Organ removal ? Warning Graphic Photos

[Herlock Sholmes]

And Prosecutor (the surgeon) had a suspect, though I’m unsure if he ever named him:

“If I'm right, he wasn't a doctor but he did have anatomical knowledge and a reasonable familiarity with dissecting rooms and mortuaries.”

[Herlock Sholmes]

umm no it dosnt lend weight to what Trevor is saying. Exactly the opposite. Prosector beleived the ripper was a DR, and that only a Dr/surgeon could have done what the ripper did in the circs he was operating under as in-doing all the mutilations and removing and taking away organs at the scene under poor lighting and operating conditions. Prosector also pointed out that the evidence of the abdominal cut going around the naval also pointed to a DR/surgeon. so a doctor exhibiting surgeon skills at the scene of the murder, not in a mortuary.
His whole theory was that the ripper was a dr and did everything at the scene, including taking away organs. Nothing about the ripper wasnt the one who cut out and took away organs and that they were taken at the mortuary.

But this kind of misunderstanding and misrepresenting is par for the course for the conspiracy brigade.

One simple question should really put this yet another silly theory from Trevor to rest once and for all-Do you really beleive that the ripper would murder, post mortem mutilate, pull out the guts of several victims, but wasnt the person who removed and took away the missing organs?

If you believe this, then I have some ocean front property in Kansas id like to sell you. lol

It’s ok to make selective quotes from that people can ‘read into’ to try and make it fit but here’s the killer blow from Prosecutor….a surgeon remember:

“At the end of the day does it matter if he performed the Eddowes killing in 1 minute or 10? He did it and we know that he certainly couldn't have taken more than about 10 minutes. Or is anyone suggesting that he had an assistant? I certainly don't espouse that possibility.”

So that’s the 2 Doctors at the crime scene and 2 surgeons with a specific interest in the case who have no problem with the killer removing organs at the scene.

[Abby Normal]

Trevor,

To get back to the interesting OP you put forward, I found this post from Prosector, a practicing surgeon:

As for the assertion that no 'knife skills' or special knowledge was used in the Eddowes dissection - I utterly refute that and would be happy to debate it sometime when I've got a few hours to spare. The big thing that everyone overlooks in this debate is that in 1888 abdominal surgery was virtually unknown. Sir Frederick Treves performed the first successful appendicectomy in Britain in its present sense in 1887 (and the appendix is very near the surface and therefore relatively easy to get at). Very few surgeons had ever ventured into the depths of the abdomen in 1888 except in a limited way during dissection as medical students (bodies were very difficult to come by - most students only got (and still only get) one body to dissect in their entire career, shared with several others. The bit of colon removed in the Eddowes dissection was the descending colon. This lies behind the posterior peritoneum and in front of the left kidney. It is relatively immobile compared with the rest of the intestines and JTR needed to get it out of the way in order to access the kidney. The fact that it was slightly crudely done is not surprising in the circumstances. I am certain that I could not have done any better, kneeling on the ground, in the dark with a 7 inch knife as my only instrument and no assistants to retract the abdominal flaps and contents. To me and to other surgeons that I have discussed it with like Professor Harold Ellis, it is absolutely staggering that he did what he did to Chapman and Eddowes in such a short time - or at all. Also, don't forget that Bond and others who said that JTR did not display either surgical skill or anatomical knowledge, they were not practicing surgeons. Bond was only the surgeon to Out Patients at the Westminster Hospital and he did not have operating rights. In my view the only one who had the slightest idea of what was involved was Bagster Philips.

I think this lends weight towards what you're saying. I'd add that elsewhere in the thread, Prosector has taken it for granted that Lawende and associates saw Catherine and the WM, so when he states it's staggering in that short time; he is talking of between 1.35am and 1.44am.

I think the weight of evidence suggests it is highly questionable that this could have been done from the point Lawende and associates saw the couple, and we should bear in mind that the opinions of some doctors involved with the inquests carry more weight than others due to their relative experience.

umm no it dosnt lend weight to what Trevor is saying. Exactly the opposite. Prosector beleived the ripper was a DR, and that only a Dr/surgeon could have done what the ripper did in the circs he was operating under as in-doing all the mutilations and removing and taking away organs at the scene under poor lighting and operating conditions. Prosector also pointed out that the evidence of the abdominal cut going around the naval also pointed to a DR/surgeon. so a doctor exhibiting surgeon skills at the scene of the murder, not in a mortuary.
His whole theory was that the ripper was a dr and did everything at the scene, including taking away organs. Nothing about the ripper wasnt the one who cut out and took away organs and that they were taken at the mortuary.

But this kind of misunderstanding and misrepresenting is par for the course for the conspiracy brigade.

One simple question should really put this yet another silly theory from Trevor to rest once and for all-Do you really beleive that the ripper would murder, post mortem mutilate, pull out the guts of several victims, but wasnt the person who removed and took away the missing organs?

If you believe this, then I have some ocean front property in Kansas id like to sell you. lol

[Herlock Sholmes]

Nothing wrong with a nice sketch.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But there is no evidence of what you say happened, go away and come back with some if you think you are right you are speculating yet again as to what you think happened, but the reality is that might not have happened, and that they only looked at the body and its wounds after it had been stripped and left on the slab. There is no evidence to show how long any of those persons who were present when the body was stripped stayed at the mortuary, personally I can see no reason for them to have stayed after all they had arranged for the post mortem to be carried out the next day, they may well have all gone home leaving just the mortuary attendant,

You forgot about the police officer on guard. You know….the one that someone invented along with his collar number. He gets dismissed as inconvenient too.

and if that be the case we get back to body dealers being involved with mortuary attendants in taking organ for financial gain.

Would a dishonest mortuary worker have stolen body parts after they knew that Doctors had already examined the body? Of course they wouldn’t have.

And I do belive that when Dr Phillps arrived at 5.20am with the apron piece they had all gone home because I stand to be corrected but the apron piece was not matched to the mortuary piece until the following day at the post mortem.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You really don’t understand anything do you. I keep trying to be polite and trying to have a proper discussion with you but is simply impossible when you come up with unmitigated crap like this. Why the hell os it that on your side of the debate it’s absolutely fine to use conjecture, speculation and interpretation but when I make a point you request written proof! What more evidence do we need of your entrenched bias when it comes to your own opinions. For Christ sake try thinking Trevor.

You suggest that someone took body parts. Go on then….prove it. Don’t say….what else could have happened because I’ll say that the killer took them. I want proof. I want specific evidence that body parts were stolen from the Golden Lane mortuary not generalities. I want proof that Brown and Phillips, checking the body for similarities to Chapman, didn’t really, actually look. They made a cursory and rather pointless, defeating-the-object viewing and the proof of this is that you need it to be the case.

I want proof that Phillips didn’t examine the body with Brown as these 2 quotes (and others) show.

“Phillips arrives at the Golden Lane Mortuary some time after 5:20 a.m. He hands the apron piece over to Dr. Brown, who places it with the piece found on the body of the Mitre Square victim.

Lloyd’s Weekly, Sept. 30, 1888. Written inquest testimony of Dr. Brown, filed in the Corporation of London Records Office.”

“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”

So every time you demand written proof from me I’ll demand it back from you until you stop with this obsessive theory bias.

[Fleetwood Mac]

But there is no evidence of what you say happened, go away and come back with some if you think you are right you are speculating yet again as to what you think happened, but the reality is that might not have happened, and that they only looked at the body and its wounds after it had been stripped and left on the slab. There is no evidence to show how long any of those persons who were present when the body was stripped stayed at the mortuary, personally I can see no reason for them to have stayed after all they had arranged for the post mortem to be carried out the next day, they may well have all gone home leaving just the mortuary attendant, and if that be the case we get back to body dealers being involved with mortuary attendants in taking organ for financial gain.

And I do belive that when Dr Phillps arrived at 5.20am with the apron piece they had all gone home because I stand to be corrected but the apron piece was not matched to the mortuary piece until the following day at the post mortem.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor,

To get back to the interesting OP you put forward, I found this post from Prosector, a practicing surgeon:

As for the assertion that no 'knife skills' or special knowledge was used in the Eddowes dissection - I utterly refute that and would be happy to debate it sometime when I've got a few hours to spare. The big thing that everyone overlooks in this debate is that in 1888 abdominal surgery was virtually unknown. Sir Frederick Treves performed the first successful appendicectomy in Britain in its present sense in 1887 (and the appendix is very near the surface and therefore relatively easy to get at). Very few surgeons had ever ventured into the depths of the abdomen in 1888 except in a limited way during dissection as medical students (bodies were very difficult to come by - most students only got (and still only get) one body to dissect in their entire career, shared with several others. The bit of colon removed in the Eddowes dissection was the descending colon. This lies behind the posterior peritoneum and in front of the left kidney. It is relatively immobile compared with the rest of the intestines and JTR needed to get it out of the way in order to access the kidney. The fact that it was slightly crudely done is not surprising in the circumstances. I am certain that I could not have done any better, kneeling on the ground, in the dark with a 7 inch knife as my only instrument and no assistants to retract the abdominal flaps and contents. To me and to other surgeons that I have discussed it with like Professor Harold Ellis, it is absolutely staggering that he did what he did to Chapman and Eddowes in such a short time - or at all. Also, don't forget that Bond and others who said that JTR did not display either surgical skill or anatomical knowledge, they were not practicing surgeons. Bond was only the surgeon to Out Patients at the Westminster Hospital and he did not have operating rights. In my view the only one who had the slightest idea of what was involved was Bagster Philips.

I think this lends weight towards what you're saying. I'd add that elsewhere in the thread, Prosector has taken it for granted that Lawende and associates saw Catherine and the WM, so when he states it's staggering in that short time; he is talking of between 1.35am and 1.44am.

I think the weight of evidence suggests it is highly questionable that this could have been done from the point Lawende and associates saw the couple, and we should bear in mind that the opinions of some doctors involved with the inquests carry more weight than others due to their relative experience.

[Trevor Marriott]

So we have Chapman and Eddowes taken to 2 different mortuary’s. One a shed, the other a purpose built building. And these two both had body part stealers at work. Let’s not forget the obvious…that these were two murders that were about as high profile as possible and so under far more scrutiny than your average corpse. We know that a police guard was in place at Golden Lane and we even have the man’s collar number so he clearly existed. So we can’t simply dismiss the suggestion that there was security in place.

Anyone working at the Golden Lane mortuary would have known that the Doctors had been there looking at the body prior to the PM. How could a potential stealer of body parts have known what the Doctors would have checked and what they hadn’t checked? Would they really have laid themselves so open to discovery that they would have stolen body parts only for Brown to have arrived for the PM only to say “hold on, the uterus was there when I looked earlier.”

Is this believable?

But there is no evidence of what you say happened, go away and come back with some if you think you are right you are speculating yet again as to what you think happened, but the reality is that might not have happened, and that they only looked at the body and its wounds after it had been stripped and left on the slab. There is no evidence to show how long any of those persons who were present when the body was stripped stayed at the mortuary, personally I can see no reason for them to have stayed after all they had arranged for the post mortem to be carried out the next day, they may well have all gone home leaving just the mortuary attendant, and if that be the case we get back to body dealers being involved with mortuary attendants in taking organ for financial gain.

And I do belive that when Dr Phillps arrived at 5.20am with the apron piece they had all gone home because I stand to be corrected but the apron piece was not matched to the mortuary piece until the following day at the post mortem.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

So we have Chapman and Eddowes taken to 2 different mortuary’s. One a shed, the other a purpose built building. And these two both had body part stealers at work. Let’s not forget the obvious…that these were two murders that were about as high profile as possible and so under far more scrutiny than your average corpse. We know that a police guard was in place at Golden Lane and we even have the man’s collar number so he clearly existed. So we can’t simply dismiss the suggestion that there was security in place.

Anyone working at the Golden Lane mortuary would have known that the Doctors had been there looking at the body prior to the PM. How could a potential stealer of body parts have known what the Doctors would have checked and what they hadn’t checked? Would they really have laid themselves so open to discovery that they would have stolen body parts only for Brown to have arrived for the PM only to say “hold on, the uterus was there when I looked earlier.”

Is this believable?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Additional medical evidence from forensic patholgists.consultant gynecologists, and even a master butcher and others used to removing organs from dead bodies all support the belief that the killer did not have the time to do all that he is purported to have done in the Eddowes murder. All I have done is to act as the evidence gatherer and to document all the findings in an unbiased fashion.

Simply untrue.

You are at liberty to keep believing the old accepted theory, but please dont keep repeating and posting the same old same, as another poster stated it is getting boring now and you clearly have your mind set on what you believe and you are not going to change so is there anything more to say that hasnt already been said countless times before?

You’re the one who has his mind set Trevor. You simply won’t accept alternatives.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You keep making the same points so why are you and your echo complaining when I do? Is there one rule for you and another for the rest of us? You’re not looking for discussion and debate Trevor. Your looking for agreement. As usual.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

Agreed, and thank you, on behalf of all that are pursuing a positive debate.

Have you had any comment from your experts on the diversion of Eddowes abdominal incision around the naval?

Cheers, George

consultant gynecologist

"I am first struck by the jagged appearance of the abdominal wound. This does not look like a surgical incision. The irregular nature of it and some of the minor wounds to underlying organs suggests to me that possibly the knife (the pathologists at the time conjectured a thin blade of 6-8 inches) entered probably the upper portion of the abdomen which was then opened by pulling the knife upwards, possibly with a sawing motion, as opposed to a surgical incision where one would press down with the blade on the skin. In other words, the irregular line suggests the abdomen was opened from inside out rather than outside in"

patholgist

The autopsy report states that the abdomen had been opened from the bottom of the sternum as far as the pubis. It is interesting to observe that this incision appeared to be irregular, which could suggest the use of a slightly blunt knife. However, the incision had avoided the umbilicus (which is more difficult to incise), and this would perhaps be supportive evidence that the assailant knew of this from past experience.

Hope this helps

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes is the answer you are looking for

You clearly dont know how a post mortem takes place they dont just stick their hands in an abdomen and feel around. The procedure is that the abdomen is opened up fully from breast bone to pubis and then the skin is pulled back to reveal the abdomen fully so that and inspection of the organs can take place fully. Eddowes abdomen was not as open as that.

They would not have done this before the post mortem if they had have done they might as well have completed the whole post mortem they have a set procedure to adhere to as you have been told

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But you appear to be ignoring the fact that Brown specifically requested Phillips presence. And this was to look at any similarities between Chapman and Eddowes. Why are you resisting this. The only relevant points of comparison were the cuts and the organs. Why would Phillips have been called only to not bother checking?

The PM was a different matter. It’s a systematic check of everything the results of which end up in writing so we’re not talking about exploratory PM. You are stating what they wouldn’t have done as a fact. You can’t know this because you weren’t there.

[Trevor Marriott]

None of us are medical experts but I’m still waiting for a comment/response. Could two Doctors (interested in comparing Chapman to Eddowes) standing in front of a corpse laid out with the abdomen torn open have missed the fact that the woman’s uterus was missing?

Yes is the answer you are looking for

You clearly dont know how a post mortem takes place they dont just stick their hands in an abdomen and feel around. The procedure is that the abdomen is opened up fully from breast bone to pubis and then the skin is pulled back to reveal the abdomen fully so that and inspection of the organs can take place fully. Eddowes abdomen was not as open as that.

They would not have done this before the post mortem if they had have done they might as well have completed the whole post mortem they have a set procedure to adhere to as you have been told

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GBinOz]

Additional medical evidence from forensic patholgists.consultant gynecologists, and even a master butcher and others used to removing organs from dead bodies all support the belief that the killer did not have the time to do all that he is purported to have done in the Eddowes murder. All I have done is to act as the evidence gatherer and to document all the findings in an unbiased fashion.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

Agreed, and thank you, on behalf of all that are pursuing a positive debate.

Have you had any comment from your experts on the diversion of Eddowes abdominal incision around the naval?

Cheers, George

[Trevor Marriott]

I agree. So why do we have FM for example criticising this?

So when you say that you believe that the killer wouldn’t have had time do you accept that other people, including a surgeon, disagree with you? Do you accept that, although we can’t stretch the available time to ridiculous lengths we can’t deny a reasonable and understandable margin for error and so we can’t say for certain how long the killer had available to him?

Additional medical evidence from forensic patholgists.consultant gynecologists, and even a master butcher and others used to removing organs from dead bodies all support the belief that the killer did not have the time to do all that he is purported to have done in the Eddowes murder. All I have done is to act as the evidence gatherer and to document all the findings in an unbiased fashion.

You are at liberty to keep believing the old accepted theory, but please dont keep repeating and posting the same old same, as another poster stated it is getting boring now and you clearly have your mind set on what you believe and you are not going to change so is there anything more to say that hasnt already been said countless times before?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GBinOz]

None of us are medical experts but I’m still waiting for a comment/response. Could two Doctors (interested in comparing Chapman to Eddowes) standing in front of a corpse laid out with the abdomen torn open have missed the fact that the woman’s uterus was missing?

Hi Herlock,

We know now which organs were missing but the doctors didn't at that time. All the same, the uterus is right out front in plain view. I suppose it has to be considered that the small intestines that had been removed were originally in the body in compact form, but wouldn't have gone back in that way, so they may have been restricting the view of the abdominal contents. I thought they had been completely detached from the body, but Trevor is saying there were still attachments, in which case they would have been put back in the body for transport. We are deep in conjecture territory on this, the actual answer being we don't know if they could see or if they were even interested in finding out pre post mortem.

Cheers, George