point

That's enough Glenfiddich for tonight.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And you really belive that.

Pictures dont lie

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Those pictures tell us nothing though Trevor. What made you feel that after 134 years people needed to be shown where the kidneys are unless you believe that we’ve just undergone a fast forward period in evolution? Surely the relevant point is that none of the Doctors who were actually there, who saw the body in situ and at the PM and who saw the lighting conditions in Mitre Square on that night, appear to have had any problem accepting that the killer removed body parts within the available time. 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?

[Trevor Marriott]

Those pictures tell us nothing though Trevor. What made you feel that after 134 years people needed to be shown where the kidneys are unless you believe that we’ve just undergone a fast forward period in evolution? Surely the relevant point is that none of the Doctors who were actually there, who saw the body in situ and at the PM and who saw the lighting conditions in Mitre Square on that night, appear to have had any problem accepting that the killer removed body parts within the available time. 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?

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

[Trevor Marriott]

Can you confirm how you know the Star interview took place before the post-mortem examination, please.
The PM took place at 14:30 on Sunday, but the Star wasn't published for another 24 hours or more.

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

[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?)

[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.

[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]

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]

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]

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

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And people wonder why I resort to sarcasm!

.
“[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.”

???

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

So if you are to be believed we have to accept that the killer was the male seen with Eddowes at the entrance to Church passage at 1.35am now there is no evidence as to what time they left that location and walked down into Miter Square, that time could have been anytime betweem 1.35am and 1.40am. The later the time the less time the killer had with the victim.

The killer then having found the darkest part of the square procedes to murder and mutilate the victim rifling her pockets at the same time, He then decides to eviscerate the victim and purportedly has sufficient light and anatomical knowledge to put his hand into a blood filled abdomen without the use of retractors to hold the abdomen open and with anatomical knowledge, and a long bladed knife which would have been a hindrance to him, is able to locate a kidney which is probably the most difficult organ to locate in the body and remove it and the uterus, and then makes a hasty retreat when he sees and hear Pc Harvey coming down Church passage in his direction.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

And people wonder why I resort to sarcasm!
???

Where does the coroner with this question make mention of the organs

[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.”

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk