Organ removal ? Warning Graphic Photos

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi George,

You can read it in different ways. It could be the doctors closing shop on the 'was it a medical man?' line of thinking.

Likewise, I feel as though they're trying to move away from the uterus black market theory. But it leaves the contradiction of a person having no anatomical skill, but extracting two organs quickly in the dark?? The opening question to Dr Sequira suggests to me that the line of thinking was that the killer removed the organs. The doctors are stressing, the killer was not another doctor.

I think if the mortuary removal theory had any traction at the time, we'd have some evidence from the period showing this line of enquiry.

Personally, I think the opinion was that the killer removed the organs, but it was emphasised that it was not a surgical procedure. But they were aware of the poor standards of handling the bodies. The quoted passage doesn't strike me as supporting a belief at the time of mortuary removal, more an emphasis that there was no surgical skill involved.

Could you remove a uterus and a kidney in the dark from a blood filled abdomen in double quick time? Would you even no where to look for the organs? I would suggest not, so the slash and cut theory is dead and buried

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

I think if the mortuary removal theory had any traction at the time, we'd have some evidence from the period showing this line of enquiry.

Would the authorities have wanted to make public the fact that organs had been removed and taken away from a mortuary from these murder victims even though it was common knowledge to the authorities that body dealers were active in Whitechapel in 1888. So that is why we see a response from Dr Brown when asked by the coroner

[Coroner] "Would the parts removed be of any use for professional purposes? "-

Dr Brown "None whatever"

now if that answer is not a way of deflecting away from someone other than the killer removing the organs I dont know what is.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

You obviously have a different definition of the word proof to everyone else Trevor.

yes its Trevors proof. you know the kind that when he said he had proof Feiganbaum was in London at the time of the murders when he had no such evidence at all. a very different kind of proof than the rest of the real world uses.

His time seems to be in alternative trevor time also. lawend and company saw eddowes with the ripper at 1:35. her body was discovered at 1:45. take away a couple of minutes away from that ten minutes for them to move into mitre square and the ripper to make his escape before she was discovered and were looking at around eight minutes for the murder and mutilations to take place, obviously enough time, especially if he had any kind of anatomical knowledge.

and the idea that the ripper ripped her up and pulled out her guts but wasnt the one who removed her internal organs is simply ludicrous. added to that there is zero evidence or suspicion at the time that they were taken at the mortuary, and were left with just another one of trevors crackpot theories.

but of course the conspiracy brigade has arrived to save the day lol.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi FM,

Add "and in the circumstances involved" and I agree.

In Trevor's video he consulted modern day experts. Duncan Lees, Forensics expert, Ian Calder, Expert Pathologist with 30 years experience in sudden and un-natural death who has conducted tens of thousands of autopsies, and Mortuary Manager Phil Harrison, who in his twenty year career has removed many thousands of organs and who concluded that "it is not in the realms of possibility that somebody can do it (in 9 minutes) in the circumstances that have been described".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpQq...annel=dickcopy 19:00-22:45.

Cheers, George

What circumstances have been described George?

[Herlock Sholmes]

The flaw in messing around with the times and adding a couple of minutes here and there, is that the times are being bent in one direction in order to fit a theory. It's not an objective assessment of the possibilities.

To illustrate:

PC Watkins entered Mitre Square at 1.30am. He stated his beat took between 12 and 14 minutes. He did not report anything unusual, so it is reasonable to suggest his beat took him 12 minutes on that particular occasion ('not the only possibility but a reasonable one all the same). This would have him turning into Mitre Square from Mitre Street at 1.42am.

This is what Watkins and Morris had to say:

Watkins - I ran across the road to Messers Kearley & Tonge, the door was ajar, I pushed it open.

Morris - The door was knocked or pushed. I was about 2 yards from the door. I turned around and opened the door wide and saw Constable Watkins. He said "For Gods sake mate, come to my assistance". I said "Stop till I get my lamp".

Whilst Morris looked for his lamp, Watkins noted the time as 1.45am by his own watch.

Watkins clocked the time at 1.45am while Morris looked for his lamp. Between that time and Watkins finding Catherine's body: Watkins stumbled upon Catherine, in his own words took note of the wounds and was taken aback, he went across to knock for Morris, they had a brief conversation and Morris went to look for his lamp, Watkins then looked at his watch. It is feasible that this took more than 1 minute and actually took 2 to 3 minutes which would be consistent with Watkins entering Mitre Square at 1.42am. Let's say his watch was fast by a minute, I mean why not in the event we're objectively assessing the possibilities.

So, why not consider a reasonable possibility for Watkins discovering Catherine's body to be 1.41am? Because those messing around with the timings are not being objective: they're bending the times in one direction.

Why not say, well, yes, all of their times are out by a couple of minutes, but let's say some are a bit slow and others are a bit fast and when we put them together, we have the same timeframe. I mean, there's no reason to think their watches were all fast or all slow.

Bending the timings in one direction is merely suggesting one possibility and it's no more plausible than bending the times in the other direction to claim that PC Watkins discovered Catherine's body prior to 1.44am.

To call the accepting of a reasonable margin-for-error the ‘bending’ of time is not based on what we know about human beings and conditions in the LVP. It is to deny that most people didn’t own watches; it is to deny that public clocks can be wrong; it is to deny that public clocks were unlikely to have been synchronised; it is to deny the fact that human beings aren’t always accurate when recalling a set period of time (and that’s without mentioning the fact that 3 of the witnesses were coming out of a club at a half past one in the morning)

The whole point though, which should be clear to all, is that no one needs to bend time. If you notice in the list that I did I even began the sequence (the sighting by Lawende and co) at 1.33. Whatever the estimate I’d accept the possibility of earlier or later. I’d also accept the possibility that Watkins could have discovered the body earlier than 1.44 thus reducing the time available. Stretch the times as much as we want to or shrink them as much as we want to. It makes no difference because we absolutely cannot tie down the time available to killer with any degree of accuracy without entering the world of conjecture and speculation (which I have no issue with btw)

So the only people deliberately ‘bending’ time are those trying to narrow it down. I’m happy either way - it could have been narrower or wider. It is absolutely reasonable and plausible that the killer could have had longer than the imaginary 5 minutes. That’s all that’s needed. Once that possibility exists the theory collapses irrevocably.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Hi Al,

Just to add to your point about language, what do you make of this:
Daily Mail 12 Oct - Inquest:
To Dr Sequeira: From what you saw have you formed an opinion as to whether the perpetrator of the deed had any particular design on any particular part of the body? - I have formed an opinion that he had no particular design on any particular organ.
Judging from the injuries inflicted, do you think he was possessed of anatomical skill? - No, I do not.
By Mr. Crawford - I was present at the post mortem examination, and had ample opportunity of seeing the wounds, and I agree with Drs. Brown and Sequeire that the wounds were not inflicted by any one having great anatomical skill. I also agree that the person who inflicted the wounds had no design on any particular organ - internal organ.

The person who inflicted the wounds had no design on any particular organ??? This reads to me that the person who inflicted the wounds was not possessed of anatomical skill, but he was not the person who had designs on removing the organs.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

You can read it in different ways. It could be the doctors closing shop on the 'was it a medical man?' line of thinking.

Likewise, I feel as though they're trying to move away from the uterus black market theory. But it leaves the contradiction of a person having no anatomical skill, but extracting two organs quickly in the dark?? The opening question to Dr Sequira suggests to me that the line of thinking was that the killer removed the organs. The doctors are stressing, the killer was not another doctor.

I think if the mortuary removal theory had any traction at the time, we'd have some evidence from the period showing this line of enquiry.

Personally, I think the opinion was that the killer removed the organs, but it was emphasised that it was not a surgical procedure. But they were aware of the poor standards of handling the bodies. The quoted passage doesn't strike me as supporting a belief at the time of mortuary removal, more an emphasis that there was no surgical skill involved.

[Fleetwood Mac]

That could not have happened it was said that whoever removed the organs had to have known how to find them, if you look at the picture of the kidney it is an organ that sits within renal fat not something you could put your hand in and locate easily by simply rummaging around as you put it.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I'm not commenting on whether or not it is possible, Trevor.

I do think the doctor suggested that the WM was simply rummaging around and happened upon organs by chance, however.

[milchmanuk]

Hi FM,

Add "and in the circumstances involved" and I agree.

In Trevor's video he consulted modern day experts. Duncan Lees, Forensics expert, Ian Calder, Expert Pathologist with 30 years experience in sudden and un-natural death who has conducted tens of thousands of autopsies, and Mortuary Manager Phil Harrison, who in his twenty year career has removed many thousands of organs and who concluded that "it is not in the realms of possibility that somebody can do it (in 9 minutes) in the circumstances that have been described".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpQq...annel=dickcopy 19:00-22:45.

Cheers, George

thx for link i have watched this myself .at min 16.36 it looks like John Wayne Gassey killer clown. I mentioned this in a previous thread.as I don't know the history of clowns and circuses in London town then and there.
but being a artist's impressions of injuries there probably nothing in it.
but who,s to say what the crackpot turned onto.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi FM,

Add "and in the circumstances involved" and I agree.

In Trevor's video he consulted modern day experts. Duncan Lees, Forensics expert, Ian Calder, Expert Pathologist with 30 years experience in sudden and un-natural death who has conducted tens of thousands of autopsies, and Mortuary Manager Phil Harrison, who in his twenty year career has removed many thousands of organs and who concluded that "it is not in the realms of possibility that somebody can do it (in 9 minutes) in the circumstances that have been described".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpQq...annel=dickcopy 19:00-22:45.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

There is something wrong.

Either Trevor is correct in his assessment, and I don't have an opinion on that as I haven't read much about it, or there is something going on beyond adding/deducting one to two minutes from everyone's time in a manner which unobjectively arrives at a minimum time of 6 minutes or whatever. Clearly, in the event we're going to bend the times then it is feasible that PC Watkins discovered Catherine's body at 1.41am and that includes his watch being fast by only 1 minute.

'Pure speculation, but I have often wondered whether or not the couple seen by Lawende and associates were look-outs for the WM. Couples were seen close to the crime scene at about the right time at the Catherine, Liz and Mary crime scenes and a witness heard a gasp followed by whispering at the Polly crime scene. It's a long shot, but there is something odd going on with these murders.

[Trevor Marriott]

I have formed an opinion that he had no particular design on any particular organ.

I think the doctor is suggesting that the WM wasn't looking for a particular organ but rather was just hacking away and rummaging around and took the organ/s that he came upon by chance.

That could not have happened it was said that whoever removed the organs had to have known how to find them, if you look at the picture of the kidney it is an organ that sits within renal fat not something you could put your hand in and locate easily by simply rummaging around as you put it.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GBinOz]

I have formed an opinion that he had no particular design on any particular organ.

I think the doctor is suggesting that the WM wasn't looking for a particular organ but rather was just hacking away and rummaging around and took the organ/s that he came upon by chance.

Hi FM,

Have a look at the video where Calder is describing the technical difficulties in removing the kidney, and Harrison describing the proximity of the uterus to the undamaged bladder. "Hacking and rummaging" doesn't seem to come in to it.

Cheers, George

[milchmanuk]

i was just thinking oh yes again ?was the killer a mortuary worker's yes ? possible.
as docters of the time say the job was of some knowledge of body parts ( organs )
also i have read in books of different knifes docters suggesting bein used such as a round ended blade quoted by one , i believe he was suggesting two knifes was used. i havnt fished out the quote sorry!
i watched program on youtube on aids. the docters worked on vacines for polio using small monkey kidneys.
the employers were no more than my self and quickly learnt there trade to kill and extract the kidneys for vacine making.
even to progress to working on chimpanzees .a very fast operation .
but even these skilled hands in the dark with a sharp knife leaves lots of questions on this matter of a murderer performing in the dark.
there knifes was of what was at hand and they obviously felt comfortable with.
the taking of organs in the street leads to some one with more than just passing knowledge. i think ?
as Trevor mentions at the mortuary is a good explanation of events, but does not identifies the killer.
and these particular body parts taken ,
are they really
the worth of loosing your job for ,
and disrupting a investigation with a severe penalty in toe.
surely the mortuary attendants would consider this high-profile case to leave alone.

[GBinOz]

Clearly, there is something wrong in all of this. It's too much of an ask to believe this all happened in that short time frame.

Hi FM,

Add "and in the circumstances involved" and I agree.

In Trevor's video he consulted modern day experts. Duncan Lees, Forensics expert, Ian Calder, Expert Pathologist with 30 years experience in sudden and un-natural death who has conducted tens of thousands of autopsies, and Mortuary Manager Phil Harrison, who in his twenty year career has removed many thousands of organs and who concluded that "it is not in the realms of possibility that somebody can do it (in 9 minutes) in the circumstances that have been described".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpQq...annel=dickcopy 19:00-22:45.

Cheers, George

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi Al,

Just to add to your point about language, what do you make of this:
Daily Mail 12 Oct - Inquest:
To Dr Sequeira: From what you saw have you formed an opinion as to whether the perpetrator of the deed had any particular design on any particular part of the body? - I have formed an opinion that he had no particular design on any particular organ.
Judging from the injuries inflicted, do you think he was possessed of anatomical skill? - No, I do not.
By Mr. Crawford - I was present at the post mortem examination, and had ample opportunity of seeing the wounds, and I agree with Drs. Brown and Sequeire that the wounds were not inflicted by any one having great anatomical skill. I also agree that the person who inflicted the wounds had no design on any particular organ - internal organ.

The person who inflicted the wounds had no design on any particular organ??? This reads to me that the person who inflicted the wounds was not possessed of anatomical skill, but he was not the person who had designs on removing the organs.

Cheers, George

I have formed an opinion that he had no particular design on any particular organ.

I think the doctor is suggesting that the WM wasn't looking for a particular organ but rather was just hacking away and rummaging around and took the organ/s that he came upon by chance.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Al,

Just to add to your point about language, what do you make of this:
Daily Mail 12 Oct - Inquest:
To Dr Sequeira: From what you saw have you formed an opinion as to whether the perpetrator of the deed had any particular design on any particular part of the body? - I have formed an opinion that he had no particular design on any particular organ.
Judging from the injuries inflicted, do you think he was possessed of anatomical skill? - No, I do not.
By Mr. Crawford - I was present at the post mortem examination, and had ample opportunity of seeing the wounds, and I agree with Drs. Brown and Sequeire that the wounds were not inflicted by any one having great anatomical skill. I also agree that the person who inflicted the wounds had no design on any particular organ - internal organ.

The person who inflicted the wounds had no design on any particular organ??? This reads to me that the person who inflicted the wounds was not possessed of anatomical skill, but he was not the person who had designs on removing the organs.

Cheers, George

Good point George well spotted

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk