Organ removal ? Warning Graphic Photos

[Abby Normal]

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?



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

hi Herlock, all
I think opinion was divided then, as it still is today, by experts and otherwise, whether the the ripper had medical or surgical experience. whoever did it though, obviously had enough time.

IMHO I think the ripper had at the very least, experience using a knife in cutting up bodies(animals and or humans) and at least some rudimentory understanding of human anatomy. It neednt be a doctor or someone in the medical field though, as someone with the sick fantasies like the ripper had probably would have fed that desire with looking at pictures in medical books, museums etc. Also, we know that serial killers will often torture and mutilate animals starting at a young age.
and of course if the ripper and torsoman were the same, then he would have had experience, in his own bolt hole, of cutting up human bodies.

But leaving the torso murders out of it, if the ripper did have medical experience, and I think theres still a good chance he had, then it bodes well for suspects like chapman, druitt and tumblty. Ive never been a big Dr T advocate, but dont rule him out, and the whole story of the american dr looking for the parts in question has always intrigued me.

In the end though, like many aspects of this case, there really is just no real consensus or evidence to point definitively one way or another. im on the fence on this one.

The question of whether the killer had the time and took away the organs or it was done later by someone else is however, in light of all the evidence, a silly one.

[Herlock Sholmes]

hi Herlock, all
I think opinion was divided then, as it still is today, by experts and otherwise, whether the the ripper had medical or surgical experience. whoever did it though, obviously had enough time.

IMHO I think the ripper had at the very least, experience using a knife in cutting up bodies(animals and or humans) and at least some rudimentory understanding of human anatomy. It neednt be a doctor or someone in the medical field though, as someone with the sick fantasies like the ripper had probably would have fed that desire with looking at pictures in medical books, museums etc. Also, we know that serial killers will often torture and mutilate animals starting at a young age.
and of course if the ripper and torsoman were the same, then he would have had experience, in his own bolt hole, of cutting up human bodies.

But leaving the torso murders out of it, if the ripper did have medical experience, and I think theres still a good chance he had, then it bodes well for suspects like chapman, druitt and tumblty. Ive never been a big Dr T advocate, but dont rule him out, and the whole story of the american dr looking for the parts in question has always intrigued me.

In the end though, like many aspects of this case, there really is just no real consensus or evidence to point definitively one way or another. im on the fence on this one.

The question of whether the killer had the time and took away the organs or it was done later by someone else is however, in light of all the evidence, a silly one.

I agree Abby. Although we have few details it must surely have been the case that these body part stealers (if they were looking for organs as opposed to the whole corpse) would have stepped in after the Post Mortem and not before. 1) because the wouldn't have needed to cut open the bodies, and 2) because they knew that the Doctors had finished with them.

Also, although I can't prove it, I can help doubting that they would have touched such high profile corpses. Corpses that received so much attention from the doctors and the police.

All that we have is doubt about whether the killer would have had enough time. Well we can't definitively know how long it must have taken and we can't definitively know how long the killer had available. But we have the doctors at the time and some modern day experts who see no issue. So it can't be the 'imposdibility' that some claim. I tend to think that some experts were being to conservative on this....constrained by habits of caution and technique.

I think the killer was a maniac with anatomical knowledge and a sharp knife and I think that we would be amazed at how quickly some people could do this (butchers, hunters etc)

I see no mystery here. That the killer took organs can safely be stated as a fact imo Abby

[Trevor Marriott]

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

Yes but you clearly dont, defintions below

open to more than one interpretation; not having one obvious meaning.

not clear or decided.

Both fit quite nicely

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

I think the killer was a maniac with anatomical knowledge and a sharp knife and I think that we would be amazed at how quickly some people could do this (butchers, hunters etc)

We are a back to the "I think" doesnt matter what you think, its what the facts and the evidence tell us

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes but you clearly dont, defintions below

open to more than one interpretation; not having one obvious meaning.

not clear or decided.

Both fit quite nicely

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But if someone ‘confidently asserts’ something they aren’t being ambiguous. They are saying “this was the case.”

[Herlock Sholmes]

We are a back to the "I think" doesnt matter what you think, its what the facts and the evidence tell us

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Ok. I’ll ask you the question again Trevor.

Why is it that you usually quote Dr. Biggs as your medical expert and yet you try and sideline him on this particular issue when he agrees with the Doctors at the time?

[Trevor Marriott]

Ok. I’ll ask you the question again Trevor.

Why is it that you usually quote Dr. Biggs as your medical expert and yet you try and sideline him on this particular issue when he agrees with the Doctors at the time?

Dr Biggs agrees with Brown on at least 5 mins but he also states ".I would just say cautiously that it was ‘possible" but the caveat on Brown and sequeira is that they state it could have taken longer. But we dont know if the killer had as long as 5 mins with the victim, and of course Sequeira says 3 mins so both their estimates are questionable as to what they were referring to at the time they gave their interviews.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[mpriestnall]

I agree Abby. Although we have few details it must surely have been the case that these body part stealers (if they were looking for organs as opposed to the whole corpse) would have stepped in after the Post Mortem and not before. 1) because the wouldn't have needed to cut open the bodies, and 2) because they knew that the Doctors had finished with them.

Also, although I can't prove it, I can help doubting that they would have touched such high profile corpses. Corpses that received so much attention from the doctors and the police.

All that we have is doubt about whether the killer would have had enough time. Well we can't definitively know how long it must have taken and we can't definitively know how long the killer had available. But we have the doctors at the time and some modern day experts who see no issue. So it can't be the 'imposdibility' that some claim. I tend to think that some experts were being to conservative on this....constrained by habits of caution and technique.

I think the killer was a maniac with anatomical knowledge and a sharp knife and I think that we would be amazed at how quickly some people could do this (butchers, hunters etc)

I see no mystery here. That the killer took organs can safely be stated as a fact imo Abby

Sensible, balanced, post as ever but I question whether Jack was a "maniac". My picture of Jack is of a cold calculating psychopath with anatomical knowledge and a sharp knife. FWIW.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Dr Biggs agrees with Brown on at least 5 mins but he also states ".I would just say cautiously that it was ‘possible" but the caveat on Brown and sequeira is that they state it could have taken longer. But we dont know if the killer had as long as 5 mins with the victim, and of course Sequeira says 3 mins so both their estimates are questionable as to what they were referring to at the time they gave their interviews.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

There’s no need to underline possible. It means that it was possible; simple as that.

Why do you keep repeating that we don’t know how long the killer had with the victim? We all know this. It’s why it’s utterly pointless you keep saying that he wouldn’t have had time.

The evidence tells us that the killer removed the organs. So he must have had time.

I’m trying to think which theory is more wrong. This one or the apron one. Ok, I’ll call it a draw.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Sensible, balanced, post as ever but I question whether Jack was a "maniac". My picture of Jack is of a cold calculating psychopath with anatomical knowledge and a sharp knife. FWIW.

‘Maniac’ perhaps wasn’t the best choice of words Martyn. Perhaps ‘a person with serious issues.’

[Varqm]

Dr Biggs agrees with Brown on at least 5 mins but he also states ".I would just say cautiously that it was ‘possible" but the caveat on Brown and sequeira is that they state it could have taken longer. But we dont know if the killer had as long as 5 mins with the victim, and of course Sequeira says 3 mins so both their estimates are questionable as to what they were referring to at the time they gave their interviews.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

''It was possible", seeing a light? Next is "more likely" and "much less likely"? And 'impossible to prove"?

[mpriestnall]

‘Maniac’ perhaps wasn’t the best choice of words Martyn. Perhaps ‘a person with serious issues.’

A Maniac Street Preacher, perhaps.

++

I was probably being a bit picky but I'm a bit sensitive to the idea of Jack being a labeled a "maniac" as I believe this was
a false narrative promoted by the police (McNaughton for e.g.). I'm sure they knew different.

I'm sure at least a subset of the victims were deliberately targeted and any mutilations etc had a deliberate, functional element
to them.