Organ removal ? Warning Graphic Photos

[Herlock Sholmes]

So what is your point in showing Phillips was at the later post mortem ?

Because you kept claiming for a fact that he wasn’t there.

You cannot disprove the fact that he could have attended the crime scene and viewed the body there when asked to do so by Dr Brown after all there was nearly 60 mins when the body was laying in Mitre Square before being moved to the mortuary, time enough for him to attend and view the body

We know that Phillips presence was requested by Brown and that Phillips went from the police station to the mortuary. You appear to be desperate to get Phillips away from that mortuary. First you try to tell us that he wasn’t at the PM when he was and now this. Anyone would think that you’re being evasive on this issue Trevor.

And what does it prove as to who attended the post mortem all that matters is that the organs were documented as missing at that time, not before, and not at any preliminary post mortem which did not happen.

Again, you’re claiming your opinion as a fact.

“Phillips assist in the preliminary examination of the body (later determined to be that of Catherine Eddowes) which was underway when he arrived.

London Times, Oct. 1, 1888”

Would Phillips, called to examine the body for similarities with the Chapman murder, have done it with her lying on the ground in the poor lighting of Mitre Square or would he have done it on a mortuary table?

You keep citing newspaper reports which are notorioulsy unsafe there were no reporters inside the mortuary what they reported as happened is nothing more than conjecture.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Of course it was conjecture Trevor. They just conjectured that a Constable was placed on guard. Then they conjectured his collar number too. I’ll steal one of your well known phrases Trevor. “Take the blinkers off.”

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

You make some very good points here. Problem is that we haven't found anything, yet, that details the actual purpose of the preliminary examination, and are probably unlikely to find anything as after the 4 hour post mortem the doctors "declined to speak".

It can be looked at two ways. As you say, it would have taken a short time to check the organs at the preliminary examination, and isn't it likely that that was its purpose? OR. If matters involving Phillips had been sorted at the preliminary examination, what was the necessity of his attendance at the post mortem?

Cheers, George

Hello George,

I completely agree that we have found no stated reason but it’s perhaps the case that ‘preliminary examination’ is too grand a title. Personally I can see no other reason for Brown, who of course was perfectly competent to carry out any examination, requesting Phillips presence. Phillips had only just returned from Newcastle or Durham or some such place to look at another murdered woman to see if it could have been a ripper murder (I don’t know the details I’m afraid) So, as you say, he can only have been there to check for similarities to Chapman. So certainly sounds and knife work but I genuinely struggle to believe that he wouldn’t have taken the opportunity of a few seconds to check if any organs had been removed. And with an open abdomen would her missing uterus have been even easier to note?

Theres no proof here of course George because we don’t have the exact details in writing but it seems to me that the evidence points to this check being made. You may disagree though of course. Again it’s only a maybe but perhaps the police were putting pressure on because they wanted to know if organs had been removed because they might have been working on the theory that the killer might have carried them away using the cloth found in Goulston Street. If no organs had been missing that that theory could have been discarded.

[Trevor Marriott]

Of course it was conjecture Trevor. They just conjectured that a Constable was placed on guard. Then they conjectured his collar number too. I’ll steal one of your well known phrases Trevor. “Take the blinkers off.”

I regret coming back to this thread to re engae with you I realise it was a big mistake to keep encouraging you. As i stated yesterday you clearly have your head buried in the sand and you are not even prepared to consider alternatives or the facts and evidence to disprove the old accepted theory, all you do is keep posting mis-information and citing unsafe newsaper articles, in what can only be described as a desperate and pathetic attempt to prop up the old previously accepted theory that the killer removed these organs at the crime scenes

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Theres no proof here of course George because we don’t have the exact details in writing but it seems to me that the evidence points to this check being made. You may disagree though of course. Again it’s only a maybe but perhaps the police were putting pressure on because they wanted to know if organs had been removed because they might have been working on the theory that the killer might have carried them away using the cloth found in Goulston Street. If no organs had been missing that that theory could have been discarded.

You do talk a load of old tosh at times, here you are again making it up as you go along

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I regret coming back to this thread to re engae with you I realise it was a big mistake to keep encouraging you. As i stated yesterday you clearly have your head buried in the sand and you are not even prepared to consider alternatives or the facts and evidence to disprove the old accepted theory, all you do is keep posting mis-information and citing unsafe newsaper articles, in what can only be described as a desperate and pathetic attempt to prop up the old previously accepted theory that the killer removed these organs at the crime scenes

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

That’s the point though Trevor. You never want to ‘engage.’ You simply want everyone to agree with you. All I did was to post an excerpt from Chandler’s inquest testimony (which you have been quite happy to use under other circumstances) where he states that a Constable was put on guard of Chapman’s body. You claim that this is ‘unsafe.’ How is it unsafe. This wasn’t a rumour from two blokes in a pub picked up by a newspaper reporter. Chandler even quoted that officers collar number so how could a newspaper have made this up.

So this clearly shows that the police left an officer in charge of the body. And if that was the case with Chapman why couldn’t they have done this with Eddowes? We also have to remember that Chapman was pretty much kept in a shed whereas the Golden Lane mortuary was a proper purpose built building. We can’t state it as a fact of course because we have no written evidence for it in the case of Eddowes but it’s hardly a fantasy is it?

If you want to keep dismissing things like this then there’s nothing that I can do about it Trevor but these are things that have to be considered when assessing this subject. You keep claiming that I’m trying to ‘prop up’ an old theory which is almost a mantra with you I’m afraid. Why would I or anyone have any kind of ‘attachment’ to any version of events? You are the one with the theory Trevor. When you have a theory you have to accept that it has to be tested thoroughly and rigorously and not simply accepted because you think it’s correct. We can go back years on here and over on JTRForums with this. Thread after thread. Every time someone disagrees with you it’s never because they’ve assessed something and arrived at a different conclusion it’s always because they’re ‘trying to prop up the old theory.’ Perhaps after all these years you should learn to accept that theories are their to be tested and not shoehorned into place?

[Herlock Sholmes]

You do talk a load of old tosh at times, here you are again making it up as you go along

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Another penetrating insight.

[GBinOz]

That’s the point though Trevor. You never want to ‘engage.’ You simply want everyone to agree with you. All I did was to post an excerpt from Chandler’s inquest testimony (which you have been quite happy to use under other circumstances) where he states that a Constable was put on guard of Chapman’s body. You claim that this is ‘unsafe.’ How is it unsafe. This wasn’t a rumour from two blokes in a pub picked up by a newspaper reporter. Chandler even quoted that officers collar number so how could a newspaper have made this up.

So this clearly shows that the police left an officer in charge of the body. And if that was the case with Chapman why couldn’t they have done this with Eddowes? We also have to remember that Chapman was pretty much kept in a shed whereas the Golden Lane mortuary was a proper purpose built building. We can’t state it as a fact of course because we have no written evidence for it in the case of Eddowes but it’s hardly a fantasy is it?

Hi Herlock,

That is quite a good logical progression, but you left out the part where the nurses found Chapman's body unattended in the yard when it should have been locked in the shed under guard. Unfortunately, the next logical deduction is, as you said, "if that was the case with Chapman why couldn’t they have done this with Eddowes?".

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

From the Mackenzie Inquest:

Dr. George Baxter Phillips, divisional surgeon of the H Division, said that he was called, and arrived at Castle-alley at 1:10 a.m. on Wednesday, when it was raining very hard. On his arrival in Castle-alley, at the back premises of the washhouses he found the body lying on the pavement in the position already described, as to which the witness gave full details. Having inspected the body, he had it removed to the shed used as a mortuary in the Pavilion-yard, Whitechapel. There he re-examined the body and left it in charge of the police. Yesterday he made a post-mortem examination at the same shed.

So Dr Phillips examined the body of Alice Mackenzie in situ, had it sent to the mortuary, performed another examination (before the PM so a ‘preliminary’ one) and then left it (at the mortuary) in the charge of the Police. So…under guard.

Sound familiar?

Time for bed

[Abby Normal]

Hi Al,

I was thinking that an old opinion should not be included with modern opinions. I wasn't asserting anything negative about Nick Warren, but having thought about your post I can see that you are correct so I will withdraw that comment.

Cheers, George

very good george. but perhaps you should think twice about tossing your vilious hand grenades at former posters (and respected ripperologists) who have passed away. Btw Nick Warren was a surgeon.

[GBinOz]

From the Mackenzie Inquest:

Dr. George Baxter Phillips, divisional surgeon of the H Division, said that he was called, and arrived at Castle-alley at 1:10 a.m. on Wednesday, when it was raining very hard. On his arrival in Castle-alley, at the back premises of the washhouses he found the body lying on the pavement in the position already described, as to which the witness gave full details. Having inspected the body, he had it removed to the shed used as a mortuary in the Pavilion-yard, Whitechapel. There he re-examined the body and left it in charge of the police. Yesterday he made a post-mortem examination at the same shed.

So Dr Phillips examined the body of Alice Mackenzie in situ, had it sent to the mortuary, performed another examination (before the PM so a ‘preliminary’ one) and then left it (at the mortuary) in the charge of the Police. So…under guard.

Sound familiar?

Time for bed

Hi Herlock,

How can you sleep at a time like this?

Yes it sounds familiar but, as I said in my simultaneous post above, Chapman's body was found in the yard unattended, not in the shed under guard where it was supposed to be.

Let's re-examine the "preliminary examination". From the Chapman Inquest:
[Coroner] Was the whole of the body there? - No; the absent portions being from the abdomen.
[Coroner] Are those portions such as would require anatomical knowledge to extract? - I think the mode in which they were extracted did show some anatomical knowledge.
[Coroner] You do not think they could have been lost accidentally in the transit of the body to the mortuary? - I was not present at the transit. I carefully closed up the clothes of the woman. Some portions had been excised.

Bear in mind that the small intestines and other abdominal parts had been removed from the body by the murderer. The doctor would have had to replace them back in the abdominal cavity for the transit of the body. Phillips also testified that he closed up the clothing. So when the body arrived at the mortuary it was not opened up for quick viewing.

Having received instructions soon after two o'clock on Saturday afternoon, I went to the labour- yard of the Whitechapel Union for the purpose of further examining the body and making the usual post-mortem investigation. I was surprised to find that the body had been stripped and was laying ready on the table. It was under great disadvantage I made my examination.

This a clue that the preliminary examination was the removal of the clothing and perhaps the washing of the body. Phillips was complaining that this had been done before he arrived and should not have been done without him being present.

This from Brown's autopsy report on Eddowes:
When the body arrived at Golden Lane, some of the blood was dispersed through the removal of the body to the mortuary. The clothes were taken off carefully from the body. A piece of deceased's ear dropped from the clothing.

I made a post mortem examination at half past two on Sunday afternoon.

Brown talks about the body arriving at Golden Lane and the clothing being removed. Again, the intestines that were removed by the murderer would have been back in the abdominal cavity. We know a list was also made of the clothing and possessions. I am forming an opinion that this is what was called a preliminary examination.

From the Eddowes autopsy report:
The abdominal walls were divided in the middle line to within a quarter of an inch of the navel. The cut then took a horizontal course for two inches and a half towards the right side. It then divided round the navel on the left side, and made a parallel incision to the former horizontal incision, leaving the navel on a tongue of skin. Attached to the navel was two and a half inches of the lower part of the rectus muscle on the left side of the abdomen. The incision then took an oblique direction to the right and was shelving. The incision went down the right side of the vagina and rectum for half an inch behind the rectum.

I have read that the avoidance of cutting of the naval is a technique employed when opening the body during during an autopsy or dissection. Since it is certain that this cut was inflicted by the murderer, it adds weight to the theory that the killer was familiar with the dissection methods employed for humans. I may be wrong, but I wouldn't think that a pig (or horse) slaughterer would employ this technique. The post mortem commenced with the face and worked down the body, so there didn't appear to be any urgency in examining the abdomen for missing organs to satisfy any police demands.

At this stage my opinion leans towards that there were security measures implemented for the bodies but, in Chapman's case at least, they proved ineffective. I think that the preliminary examination was confined to the removal, and inventory, of the clothing and possessions and perhaps washing the body, in preparation for the post mortem. I think that either the Ripper had both anatomical knowledge of the human body and surgical skills and he removed the organs, or the organs were removed after the fact and the Ripper had little medical knowledge or practical application. At this stage I lean slightly towards the former.
Disclaimer: These opinions are subject to change at any time should new evidence be presented.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

I've just been rethinking my last post and wondering if the doctors would have replaced the small intestines etc into the abdominal cavity. Perhaps they were transported separately, and that was the point of the coroner's question to Sgt Baugham :
[Coroner] Are you sure that you took every portion of the body away with you? - Yes.
and to Phillips:
[Coroner] You do not think they could have been lost accidentally in the transit of the body to the mortuary? - I was not present at the transit. I carefully closed up the clothes of the woman. Some portions had been excised.

Cheers, George

[Varqm]

The police were not instructed or knew of a standing procedure, otherwise they would have instructed the mortuary people do not touch the body until the doctor arrived and put it in the shed.Instead it was left in the yard ,then stripped and washed in the shed.Chandler was admonished by Baxter,including his guessing about the handkerchief taken off the throat,about being the wrong man in charge of the body in the mortuary.The police were learning along the way.

A small portion of the intestine was still attached to the body and I think this was the one excised per Phillips.The intestines I think we're transported separately from the body.This is debatable,Phillips could have put the intestines back and close the clothes.But then why cut it,this could have been done in the post-mortem.

[Trevor Marriott]

I've just been rethinking my last post and wondering if the doctors would have replaced the small intestines etc into the abdominal cavity. Perhaps they were transported separately, and that was the point of the coroner's question to Sgt Baugham :
[Coroner] Are you sure that you took every portion of the body away with you? - Yes.
and to Phillips:
[Coroner] You do not think they could have been lost accidentally in the transit of the body to the mortuary? - I was not present at the transit. I carefully closed up the clothes of the woman. Some portions had been excised.

Cheers, George

Hi George
Just for clarification the term used "some portions had been excised" refers to the results from the post mortem and not from the crime scene, other wise if they had been found to be missing at the crime scene the coroner would not have asked the question could they have been lost in transit

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GBinOz]

Hi George
Just for clarification the term used "some portions had been excised" refers to the results from the post mortem and not from the crime scene, other wise if they had been found to be missing at the crime scene the coroner would not have asked the question could they have been lost in transit

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

I read the "some portions had been excised" differently. I see Phillips as talking about what he did at the crime scene and referring to this:
The abdomen had been entirely laid open: the intestines, severed from their mesenteric attachments, had been lifted out of the body and placed on the shoulder of the corpse;
He says he closed up the clothes, but what did he do with the detached intestines? Were they placed back in the abdominal cavity or transported separately?

Cheers, George

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

I read the "some portions had been excised" differently. I see Phillips as talking about what he did at the crime scene and referring to this:
The abdomen had been entirely laid open: the intestines, severed from their mesenteric attachments, had been lifted out of the body and placed on the shoulder of the corpse;
He says he closed up the clothes, but what did he do with the detached intestines? Were they placed back in the abdominal cavity or transported separately?

Cheers, George

My interpretation is that those organs had not been detached but simply removed from the abdomen and draped over the shoulder by cutting them away from the mesenteric attachment and the intestines were place back in the abdominal cavity

www.trevormarriott.co.uk