Organ removal ? Warning Graphic Photos

[Trevor Marriott]

I feel like a 4 year old straying into the bigger boys playground but I have to ask,
If the uteri and kidney were stolen from the corpses after their removal from the crime scene by an unknown third party who was taking advantage of JTR's mutilations then why not Polly Nichols? She was also laid open as was MJK, or is posited that there was a better/more secure chain of evidence in the latter two cases so there was no opportunity for any shenanigans before autopsy?

Helen x

Hi Helen
I think you will find that was not the case with Nichols her abdominal wounds were not as severe as Chapmans or Eddowes and as such no organs could have been removed at the mortuary without it being noticed.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

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.”

Francis Spurzheim Craig.

His theory was based on some ancestry work on a relative of his, Elizabeth Davies, a candidate for MJK. He was pursuing the exhumation of MJK's remains. His theory was put to rest last year, I believe it was in Ripperologist. He did a Rippercast where he discusses the medical connection. Well worth a listen to any who haven't done so already.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But there is no evidence to show how long the killer had with the victim, it is presumed that the couple seen standing were in fact Eddowes and the killer, that was at 1.35am but they were not seen to walk away into the square so it might have been any time between 1.35am-1,40am and even as late as 1.40 am would stiil be enough time for the killer to murder and mutilate so none of the times suggested can be relied upon to be accurate, and the later the time the couple moved off the less time the killer would have had with the victim.

I agree that none of the times can be relied upon as accurate but to prove that the killer didn’t have time to do what he did you have to prove that the time was so narrow as to have made it impossible. We don’t know what that minimum time is however because opinions differ as to how long the killer would have needed. But to show that the killer could have had enough time all that we need to show is that it was reasonably possible that he could have had enough time. That said the killer might easily have had 10-12 minutes. Yes he could have had less but all that we require are reasonable possibles, and we clearly have that.

We don’t know when the killer and victim went into Mitre Square. We can’t assume that they went immediately the 3 witnesses passed but we also can’t assume that they stood around. The fact that they weren’t seen going into Mitre Square isn’t relevant because none of the 3 witnesses turned back to look. So we don’t know. But all that matters is that they could have gone into Mitre Square straight away.

Of the two sides of this debate it’s as simple as this Trevor. We don’t know how long the killer would have needed. So let’s for arguments sake say 8 minutes. Then you need to prove that it was absolutely impossible for the killer to have had 8 minutes. All that I need to do is to show that it’s possible that he could have had. It’s simply impossible to prove your theory.


So those who state the killer had the time to remove the organs and based on what I have posted should consider a rethink, and one other point that seems to have been missed in the discussion of times, and I refer to Dr Sequeira and by his statement where he states the killer could have done all that he did in 3 mins just goes to prove that his statement to the press along with Dr Browns 5 mins must have been made before the post mortem, because Sequeira specifically states 3 mins he doesnt say or longer, so to me the 5 mins by Brown and Sequeiras 3 mins should be ignored when trying to calculate how long the killer could have had with the victim.

The answer is we dont know

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Why do we need a rethink?

We have Brown and Sequiera who were both there at the time who had no issues with the killer taking organs,
We have Prosecutor and Nick Warren (both surgeons interested in the case) who both think that the killer took the organs.
We have Biggs and Neale agreeing with Brown time and having no issue with the killer taking organs.
Calder and Harrison said more time than Brown allotted but they don’t say how long. We know that the killer would have had longer than 5 minutes so it’s very possible that if you had suggested 8 or 9 minutes they too would have been ok.

We have a slight margin for error in times to consider so it could easily have been 8-12 minutes. With 8 not even requiring a margin for error.

We have the bodies of Chapman and Mackenzie having a police guard so is it impossible that Eddowes might have had one especially at the more upmarket Golden Lane mortuary.

We have Phillips being specifically called in by Brown to check for similarities to the Chapman murder. Remembering that Phillips had just returned from the North East where he’d been looking at a potential ripper victim. This can only really mean knife work and organs. So with a body lying there with an open abdomen it would have been a work of just seconds for them to have checked. Can we prove that they did? No we can’t but it’s a reasonable possibility.

We have no specific evidence or record of Golden Lane mortuary having any issue with stealers of body parts. That the trade existed is beyond doubt but it’s just a general point. Just because it existed it doesn’t follow that it occurred in this case.

We have the fact that the Doctors went to the mortuary just after the body arrived so any potential body part stealer would have known this. They would also have known what a high profile case this was. So we would have to accept that these people would have taken the very obvious risk of being found out by removing organs from a body that had an open abdomen. That a Doctor had already looked at. They would have wanted to stay in business making money. If the Doctor noticed parts missing that were there earlier then he would have known that someone was up to no good.

Even if experts have the opinion that the injuries couldn’t have been achieved in 5 minutes it doesn’t matter because we know that the killer had longer. So I can’t see a case to answer. Your theory just can’t be proven.

[GBinOz]

Why do we need a rethink?

We have Brown and Sequiera who were both there at the time who had no issues with the killer taking organs,
We have Prosecutor and Nick Warren (both surgeons interested in the case) who both think that the killer took the organs.
In the extract shown earlier Prosecutor suggested that the only doctor "who had the slightest idea of what was involved was Bagster Philips".
We have Biggs and Neale agreeing with Brown time and having no issue with the killer taking organs.
Calder and Harrison said more time than Brown allotted but they don’t say how long. We know that the killer would have had longer than 5 minutes so it’s very possible that if you had suggested 8 or 9 minutes they too would have been ok.
Yes they did. They were working on 9 minutes when commenting that it was not in the realms of possibility.
We have a slight margin for error in times to consider so it could easily have been 8-12 minutes. With 8 not even requiring a margin for error.

We have the bodies of Chapman and Mackenzie having a police guard so is it impossible that Eddowes might have had one especially at the more upmarket Golden Lane mortuary.
The body of Chapman was guarded by PC 376H in a locked shed for which he had the key. Where was 376H when the body was later found by the nurses outside the locked shed in the yard. What went on in the time between Chandler leaving and the nurses finding the body? Was 376H involved, or had he been slipped a cup of tea containing a sedative? Why was this covered up? There was a police guard provided but in the Chapman case he proved ineffective.
We have Phillips being specifically called in by Brown to check for similarities to the Chapman murder. Remembering that Phillips had just returned from the North East where he’d been looking at a potential ripper victim. This can only really mean knife work and organs. So with a body lying there with an open abdomen it would have been a work of just seconds for them to have checked. Can we prove that they did? No we can’t but it’s a reasonable possibility.

We have no specific evidence or record of Golden Lane mortuary having any issue with stealers of body parts. That the trade existed is beyond doubt but it’s just a general point. Just because it existed it doesn’t follow that it occurred in this case.

We have the fact that the Doctors went to the mortuary just after the body arrived so any potential body part stealer would have known this. They would also have known what a high profile case this was. So we would have to accept that these people would have taken the very obvious risk of being found out by removing organs from a body that had an open abdomen. That a Doctor had already looked at. They would have wanted to stay in business making money. If the Doctor noticed parts missing that were there earlier then he would have known that someone was up to no good.

Even if experts have the opinion that the injuries couldn’t have been achieved in 5 minutes it doesn’t matter because we know that the killer had longer. So I can’t see a case to answer. Your theory just can’t be proven.
To use your own quote from above "Can we prove that they did? No we can’t but it’s a reasonable possibility.

Hi Herlock,

I'm not taking sides, just pointing out what I feel are some errors in your narrative.

I have been thinking (the odds makers take another beating) about your contention that the absence of the uterus should have been obvious at the "preliminary examination". This is the reconstruction of Eddowes wounds by Forensic Surveyor Duncan Lees whose job it is to create graphic representations for court cases.



In his autopsy report Brown stated that at the crime scene "he looked for superficial bruises and saw none", so he must have had additional lighting available. At this stage the intestines had been removed by JtR allowing a better view of the organs, so, if it was easy to see that the uterus was missing at the "preliminary examination" with the intestines replaced, why didn't the doctors notice its absence at this time?

I found Prosecutor's dissertation to be very persuasive.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

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

Thanks Trevor,

The gynaecologist's comments sound like a Liston (amputation) Knife being used. The Liston knife was double edged and could be used by making a downward cut and then an incision using a lifting motion. A knife that a doctor/surgeon might choose.

Cheers, George

[Fleetwood Mac]

But there is no evidence to show how long the killer had with the victim, it is presumed that the couple seen standing were in fact Eddowes and the killer, that was at 1.35am but they were not seen to walk away into the square so it might have been any time between 1.35am-1,40am and even as late as 1.40 am would stiil be enough time for the killer to murder and mutilate so none of the times suggested can be relied upon to be accurate, and the later the time the couple moved off the less time the killer would have had with the victim.

So those who state the killer had the time to remove the organs and based on what I have posted should consider a rethink, and one other point that seems to have been missed in the discussion of times, and I refer to Dr Sequeira and by his statement where he states the killer could have done all that he did in 3 mins just goes to prove that his statement to the press along with Dr Browns 5 mins must have been made before the post mortem, because Sequeira specifically states 3 mins he doesnt say or longer, so to me the 5 mins by Brown and Sequeiras 3 mins should be ignored when trying to calculate how long the killer could have had with the victim.

The answer is we dont know

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor,

According to Prosector, Dr Sequeira had been qualified for only two years with the lowest practicing qualification possible, he was not a police surgeon and had little post-mortem experience. I have no way of verifying this, so this is a second-hand story there to be challenged.

Assuming this is true, then his opinions simply do not carry the same weight as the experienced Dr Phillips.

In terms of Dr Brown, he wasn't wholly convinced which is why he stated: "it might have taken him longer". 5 minutes was a possibility as opposed to a confident statement.

Furthermore, this is Dr Brown's reasoning as laid out as a result of the post-mortem:

I think the perpetrator of this act had sufficient time, or he would not have nicked the lower eyelids.

This doesn't fill me with confidence that Dr Brown's conclusion was the result of an in-depth assessment of the various injuries, particularly the organ removal, and associated time to enter and exit the square and so on.

Finally, this is pure speculation, how much was Dr Brown subconsciously influenced by the timings given by witnesses and the like, according to those timings the WM had very little time. What was Dr Brown's alternative? To state: no, I don't think he had the time? This is exactly what Dr Phillips did at the Annie inquest, i.e. contradicted the witnesses, and as a result had his professional integrity called into question by the coroner.

[Fleetwood Mac]

In his autopsy report Brown stated that at the crime scene "he looked for superficial bruises and saw none", so he must have had additional lighting available. At this stage the intestines had been removed by JtR allowing a better view of the organs, so, if it was easy to see that the uterus was missing at the "preliminary examination" with the intestines replaced, why didn't the doctors notice its absence at this time?

In addition to this, Annie's body was lying in the yard, in daylight according to some; Dr Phillips detailed his findings from that initial examination, and he did not record the status of the uterus. It appears that it wasn't that obvious at all.

Having said that, I wouldn't rule it out completely. I think we'd need a few experienced surgeon types to state it should have been obvious that Catherine's uterus was missing. We, as simple laymen, simply cannot judge whether or not it should have been obvious: simple things such as the state of Catherine's abdominal region as a result of the injuries, what happens to the position of a woman's uterus when she is lying on her back, do all women have a uterus in the exact same position (I believe the answer is no), and so on.

In the absence of a few qualified people, all we have is that which is on record: the primary source documents, which count for much more than speculation by people not well versed in anatomy.

[DJA]

Trevor,

According to Prosector, Dr Sequeira had been qualified for only two years with the lowest practicing qualification possible, he was not a police surgeon and had little post-mortem experience. I have no way of verifying this, so this is a second-hand story there to be challenged.

Assuming this is true, then his opinions simply do not carry the same weight as the experienced Dr Phillips.

In terms of Dr Brown, he wasn't wholly convinced which is why he stated: "it might have taken him longer". 5 minutes was a possibility as opposed to a confident statement.

Furthermore, this is Dr Brown's reasoning as laid out as a result of the post-mortem:

I think the perpetrator of this act had sufficient time, or he would not have nicked the lower eyelids.

This doesn't fill me with confidence that Dr Brown's conclusion was the result of an in-depth assessment of the various injuries, particularly the organ removal, and associated time to enter and exit the square and so on.

Finally, this is pure speculation, how much was Dr Brown subconsciously influenced by the timings given by witnesses and the like, according to those timings the WM had very little time. What was Dr Brown's alternative? To state: no, I don't think he had the time? This is exactly what Dr Phillips did at the Annie inquest, i.e. contradicted the witnesses, and as a result had his professional integrity called into question by the coroner.

Guess where Dr Sequeira trained!

Eddowes' lower right and UPPER left eyelids were operated on.

[DJA]

Liston knife - Wikipedia

[DJA]

Coroner] Would it have been such an instrument as a medical man uses for post-mortem examinations? - The ordinary post-mortem case perhaps does not contain such a weapon.

[Trevor Marriott]

Why do we need a rethink?

We have Brown and Sequiera who were both there at the time who had no issues with the killer taking organs,
We have Prosecutor and Nick Warren (both surgeons interested in the case) who both think that the killer took the organs.
We have Biggs and Neale agreeing with Brown time and having no issue with the killer taking organs.
Calder and Harrison said more time than Brown allotted but they don’t say how long. We know that the killer would have had longer than 5 minutes so it’s very possible that if you had suggested 8 or 9 minutes they too would have been ok.

We have a slight margin for error in times to consider so it could easily have been 8-12 minutes. With 8 not even requiring a margin for error.

We have the bodies of Chapman and Mackenzie having a police guard so is it impossible that Eddowes might have had one especially at the more upmarket Golden Lane mortuary.

We have Phillips being specifically called in by Brown to check for similarities to the Chapman murder. Remembering that Phillips had just returned from the North East where he’d been looking at a potential ripper victim. This can only really mean knife work and organs. So with a body lying there with an open abdomen it would have been a work of just seconds for them to have checked. Can we prove that they did? No we can’t but it’s a reasonable possibility.

We have no specific evidence or record of Golden Lane mortuary having any issue with stealers of body parts. That the trade existed is beyond doubt but it’s just a general point. Just because it existed it doesn’t follow that it occurred in this case.

We have the fact that the Doctors went to the mortuary just after the body arrived so any potential body part stealer would have known this. They would also have known what a high profile case this was. So we would have to accept that these people would have taken the very obvious risk of being found out by removing organs from a body that had an open abdomen. That a Doctor had already looked at. They would have wanted to stay in business making money. If the Doctor noticed parts missing that were there earlier then he would have known that someone was up to no good.

Even if experts have the opinion that the injuries couldn’t have been achieved in 5 minutes it doesn’t matter because we know that the killer had longer. So I can’t see a case to answer. Your theory just can’t be proven.

yet again you bury your head in the sand and totally ignore an important issue on timings, which I have posted more than once on here and that is the we have no evidence to show what time the couple seen standing talking moved into the square. All the time relied upon to date revolves around 1.35am which is the time they were seen standing talking, but if they didnt move into the square at that time and the indication is that they did not, then what time did they move off as I have stated the later the time they moved off the less time the killer had with the victim, its not rocket science.

On the original timings which everyone seems to rely on 1.35-1.44am = 9 mins but the killer could not have had 9 mins because Pc Harvey and his movements have to be factored into those times which reduce the overall time to just 5 mins allowing for the fact the killer would have been able to see and hear him coming down the passge towards him so based on those timing the absolute min the killer could have had with Eddowes was 5 mins.

But that time is unreliable because it is reliant on the killer and Eddowes moving into the square at 1.35 but we know that didnt happen because they were still standing at the entrance at that time.

All that needs to be proved is that the killer did not have the time to remove the organs at the crime scene if that is accepted then the smokescreen you have created and what you keep posting about preliminary post mortems etc becomes irrelevant and my theory is proven beyond doubt.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[DJA]

Here is a picture of a cow eating grass......













It has eaten all the grass and moved on.

[Fleetwood Mac]

In the interests of clarity, these were Prosector's words:

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.

Prosector took it for granted that Lawende and associates saw Catherine and the WM.

He, and his colleagues, were staggered by the notion it was done in that time. Not mildly surprised, but staggered.

From the Oxford English dictionary, staggered: very surprised and shocked at something you are told.

In the event Prosector, Professor Harold Ellis and his other colleagues, knew nothing of the case and were simply handed the post-mortem reports; and were asked the question: do you believe this was done in 9 minutes, it is a cast-iron certainty that the answer would have been a resounding no from Prosector and his colleagues.

[DJA]

Prosector knows a lot about the case and has for many years

[DJA]

Harold Ellis (surgeon) - Wikipedia