Organ removal ? Warning Graphic Photos

[Herlock Sholmes]

It’s difficult to see how Chapman’s organs might have been taken in the mortuary with a Police Officer on guard until Dr. Phillips got there.

“Inspector Chandler, recalled, said he reached the mortuary a few minutes after seven. The body did not appear to have been disturbed. He did not stay until the doctor arrived. Police-constable 376 H was left in charge, with the mortuary keeper. Robert Marne, the mortuary keeper and an inmate of the Whitechapel Union Workhouse, said he received the body at seven o'clock on Saturday morning. He remained at the mortuary until Dr. Phillips came. The door of the mortuary was locked except when two nurses from an infirmary came and undressed the body. No one else touched the corpse. He gave the key into the hands of the police. “

[Herlock Sholmes]

Morning Advertiser, October 1st,

“The unfortunate woman had not been identified. The post mortem examination of the body, which took place at the mortuary, Golden lane, and was conducted by Dr. Phillips, Dr. Gordon Brown, and Mr. G W Sequeira, occupied nearly four hours, but as to its results the doctors decline to speak.”

Phillips at the PM.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Evening Standard, October 1st.

“The post-mortem examination of the woman found in Mitre-square was made yesterday afternoon at the City mortuary, Golden-lane. The proceedings lasted from 2.30 until six o'clock. Dr. Brown, of 17, Finsbury-circus, surgeon to the City Police force, conducted the operations, and was assisted by Dr. Sequeira of 34, Jewry-street, and Dr. G. B. Phillips, of 2, Spital-square. Dr. Sedgwick Saunders was also present”

Phillips at the PM again.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Dr Phillips would only be relevant to the OP in the event he mentioned that he noticed organs were missing at a pre-examination. He didn't, nor did anyone else.

It was Dr Brown's jurisdiction, and he was called to the inquest.

Dr Brown detailed his Sunday afternoon post-mortem findings, from top to bottom, and part way through detailed a kidney being missing. This is the first time an authoritative figure makes reference to organs being missing.

At this point you usually respond with: "prove it". Save yourself the time. Nobody can. You're left to draw your own conclusion.

In the event you believe it was noticed earlier but wasn't recorded, then you're entitled to your opinion.

You've made that opinion known on a few occasions on this thread. Stop clogging up the thread with the same points ad nauseam.

What gives you the right to tell others what they can or can’t post? Although I do recall your ‘if I was a moderator’ fantasy on the other thread. Let go of the vendetta. It’s pointless.

Trevor has repeatedly claimed that Phillips wasn’t at the PM but evidence exists to say that he was. So isn’t that's a point worth making or do we just blindly accept what Trevor says? It appears to be your way.

Ive never said that we can prove that they found the kidney missing before the PM. But it’s certainly worth knowing and accepting that Dr. Brown requested Phillips presence and that we have evidence that they were examining the body when he arrived and that he took part in that examination. He can only have been requested so that he could check any similarities or dissimilarities with Chapman. These similarities can only have been in terms of wounds and missing organs. So although we can’t prove anything it would be a sweeping under the carpet of evidence if we do not consider the very real possibility that they would have checked for missing organs during that examination. Would they have neglected to have checked something that would have taken them a matter of seconds to do?

[Fleetwood Mac]

You and Fishy derailed the last one and your third musketeer was banned. Grow up. I’m detailing with the details. Not the fantasies. Ignore the vendetta and mind-games and focus on the subject. Your silly ignorings and snide digs don’t wash with me.

"The post-mortem examination of the body, which took place at the Mortuary, Golden-lane, and was conducted by Dr. Phillips, Dr. Gordon Brown, and Mr. G.W. Sequeira, occupied nearly four hours, but as to the results the doctors declined to speak."

Daily News of 1 October 1888.

Dr Phillips would only be relevant to the OP in the event he mentioned that he noticed organs were missing at a pre-examination. He didn't, nor did anyone else.

It was Dr Brown's jurisdiction, and he was called to the inquest.

Dr Brown detailed his Sunday afternoon post-mortem findings, from top to bottom, and part way through detailed a kidney being missing. This is the first time an authoritative figure makes reference to organs being missing.

At this point you usually respond with: "prove it". Save yourself the time. Nobody can. You're left to draw your own conclusion.

In the event you believe it was noticed earlier but wasn't recorded, then you're entitled to your opinion.

You've made that opinion known on a few occasions on this thread. Stop clogging up the thread with the same points ad nauseam.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Trevor/all,

There is no record of anybody realising the organs were missing until Dr Brown's post-mortem on the Sunday afternoon.

Prior to that post-mortem, who said this, who did that, and so on; is mere conjecture.

Dr Phillips is irrelevant here. It was not his jurisdiction. He was not called to the inquest.

Dr Brown detailed his post-mortem findings at the inquest. He went through it step by step, from removal of the stomach contents to discovering a kidney had been removed.

At this point, there are two options for a reasonable person:

1) There simply isn't any record of anybody noticing the organs were missing prior to Dr Brown's post-mortem and I accept it.

2) I don't accept it, but I've made my point and that's that.

Trevor, you're engaging in allowing your own thread to be derailed by someone who derails threads as a habit. You will not post anything that will prevent him from repeating the same points ad nauseam. You have a decent idea here that is worthy of consideration, and so your best bet is to move away from this whole: "there was a pre-examination and I suggest it was noticed the organs were not there.": there is no record of anybody noticing the organs were missing at a pre-examination.

It would be useful to get back to the OP which involves a lot more than a pre-examination supposed to involve noticing the organs missing. Fine, the point is noted, but there is nothing on record to support it and so draw your own conclusion but let's get back to the wider OP.

You and Fishy derailed the last one and your third musketeer was banned. Grow up. I’m dealing with the details. Not the fantasies. Ignore the vendetta and mind-games and focus on the subject. Your silly ignorings and snide digs don’t wash with me.

"The post-mortem examination of the body, which took place at the Mortuary, Golden-lane, and was conducted by Dr. Phillips, Dr. Gordon Brown, and Mr. G.W. Sequeira, occupied nearly four hours, but as to the results the doctors declined to speak."

Daily News of 1 October 1888.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Again from Cris Malone on Golden Lane mortuary:

“……it was a most modern facility for its time and described as such. In 1877, a coroner's court was added so jurors would not have to travel any distance in the weather to view the body. At the time of the murders, a Mr. Davies was in charge of the facility and was a professional under employment of the City.

And as already mentioned, there would have been a guard placed 24/7. This was the result of a long standing civil and cultural controversy involving the use of mortuaries. I researched this for my article in the NIR. The source material for the above was this :
The London Journal, Vol. 34 No. 1, March, 2009, 1–15; Houses for the Dead: The Provision of Mortuaries in London, 1843–1889;Pam Fisher, University of Leicester, UK

As also previously mentioned, the transport and care of the body was under Dr. Brown's direct supervision from the time he arrived on the scene until after the preliminary examination was completed by himself, Sequeira and Phillips shortly before 6 a.m”

[Fleetwood Mac]

he could have taken a cursory look at the body, but we have no evidence of what he did when he arrived at the mortuary or who was there or how long he remained.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor/all,

There is no record of anybody realising the organs were missing until Dr Brown's post-mortem on the Sunday afternoon.

Prior to that post-mortem, who said this, who did that, and so on; is mere conjecture.

Dr Phillips is irrelevant here. It was not his jurisdiction. He was not called to the inquest.

Dr Brown detailed his post-mortem findings at the inquest. He went through it step by step, from removal of the stomach contents to discovering a kidney had been removed.

At this point, there are two options for a reasonable person:

1) There simply isn't any record of anybody noticing the organs were missing prior to Dr Brown's post-mortem and I accept it.

2) I don't accept it, but I've made my point and that's that.

Trevor, you're engaging in allowing your own thread to be derailed by someone who derails threads as a habit. You will not post anything that will prevent him from repeating the same points ad nauseam. You have a decent idea here that is worthy of consideration, and so your best bet is to move away from this whole: "there was a pre-examination and I suggest it was noticed the organs were not there.": there is no record of anybody noticing the organs were missing at a pre-examination.

It would be useful to get back to the OP which involves a lot more than a pre-examination supposed to involve noticing the organs missing. Fine, the point is noted, but there is nothing on record to support it and so draw your own conclusion but let's get back to the wider OP.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I should have said the post mortem Phillips did not attend the post mortem !

Yous keep asking me questions that I have alreday answered do you not read the posts thoroughly
e
www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And again…

"The post-mortem examination of the body, which took place at the Mortuary, Golden-lane, and was conducted by Dr. Phillips, Dr. Gordon Brown, and Mr. G.W. Sequeira, occupied nearly four hours, but as to the results the doctors declined to speak."

Daily News of 1 October 1888.


There seems to have been a few attempts to fraudulently place Phillips at the inquest Trevor

[Varqm]

And that’s the point isn’t it. Those that were there at the time, and who saw the injuries and the conditions and the available time, had no problem with any of this.

Yes.Not only that,doctors,forensic pathologists,,for ex. in the Peter Ustinov doc about the ripper (pathologist William Eckert),has studied this case and had no problems with the killer taking the organs.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You could conjure any time you want.You are missing the point.It does not matter.If there was not enough time they would have suggested there was not enough time.They accepted the killer took it so that implied they accepted the time frame,there was enough time to do all the killer did.Brown said there was sufficient time ,done in a hurry,a butcher or a slaughterer could do it.But with some human anatomical knowledge,enough to do the job.

And that’s the point isn’t it. Those that were there at the time, and who saw the injuries and the conditions and the available time, had no problem with any of this.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just to keep you happy I am willing to concede that after the body was stripped the body was exmained by those present which did not include Dr Phillips but not to the point of a preliminary post mortem it would have been more of a viewing of the wounds and on that basis they would not have found the organs missing for that to have happened the abdomen would have to have been opened up surgically as it was for the full post mortem, which would have meant that the official later PM would have been compromised.

There is no evidence in the murder of Chapman that any form of preliminary post mortem took place.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You mean that you’re admitting that you were wrong but it’s too painful for you to actually say so? Ok. But why won’t you admit that Phillips took part when it shows that he did. He was specifically requested by Brown.

Again Trevor you are using phrases which I have not used. I’ve not said preliminary post mortem. I have just used the phrase preliminary examination which is the phrase used in the quotes. This doesn’t mean the there was anything official called a preliminary examination. It just meant that there was an examination of the body at the mortuary before the actual PM. Dr Phillips was clearly asked to attend this by Brown and as the quote said, Phillips arrived just as this examination had begun. Why would anyone invent this?

“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”

And Phillips arrived at 5.20.

it would have been more of a viewing of the wounds and on that basis they would not have found the organs missing for that to have happened the abdomen would have to have been opened up surgically as it was for the full post mortem

Why would the abdomen have to have been opened up surgically when the killer had already done this? And consequentially Trevor, if the abdomen had been sown up how did your organ thief get at them?

So, we have Dr. Brown requesting Dr. Phillips to join him in examining the body before th PM due to the fact that Phillips performed the PM on Annie Chapman. We don’t know why he wanted to do this before the PM but that doesn’t alter the fact that this appears to have been what happened. Brown didn’t need Phillips assistance in a PM as he was just as capable as Phillips to do a PM. Therefore he wanted to note any comparisons to Annie Chapman and Phillips was vital to that end. So what would they have been looking at? The wounds, yes. But why only the wounds? Why not check if any organs were missing? How long would that check have taken? A few seconds.

Now I know that you don’t believe that the killer used the apron to remove body parts and I don’t particularly disagree with you on that but it might certainly have been the case that the police believed or suspected this at that time. So if the Doctor could have told the police that there were no organs missing then that particular theory could have been eliminated straight away.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello George,

I agree that the only reason that Brown would have asked Phillips to attend the mortuary would have been to check the injuries but of course we can’t know for certain how far this examination would have gone. Perhaps for some reason the police were keen to know if there were any organs missing and they didn’t want to wait until the PM? I don’t know. Trevor disputes that Phillips was at the PM. I don’t know how this can be proven or disproven unless more evidence is discovered.

Just to keep you happy I am willing to concede that after the body was stripped the body was exmained by those present which did not include Dr Phillips but not to the point of a preliminary post mortem it would have been more of a viewing of the wounds and on that basis they would not have found the organs missing for that to have happened the abdomen would have to have been opened up surgically as it was for the full post mortem, which would have meant that the official later PM would have been compromised.

There is no evidence in the murder of Chapman that any form of preliminary post mortem took place.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello George,

I agree that the only reason that Brown would have asked Phillips to attend the mortuary would have been to check the injuries but of course we can’t know for certain how far this examination would have gone. Perhaps for some reason the police were keen to know if there were any organs missing and they didn’t want to wait until the PM? I don’t know. Trevor disputes that Phillips was at the PM. I don’t know how this can be proven or disproven unless more evidence is discovered.

You are the one who stated Phillips was at the post mortem there is no evidence that shows that, in fact there is no evidence other than the newspaper report which puts him arriving at the mortuary at 5.20am.

There is no evidence at all to suggest that Phillips took part in any post mortem procedure.

Staying with Dr Phillps Brown states "Before we removed the body (from the crime scene) Dr. Phillips was sent for, as I wished him to see the wounds" The body was left at the crime scene until about 2,55am so it could be suggested that in that 60 mins Dr Phillips simply attended the crime scene viewed the body in situ and then returned to Leman St police station where the apron piece from GS had been taken after its find, which he then at 5.20am took to the mortuary

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,


I think that Brown wanted Phillips to view the mutilations and when Phillips arrived he said he would like to participate in the post mortem, which he did. Since Brown and Sequiera had been up half the night it seems logical that they would have gone home to get some sleep. The post mortem took 4 hours. Virchow's standard procedure took only three hours. IMO Brown may have considered checking the organs at the preliminary examination had not Phillips requested (or Brown requested) that he be at the post mortem. I'm not trying to be contrary, I just see this as the logical progression. I'm also not here to score points, but to gather clues and discuss them.

Here are a couple of more interesting newspaper articles:
Morning Advertiser 2 Oct:
Last evening Dr. Thomas Stevenson, lecturer on medical jurisprudence at Guy's Hospital, and official analyst to the Home Office, being asked by a reporter to express an opinion on the recent murders at the East-end, observed that he would rather not advance a theory on the subject of the commission of the tragedies; but with regard to the extraordinary disclosure made by Mr. Wynne E. Baxter, the coroner, in the course of his summing up, he (Dr. Stevenson) thought that if the crimes were committed by a pathologist, as had been suggested, the only possible place that a demand for the organ alluded to could emanate from was a quack museum, such as existed in the West-end of London down to a few years ago. It was well known, the doctor added, that no English medical man would need specimens;

Morning Advertiser 5 Oct:
It is obvious from what Dr. GORDON BROWN says that considerable anatomical skill was displayed in the mutilation. The cuts on the body were workmanlike cuts. They were not meaningless. The murderer did his work with professional certainty and rapidity. Without dwelling upon details it is clear that yesterday's evidence strongly fortifies, if it does not indisputably establish, the conclusion that the criminal is a skilled anatomist. If against this it be said that Dr. GORDON BROWN is of opinion that the knowledge shown in inflicting the mutilations is knowledge likely to be possessed by one accustomed to cutting up animals, we may remind the public that Dr. PHILLIPS, in the Hanbury-street instance, distinctly expressed the opposite opinion. It is among possessors of anatomical knowledge the police must look for their man. It is idle to speculate what the miscreant does with the portions of the body he carries away, how he manages to avoid self-betrayal, or to avert from him the suspicion of those among whom he is moving.

Cheers, George

Hello George,

I agree that the only reason that Brown would have asked Phillips to attend the mortuary would have been to check the injuries but of course we can’t know for certain how far this examination would have gone. Perhaps for some reason the police were keen to know if there were any organs missing and they didn’t want to wait until the PM? I don’t know. Trevor disputes that Phillips was at the PM. I don’t know how this can be proven or disproven unless more evidence is discovered.