From Mitre Square to Goulston Street - Some thoughts.

[Trevor Marriott]

blinkered that a man who murdered, cut off external body parts, ripped open abdomans, pulled out internal organs like intestines, wasnt the same man who took the internal organs away? lol

yeah.. real blinkered.

and that same man after doing all of those things at the crime scenes in a frenzied attack is able to then sufficiently calm himself down to be able to then with anatomical knowledge be able to then remove two of the most difficult organs in the body to first locate and remove them in almost total darkness. You need a reality check

and as to you questioning the murder and mutilation angle you need to revisit the murders

Martha Tabram stabbed 39 times no attempt made to take organs
Polly Nichols throat cut, abdomen stabbed no attempt to take organs
Liz Stride Throat cut no abdominal wounds no attempt made to take organs
Annie Chapman throat cut abdomen stabbed and ripped open -body left for 12 hours at mortuary before post mortem when organs found missing
Catherine Eddowes throat cut abdomen stabbed and ripped open body left for 12 hours before post mortem when organs found missing
Mary Kelly murdered and mutilated no organs taken

The only two victims who were found to be missing organs at the post mortem stage were Chapman and Eddowes whose abdomens had been ripped open sufficiently to enable organs to be removed at the mortuaries, and it should be noted that if the killer was seeking to harvest organs then why do we see no evidence of any attempts to do so with any of the other victims?

So what scenarios are we left to consider

All of these victims were not killed by the same killer
They were all killed by the same killer who only murdered and mutilated

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Dr Bond stated that the heart was absent and that the other major organs were present in the room.

That means that the heart was not in the room.

That comment is ambiguous it means it was taken out from within the pericardium there is no specific mention of it being taken away by the killer


The uterus, it seems, too, is not missing, as was once stated, but the heart is.

(Dundee Evening Telegraph, 17 November 1888).

I refer you to the News of the World article date 1896 which carried an interview with Detective Insp Reid who was head of Whitechapel CID and visited the Kelly crime scene

"I ought to tell you that the stories of portions of the body having been taken away by the murderer were all untrue. In every instance the body was complete. The mania of the murderer was exclusively for horrible mutilation.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Are you suggesting Henry Gawen Sutton at the London Hospital?

No, I am suggesting the organs from Eddowes and Chapman were acquired from corrupt mortuary attendants who allowed body dealers to take the organs and sell them to the teaching hospitals.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[DJA]

The uterus was a valuable organ to acquire for teaching hospitals.


www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Are you suggesting Henry Gawen Sutton at the London Hospital?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The uterus was a valuable organ to acquire for teaching hospitals.

And the uteri were removed from Chapman and Eddowes using two different methods from two different mortuaries, indicating two different persons who carried out the removals hardly consistent with a killer removing them.

No organs were taken away from Millers Court

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Dr Bond stated that the heart was absent and that the other major organs were present in the room.

That means that the heart was not in the room.


The uterus, it seems, too, is not missing, as was once stated, but the heart is.

(Dundee Evening Telegraph, 17 November 1888).

[Abby Normal]

It is not wacky, just because you choose to be blinkered and accept the old accepted theory without question.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

blinkered that a man who murdered, cut off external body parts, ripped open abdomans, pulled out internal organs like intestines, wasnt the same man who took the internal organs away? lol

yeah.. real blinkered.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi wulf and JW
do you really agree with Trevor on this? First of all she wasnt "stabbed several times in the abdoman". The liver had one stab wound, and a couple of cuts, so even that stab wound could have been accidental, and it wasnt even the organ he was going for anyway--it was the kidney and uterus.
Secondly, the rippers motivation wasnt neccessarily "murder and mutilation", it was post mortem mutilation, cutting internal(mainly) and external body parts and taking away internal organs. The latter which Trevor clearly dosnt agree with, and actually has a rather whacky theory for.

It is not wacky, just because you choose to be blinkered and accept the old accepted theory without question.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

What are the chances of staff at two mortuaries both deciding to excise the uterus?

And what are the chances of the murderer then doing the same in Miller's Court?

The uterus was a valuable organ to acquire for teaching hospitals.

And the uteri were removed from Chapman and Eddowes using two different methods from two different mortuaries, indicating two different persons who carried out the removals hardly consistent with a killer removing them.

No organs were taken away from Millers Court

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Aethelwulf]

Hi wulf and JW
do you really agree with Trevor on this? First of all she wasnt "stabbed several times in the abdoman". The liver had one stab wound, and a couple of cuts, so even that stab wound could have been accidental, and it wasnt even the organ he was going for anyway--it was the kidney and uterus.
Secondly, the rippers motivation wasnt neccessarily "murder and mutilation", it was post mortem mutilation, cutting internal(mainly) and external body parts and taking away internal organs. The latter which Trevor clearly dosnt agree with, and actually has a rather whacky theory for.

Dude you're right I was mostly distinguishing what Trevor said from DJA's tumbleweed theory although Trevor's rogue mortician theory is 'fringe' shall we say and I don't believe it it's still about 100 times more likely than what DJA is proposing IMO ha ha.

Murder and mutilation aren't motives are they I suppose, they are the acts. I consider the motive to be lust/sexual and a hatred of women.

[John Wheat]

Three out of three clearly do not understand my post regarding Nichols and Eddowes.

These mental midgets believe the motive for murder was murder

Your theory DJA is absolutely ridiculous.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

What are the chances of staff at two mortuaries both deciding to excise the uterus?

And what are the chances of the murderer then doing the same in Miller's Court?

[DJA]

Three out of three clearly do not understand my post regarding Nichols and Eddowes.

These mental midgets believe the motive for murder was murder

[Abby Normal]

Something we agree on Trevor!

Hi wulf and JW
do you really agree with Trevor on this? First of all she wasnt "stabbed several times in the abdoman". The liver had one stab wound, and a couple of cuts, so even that stab wound could have been accidental, and it wasnt even the organ he was going for anyway--it was the kidney and uterus.
Secondly, the rippers motivation wasnt neccessarily "murder and mutilation", it was post mortem mutilation, cutting internal(mainly) and external body parts and taking away internal organs. The latter which Trevor clearly dosnt agree with, and actually has a rather whacky theory for.

[John Wheat]

Someone intent on removing the organs and who had great anatomy skills as you suggest would not have stabbed Eddowes several times in the abdomen thereby damaging any organs they would be looking to excise.

The motive for the murder was simply murder and mutilation !!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I agree with Trevor too on this. The motive for murder was murder and mutilation.

[Trevor Marriott]

Something we agree on Trevor!