Organ removal ? Warning Graphic Photos

[GBinOz]

If you keep digging like this Trevor you’ll be needing to ask George for a room for the night.

You would be very welcome Trevor.

[GBinOz]

Times 10 Nov:

The latest account states upon what professes to be indisputable authority that no portion of the woman's body was taken away by the murderer. As already stated, the post-mortem examination was of the most exhaustive character, and surgeons did not quit their work until every organ had been accounted for and placed as closely as possible in its natural position.

Times 12 Nov:

As early as half past 7 on Saturday morning, Dr. Phillips, assisted by Dr. Bond (Westminster), Dr. Gordon Brown (City), Dr. Duke (Spitalfields) and his (Dr. Phillips') assistant, made an exhaustive post-mortem examination of the body at the mortuary adjoining Whitechapel Church. It is known that after Dr. Phillips "fitted" the cut portions of the body into their proper places no portion was missing. At the first examination which was only of a cursory character, it was thought that a portion of the body had gone, but this is not the case. The examination was most minutely made, and lasted upwards of 2 ½ hours after which the mutilated portions were sewn to the body, and therefore the coroner's jury will be spared the unpleasant duty of witnessing the horrible spectacle presented to those who discovered the murder.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Not according to the head of Whitechapel CID who attended the crime scene!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

I took the time to revisit this, Ripperologist 147 and a lengthy argument here: https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/vict...-april-12-1896

Reid's 1896 article is rife with errors, it seems an unusual choice of source material to rely on. The fact that Dew corroborates part of it isn't exactly cast iron either. I appreciate that his memory of the Kelly case could be seen to be less error strewn as he attended that scene specifically, but his recollection of Tabram is plain wrong. The 'head of CID' (after getting the boot from his previous position) doesn't exactly hold up either, because it implies he was knowledgeable about all the details of all the scenes, but this article clearly shows he wasn't, so either his memory wasn't actually that good, or he was a whole lot less informed than the impression he gave, making the entire article, well, unsafe.

There's definitely interesting reports in newspapers of the day casting doubt on whether the heart was removed from the body but left at the scene as opposed to being taken away completely, but by your own rules, these too are unsafe. Reid's article really can't be a particularly solid foundation, when, for example, Swanson is readily dismissed?

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

I took the time to revisit this, Ripperologist 147 and a lengthy argument here: https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/vict...-april-12-1896

Reid's 1896 article is rife with errors, it seems an unusual choice of source material to rely on. The fact that Dew corroborates part of it isn't exactly cast iron either. I appreciate that his memory of the Kelly case could be seen to be less error strewn as he attended that scene specifically, but his recollection of Tabram is plain wrong. The 'head of CID' (after getting the boot from his previous position) doesn't exactly hold up either, because it implies he was knowledgeable about all the details of all the scenes, but this article clearly shows he wasn't, so either his memory wasn't actually that good, or he was a whole lot less informed than the impression he gave, making the entire article, well, unsafe.

There's definitely interesting reports in newspapers of the day casting doubt on whether the heart was removed from the body but left at the scene as opposed to being taken away completely, but by your own rules, these too are unsafe. Reid's article really can't be a particularly solid foundation, when, for example, Swanson is readily dismissed?

Reid didnt attend all the crime scenes and wasnt directly involved in those murders so the errors relative to some of the other murders decsribed in that article can be explained, but with regards to the part of the article relative to Kelly he gets everything right save for one small error involving Indian Harry. If you read the part of the article on Kellys murders it shows he still had all his wits about him and what he stated on the Kelly murder proves that, for all we know he may have retained the police file, or was working from an aide de memoire. So I dont have a problem with what he stated about the Kelly murder as being an accurate account.

I keep asking this question time after time but it seems to fall on deaf ears and that is if the killer is alleged to have taken her heart away why does nobody mention it therefater. No mention of it in Bonds report to Anderson, No mention of it by Dew, No mention of it by Swanson, No mention of it by Anderson. This was not an everday occurrence in 1888 a killer on the loose taking organs from his victims so why if it did happen do we see no mention of it by the authorities both at he time and in later years in their memoirs

All researchers have to go on to support their belief that the killer took away the heart is the ambiguos statement made by Bond that the heart was absent from the pericardium, no where does he or anyone state taken away by the killer

And then we have newspaper articles of the day also reporting no organs were taken

I am more than happy with my assessemt of the evidence, and my conclusion that the killer did not take away Kellys heart

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Joshua Rogan]

Times 10 Nov:

The latest account states upon what professes to be indisputable authority that no portion of the woman's body was taken away by the murderer. As already stated, the post-mortem examination was of the most exhaustive character, and surgeons did not quit their work until every organ had been accounted for and placed as closely as possible in its natural position.

Times 12 Nov:

As early as half past 7 on Saturday morning, Dr. Phillips, assisted by Dr. Bond (Westminster), Dr. Gordon Brown (City), Dr. Duke (Spitalfields) and his (Dr. Phillips') assistant, made an exhaustive post-mortem examination of the body at the mortuary adjoining Whitechapel Church. It is known that after Dr. Phillips "fitted" the cut portions of the body into their proper places no portion was missing. At the first examination which was only of a cursory character, it was thought that a portion of the body had gone, but this is not the case. The examination was most minutely made, and lasted upwards of 2 ½ hours after which the mutilated portions were sewn to the body, and therefore the coroner's jury will be spared the unpleasant duty of witnessing the horrible spectacle presented to those who discovered the murder.

Times 13 Nov;

"The examination of the body by Dr. Phillips on Saturday lasted upwards of six-and-a-half hours. Notwithstanding reports to the contrary, it is still confidently asserted that some portions of the body of the deceased woman are missing."

[Trevor Marriott]

Times 13 Nov;

"The examination of the body by Dr. Phillips on Saturday lasted upwards of six-and-a-half hours. Notwithstanding reports to the contrary, it is still confidently asserted that some portions of the body of the deceased woman are missing."

Another ambiguous report "it is still confidently asserted"

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Varqm]

Times 13 Nov;

"The examination of the body by Dr. Phillips on Saturday lasted upwards of six-and-a-half hours. Notwithstanding reports to the contrary, it is still confidently asserted that some portions of the body of the deceased woman are missing."

Also reported by the Daily Telegraph Nov. 13.,this after the initial belief the day before that all organs were found.The newspapers did not retract the Nov. 13 statement that organs or an organ was missing as far as I know.Even Nov. 17 East London Observer writes a certain organ was reported missing.But these will be dismissed as well as Dr.Bond's report detailing the organs and where they were found ,with the exception of the heart,because some people have blinkers on.
Dr. Bond's report to Andersson did not detail the organs missing and where they were found so it's irrelevant to the heart was missing question.Anyways.

[GBinOz]

Times 13 Nov;

"The examination of the body by Dr. Phillips on Saturday lasted upwards of six-and-a-half hours. Notwithstanding reports to the contrary, it is still confidently asserted that some portions of the body of the deceased woman are missing."

Hi Joshua,

Thank you for pointing out this anomaly. The full quote is also interesting in questioning the coroner's decision to conclude the inquest before all the evidence had been heard.

Some surprise was created among those present at the inquest in Shoreditch Town-hall by the abrupt termination of the inquiry, as it was well known that further evidence would be forthcoming. The Coroner himself distinctly told the jury that he was only going to take the preliminary portion of Dr. G. B. Phillips's evidence, the remainder of which would be more fully given at the adjourned inquiry. No question was put to Dr. Phillips as to the mutilated remains of the body, and the Coroner did not think fit to ask the doctor whether any portions of the body were missing. The doctor stated to the jury during the inquiry that his examination was not yet completed. His idea was that by at once making public every fact brought to light in connexion with this terrible murder, the ends of justice might be retarded. The examination of the body by Dr. Phillips on Saturday lasted upwards of six-and-a-half hours. Notwithstanding reports to the contrary, it is still confidently asserted that some portions of the body of the deceased woman are missing.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Prosector, Ellis, Lees, Calder and Harrison, all highly respected experts in their medical field say it's not in the realms of possibility in 9 minutes, but you could do it in 6 minutes. In that company that seems a pretty arrogant statement.

.
“To obtain 21st-century medical opinions, I first asked two different forensic pathologists Dr`s Calder and Biggs, and also medical expert Phillip Harrison all experienced experts in their own fields, along with Mr Edmund Neale a consultant gynaecologist. Dr Biggs and Edmond Neale both concur with Dr Brown on the “at least” 5 minutes window. After studying the postmortem reports on both Eddowes and Chapman, Dr Calder, and Phillip Harrison believed it was not possible within that time frame. In both the removals of the uterus and the kidney Mr Neal says that in his opinion it would not be the skill, but the level of anatomical knowledge that would determine the time needed at the crime scene to effect these removals. Mr Neal also believes that if the killer did remove the organs then he must have had sufficient anatomical knowledge, otherwise, he would not have had the time to search for the organs, and work out how to remove them within that “at least five-minute window”

So as well as Brown and Sequiera who were there at the time, we have Biggs and Neale both accepting (Biggs being Trevor’s ‘go to’ Medical Expert that he’s distanced himself from on this particular point.

Calder and Harrison disagree. At best George this surely demonstrates how difficult this is to tie down with any great accuracy and as Calder and Harrison were working on 9 minutes it has to be said that the killer could have had longer. We also had Nick Warren calling the killer a trophy collector - so someone that took organs at the scene. It’s got to be pointed out though that way the ripper ‘worked’ would have been difficult to imagine for someone whose training instilled method and caution. This was a madman after all. Nothing about the medical evidence in anything that I’ve read puts up any real doubt for me. And with margin for error added for all that we know the killer may have had 12 minutes to do his work.

Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly are also the only 3 that we know couldn’t have been interrupted and they all had body parts removed. Can we really be expected to believe that the ‘thief’ would have taken organs from an open abdomen, knowing that Doctors had looked at the body in the mortuary, and risked them noticing that a body part was missing that was there earlier?

And would someone looking to sell organs for medical study have chopped out the uterus but left a piece still inside, so damaged goods?

All that the theory has is, a) it appears to have been not an easy task under the circumstances and b) a trade in body parts existed in some form. It’s not much is it?

And let’s remember, Trevor isn’t just floating this idea for consideration is he?

I think that these pics conclusively prove that the killer did not remove these organs at the crime scenes as has been suggested since 1888 and not wanting to be unkind and that anyone who now having seen these and read the above who still thinks the killer did remove them at the crime scene really needs a reality check

He thinks that this flimsiest of evidence is a done deal.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Another ambiguous report "it is still confidently asserted"

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Do you know what ‘ambiguous’ means Trevor? There’s nothing ambiguous about that.

[GBinOz]

At best George this surely demonstrates how difficult this is to tie down with any great accuracy and as Calder and Harrison were working on 9 minutes it has to be said that the killer could have had longer.

Why are you talking about "longer". Your post was saying "no problem" for six minutes.

"A big sharp knife and a knowledge of where the kidney was. Three minutes or so. Couple or 3 minutes for the rest. No problem. Theory dumped.

Next!"

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly are also the only 3 that we know couldn’t have been interrupted...

Whoa there Herlock! You might want to adopt the brace position!

[Varqm]

On Saturday Nov 10,the ashes,etc. in the grate were passed through a sieve and carefully examined by Phillips and Macdonald,who both returned to Millers Court.From Daily News 9/12.

Most likely they were were looking for the heart.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Why are you talking about "longer". Your post was saying "no problem" for six minutes.

"A big sharp knife and a knowledge of where the kidney was. Three minutes or so. Couple or 3 minutes for the rest. No problem. Theory dumped.

Next!"

Because he might have done it in 6 but we don't have to narrow it down to so small a window when more time was probably available.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Whoa there Herlock! You might want to adopt the brace position!

If you're talking about Eddowes then yes the killer could have been disturbed but he obviously still had enough time before he left the scene (for whatever reason)