Organ removal ? Warning Graphic Photos

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ooh, I know - because Victorian doctors were unreliable??

I thought that sarcasm was ‘not cricket’ George. Oh I forgot…..only when it comes from me

Doctors in 1888 could cut up a body. They couldn’t accurately predict TOD. 2 different skills George. Modern day experts can’t do it that accurately but obviously you believe that Phillips could. Up to you.

[Trevor Marriott]

i also like this theory of murder behind closed gates or doors ?
and then brought out after murder which gives killer private undisturbed pleasure .
which is what these murders are about to a killer.

The victims were killed where they were found !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[milchmanuk]

i also like this theory of murder behind closed gates or doors ?
and then brought out after murder which gives killer private undisturbed pleasure .
which is what these murders are about to a killer.

[GBinOz]

If Drs Brown and Sequiera were ok with it, why shouldn’t I be?

Ooh, I know - because Victorian doctors were unreliable??

[GBinOz]

I can certainly see your point here Trevor. It's those particular nuances of how the language was used back then. Does the phrase "the wounds" refer to the removal of the organs, which we'd assume to be so given that it's what they're discussing, or is the coroner asking about the cutting of the throat and abdomen specifically? There's something odd about referring to an organ removal as a 'wound', but likewise, why skip to a different matter in what seems to be a vague manner, at least to our modern ears? Alas, like much else, it's a case of 'you pays your money, you takes your choice'.

Hi Al,

The wound would be part of the organ removal if they occurred at the same time, but part of the mutilation if at a separate time. It seems clear that at the Chapman inquest Baxter was asking questions about the "when", at the Eddowes inquest about the "why".
[Coroner] Would the parts removed be of any use for professional purposes? - None whatever.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why is sarcasm the lowest form of wit?

It’s not.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So if you are to be believed we have to accept that the killer was the male seen with Eddowes at the entrance to Church passage at 1.35am now there is no evidence as to what time they left that location and walked down into Miter Square, that time could have been anytime betweem 1.35am and 1.40am. The later the time the less time the killer had with the victim.

The killer then having found the darkest part of the square procedes to murder and mutilate the victim rifling her pockets at the same time, He then decides to eviscerate the victim and purportedly has sufficient light and anatomical knowledge to put his hand into a blood filled abdomen without the use of retractors to hold the abdomen open and with anatomical knowledge, and a long bladed knife which would have been a hindrance to him, is able to locate a kidney which is probably the most difficult organ to locate in the body and remove it and the uterus, and then makes a hasty retreat when he sees and hear Pc Harvey coming down Church passage in his direction.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

If Drs Brown and Sequiera were ok with it, why shouldn’t I be?

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, the Star article was published on 1st October, but that was a Monday. And this was an evening paper, so the fifth edition would have appeared very late in the day.

The post mortem took place at 14:30 the previous day, Sunday 30th September.

Therefore, your own assertion that you
"doubt whether the results of the post mortem would have been publicly disclosed before the inquest" is the more likely reason that the missing organs weren't mentioned.

But no details of the post mortem were disclosed so you have simply raised a moot point I could understand your point if the details of the PM were disclosed minus the missing organs but that didnt happen

But it doesnt detract away from the times stated by the doctors 3 mins and 5 mins for the killer to have carried out the mutilations as they were found by the doctors

The question they were both asked "“How long would it have taken him (the killer) to mutilate the body as you found it” to me that refers to the body at the crime scene and not at the post mortem. There would have been no reason to ask Dr Sequeira that same question if they were not both at the crime scene, and besides it was Dr Brown who carried out the post mortem so there would have been no need to ask Dr Sequeira that question if the question related to the body in the post mortem room

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Joshua Rogan]

Hi Josh,

Is anyone arguing that they were inflicted before death? That'd be a brave stance to take...

Good point, Al. I wish I was that brave.

[Joshua Rogan]

The article appeared in the final edition of the star on Oct 1st and on that day the Star published 5 different editions we do not know how long the post mortem would have taken? It started at 2.30 pm and by my estimation and judging by the time's other post mortems had taken; it may have taken up to a minimum of 1.30 hours. Taking the time to 4 pm, to late for the results to be published the final edition of the newspaper? Which, as previously stated in any event makes no mention of the missing organs? and I doubt whether the results of the post mortem would have been publicly disclosed before the inquest.

There was no mention of the outcome of the post mortem in any of the editions and Brown and Sequeira were specifically asked the same question
[SIZE=16px]"“How long would it have taken him (the killer) to mutilate the body as you found it?” emphasis on the word mutilate and the term "as you found it"
[FONT=Calibri]both go to show neither doctor knew about missing organs at the time of giving the interview but did confirm the body was mutilated.

Yes, the Star article was published on 1st October, but that was a Monday. And this was an evening paper, so the fifth edition would have appeared very late in the day.

The post mortem took place at 14:30 the previous day, Sunday 30th September.

Therefore, your own assertion that you
"doubt whether the results of the post mortem would have been publicly disclosed before the inquest" is the more likely reason that the missing organs weren't mentioned.

[Harry D]

It's a "Trevor tries to push his crackpot theory thread #75973"

Wake me up when it's over

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

In the part you quote the coroner makes no mention of organs he refers to wounds again we get back to mutilations

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I can certainly see your point here Trevor. It's those particular nuances of how the language was used back then. Does the phrase "the wounds" refer to the removal of the organs, which we'd assume to be so given that it's what they're discussing, or is the coroner asking about the cutting of the throat and abdomen specifically? There's something odd about referring to an organ removal as a 'wound', but likewise, why skip to a different matter in what seems to be a vague manner, at least to our modern ears? Alas, like much else, it's a case of 'you pays your money, you takes your choice'.

[GBinOz]

Annie Chapman Inquest:
Sergeant Baugham [Badham], 31 H, stated that he conveyed the body of the deceased to the mortuary on the ambulance.
[Coroner] Are you sure that you took every portion of the body away with you? - Yes.
[Coroner] Where did you deposit the body? - In the shed, still on the ambulance. I remained with it until Inspector Chandler arrived.

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.

Mr. George Baxter Phillips,
[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.

Sarah Simonds, a resident nurse at the Whitechapel Infirmary, stated that, in company of the senior nurse, she went to the mortuary on Saturday, and found the body of the deceased on the ambulance in the yard. It was afterwards taken into the shed, and placed on the table. She was directed by Inspector Chandler to undress it, and she placed the clothes in a corner.

Inspector Chandler stated that he did not instruct the witness to wash the body, which was done at the direction of the clerk to the Board of Guardians.

It can be inferred from the above that the custody of the body between discovery and post mortem was flawed, indicated by Baxter's questions to Baugham and Phillips regarding the missing body parts, and the nurses finding the body in the yard when it was supposed to be locked in the shed.

Trevor, the above shows that there seemed to be a time gap when the Annie's body was unattended and found in a place (the yard at the mortuary) where it should not have been. In the case of Eddowes, have you located any time gaps in the provenance of her body?

You mentioned 1:35 to 1:40 as start points, but Cathy's whereabouts were unknown from 1am so, strictly speaking, the murder could have taken place in the houses or yard behind the gate. The problem with that is explaining how Jack moved the body without leaving any sign.

I find your argument and photos to be somewhat persuasive in what might have been done. Now you need to show the logistics of how it could have been done.

Cheers, George

[DJA]

And people wonder why I resort to sarcasm!

Why is sarcasm the lowest form of wit?

[Trevor Marriott]

And people wonder why I resort to sarcasm!
???

Where does the coroner with this question make mention of the organs

[Coroner] How long would it take to make the wounds? - It might be done in five minutes. It might take him longer; but that is the least time it could be done in.”

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk