Police Patrols Timings

[Wickerman]

But where did he appear from at that moment ? Presumably there wasn't a queue, so wouldn't he also have had knowledge of the beat times to be there at just the right moment ?

The belief is the killer picked up Eddowes somewhere close by and she led him to Mitre Sq. Alternately, he could have taken her there, we have no evidence one way or the other. There is however an uncorroborated opinion that some City police constables recognised her as someone who worked the streets in that area.
So we don't think he jumped out of the shadows to attack his victims.

[Dickere]

Hi Dickere,

Trevor has a theory that JtR didn't take organs from any of the crime scenes, but rather they were stolen from the different mortuaries. It's not a widely held belief, but one Trevor defends at every opportunity. You can find discussions on this in many threads.

- Jeff

Ok thanks, I have heard mentions of that. I'm surprised that something as fundamental as that is debatable though.

[JeffHamm]

Ok thanks, I have heard mentions of that. I'm surprised that something as fundamental as that is debatable though.

Anything is debatable - even the value of a debate is debatable. There will always be someone who sees things differently, whether or not you agree with them is up to you. Just take care to differentiate between debating with the unconvinced and debating with the unconvincable.

- Jeff

[Dickere]

Anything is debatable - even the value of a debate is debatable. There will always be someone who sees things differently, whether or not you agree with them is up to you. Just take care to differentiate between debating with the unconvinced and debating with the unconvincable.

- Jeff

Thanks Jeff, I get your drift.

My surprise is that it doesn't seem certain whether the organs were removed at the time or later. Wouldn't it be on record what was missing as soon as the bodies were examined medically ?

[JeffHamm]

Thanks Jeff, I get your drift.

My surprise is that it doesn't seem certain whether the organs were removed at the time or later. Wouldn't it be on record what was missing as soon as the bodies were examined medically ?

Hi Dickere,

Given we were not there, and given much of the records and files were lost, and given procedures of 1888 were of a different standard then today, some will use that to suggest anything they fancy. However, in my experience, very few entertain the suggestion that JtR did not take the missing organs. But, to form your own opinion, read through old threads and you'll come across that and other topics useful to go over. The discussions can get heated, to day the least, but read what's out there and draw your own conclusions.

- Jeff

[Wickerman]

We have had worse, I mean there was one poster who believed the organs had been removed by a dog.
Which caused amusing debate on yet another suspect - Jack Russell, the terrier of Mitre Square.

[Trevor Marriott]

Thanks Jeff, I get your drift.

My surprise is that it doesn't seem certain whether the organs were removed at the time or later. Wouldn't it be on record what was missing as soon as the bodies were examined medically ?

There was no examaination done on any of the bodies at any of the crime scenes to establish whether or not organs were missing.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

There was no examaination done on any of the bodies at any of the crime scenes to establish whether or not organs were missing.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

Do we really know that? We can be pretty certain that applies to Nichols, given her mutilations weren't discovered at the scene, but Chapman was examined more, and the following testimony by Dr. Brown at the Eddowes' inquest, is tantalizing:

Inquest: Catherine Eddowes
Day 1, Thursday, October 4, 1888
(The Daily Telegraph, Friday, October 5, 1888, Page 3)

Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown: ...
By the Coroner: Before we removed the body Dr. Phillips was sent for, as I wished him to see the wounds, he having been engaged in a case of a similar kind previously. He saw the body at the mortuary. ....

While Phillips doesn't see the body until it has been moved to the mortuary, he was sent for prior to it being moved. Dr. Brown sends for Dr. Phillips because of the similarity in the cases. Now, I fully accept that may mean nothing more than the fact both had been cut open and entrails removed, etc, but it leaves open the very real possibility that Dr. Brown examined Eddowes sufficiently to determine her uterus was missing, given that had been put forth at the Chapman inquest by the coroner as a possible motive, motivating his calling upon Dr. Phillips.

I know he doesn't say that specifically, and I'm not suggesting the above is in any way proven to have happened, but given it seems a reasonable thing for Dr. Brown to do at the scene (check to see if the uterus had been taken), I don't think it is safe to to state so definitely that no examination was made at the scene by that point as there are just enough pointers that suggest there might have been. Sadly, even if there was, we can only guess at what was, or was not, done.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

Do we really know that? We can be pretty certain that applies to Nichols, given her mutilations weren't discovered at the scene, but Chapman was examined more, and the following testimony by Dr. Brown at the Eddowes' inquest, is tantalizing:

Inquest: Catherine Eddowes
Day 1, Thursday, October 4, 1888
(The Daily Telegraph, Friday, October 5, 1888, Page 3)

Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown: ...
By the Coroner: Before we removed the body Dr. Phillips was sent for, as I wished him to see the wounds, he having been engaged in a case of a similar kind previously. He saw the body at the mortuary. ....

While Phillips doesn't see the body until it has been moved to the mortuary, he was sent for prior to it being moved. Dr. Brown sends for Dr. Phillips because of the similarity in the cases. Now, I fully accept that may mean nothing more than the fact both had been cut open and entrails removed, etc, but it leaves open the very real possibility that Dr. Brown examined Eddowes sufficiently to determine her uterus was missing, given that had been put forth at the Chapman inquest by the coroner as a possible motive, motivating his calling upon Dr. Phillips.

I know he doesn't say that specifically, and I'm not suggesting the above is in any way proven to have happened, but given it seems a reasonable thing for Dr. Brown to do at the scene (check to see if the uterus had been taken), I don't think it is safe to to state so definitely that no examination was made at the scene by that point as there are just enough pointers that suggest there might have been. Sadly, even if there was, we can only guess at what was, or was not, done.

- Jeff

I think is a 100% safe to say that the doctors did not check the bodies at the crime scenes for missing organs. If they had have done that they would have recorded such an important fact and it would have been in Browns inquest testimony.

You need to stop trying to muddy the waters in another desperate attempt to try to prop up the old theory that the killer removed the organs when there is strong evidence to the contrary

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Kattrup]

Hi Trevor,

Do we really know that? We can be pretty certain that applies to Nichols, given her mutilations weren't discovered at the scene, but Chapman was examined more, and the following testimony by Dr. Brown at the Eddowes' inquest, is tantalizing:

Inquest: Catherine Eddowes
Day 1, Thursday, October 4, 1888
(The Daily Telegraph, Friday, October 5, 1888, Page 3)

Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown: ...
By the Coroner: Before we removed the body Dr. Phillips was sent for, as I wished him to see the wounds, he having been engaged in a case of a similar kind previously. He saw the body at the mortuary. ....

While Phillips doesn't see the body until it has been moved to the mortuary, he was sent for prior to it being moved. Dr. Brown sends for Dr. Phillips because of the similarity in the cases. Now, I fully accept that may mean nothing more than the fact both had been cut open and entrails removed, etc, but it leaves open the very real possibility that Dr. Brown examined Eddowes sufficiently to determine her uterus was missing, given that had been put forth at the Chapman inquest by the coroner as a possible motive, motivating his calling upon Dr. Phillips.

I know he doesn't say that specifically, and I'm not suggesting the above is in any way proven to have happened, but given it seems a reasonable thing for Dr. Brown to do at the scene (check to see if the uterus had been taken), I don't think it is safe to to state so definitely that no examination was made at the scene by that point as there are just enough pointers that suggest there might have been. Sadly, even if there was, we can only guess at what was, or was not, done.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff


Bagster Philips had his hands under Chapman's intestines at the scene, and he specified that the missing organs could not have simply fallen out during transit, as they were cut out.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Jeff


Bagster Philips had his hands under Chapman's intestines at the scene, and he specified that the missing organs could not have simply fallen out during transit, as they were cut out.

Ho many times do i have to keep repeating the same facts

There is no evidence that Phillips had his hand inside the abdomen at the crime scene and found the uterus missing.

The extract tyou refer to is taken from the inquest testimony where Phillips stated that the organs were found to be missing at the post mortem.

Why would the coroner ask if they had fallen out in transit if Phillips had reported them being missing when he examined the body at the crime scene

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Kattrup]

Ho many times do i have to keep repeating the same facts

There is no evidence that Phillips had his hand inside the abdomen at the crime scene and found the uterus missing.

The extract tyou refer to is taken from the inquest testimony where Phillips stated that the organs were found to be missing at the post mortem.

Why would the coroner ask if they had fallen out in transit if Phillips had reported them being missing when he examined the body at the crime scene

The statements you keep repeating are not facts.

Bagster Philips checked the body's warmth at the crime scene. We know this because he recounted his examination of the body in the yard, and how he noticed there was a little warmth under the intestines inside the body.
He later during his testimony recounted his examination of the body in the mortuary, and how the stiffness of the limbs had by then progressed. Since you yourself so dearly love to argue based on what you personally with no reference to contemporary sources believe would be reasonable procedure, I'll just add that checking the body for warmth immediately at the scene makes a thousand times more sense than waiting until it's at the mortuary. I expect you to acknowledge that.

Whether that means Philips noticed the organs were missing in the backyard is another matter. I mainly mentioned Philips' backyard internal examination of Chapman for Jeff Hamm as an example of a relatively thorough in-situ examination.

You mistake the fact that Philips did not specifically mention that the organs were missing during the examination in the yard for evidence that they were still there. That is an invalid argument.

[JeffHamm]

I think is a 100% safe to say that the doctors did not check the bodies at the crime scenes for missing organs. If they had have done that they would have recorded such an important fact and it would have been in Browns inquest testimony.

You need to stop trying to muddy the waters in another desperate attempt to try to prop up the old theory that the killer removed the organs when there is strong evidence to the contrary

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

Your idea of 100% safe is what is unsafe. As Kattrup points out, Chapman's body was checked for warmth under the intestines, and we know that was done by touch. So we know the doctors did do crime scene examinations of the bodies, at least starting with Chapman. At the inquest, the doctor's are only going to mention the post-mortem results as that would be a far more detailed analysis that would include everything they would have noted at the crime scene and more, with specific details in addition. Basically, the examination at the crime scene would be less official and less precise information - the post-mortem trumps it. We know very early in the series there was not even rudimentary examination of the bodies, hence Nichols abdominal wounds were not even noticed. This looked bad on the doctors, and they started doing more (again, checked under the intestines and found the body was still warm there).

With Chapman's uterus taken, and a proposed motive based upon that, we now have the third mutilation murder in Eddowes. It only stands to reason that there is a good and reasonable likelihood that the doctors may have checked to see if the murderer has again taken the uterus again; to restate, that was the proposed motive from Chapman's inquest. Dr. Brown's decision to summon Dr. Phillips, who had examined Chapman and who therefore would be familiar with the missing uterus, makes a lot of sense if the uterus was known to have been taken again (of course, it also makes sense given both were mutilation murders, that alone could account for that - note, I'm not even propping up my own suggestion, I'm examining all possibilities - give it a try sometime, you might enjoy it). In the end, to continue to try and prop up the mythical organ thieves, for which is there is not even a suggestion, makes you the one looking desperate by comparison.

You cannot be sure they did not examine the body at the crime scene, and it is far more reasonable that they did (what else would they be doing the whole them they are there? playing gin rummy?). I am not saying that it is certain they did note the uterus was missing, I'm only saying that there is reason to suspect they may have. But because they may have, there is doubt about the claim they did not notice the organs were missing at the crime scene, making your claim unsafe.

And there is 0 evidence the organs were present at the crime scene. There is only your speculation that they were there, and your speculation is not evidence, no matter how many times you repeat that unsafe claim. You may notice that this is just your approach being applied. Sorry if your methods work against you, but that's how it is.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

The statements you keep repeating are not facts.

Bagster Philips checked the body's warmth at the crime scene. We know this because he recounted his examination of the body in the yard, and how he noticed there was a little warmth under the intestines inside the body.
He later during his testimony recounted his examination of the body in the mortuary, and how the stiffness of the limbs had by then progressed. Since you yourself so dearly love to argue based on what you personally with no reference to contemporary sources believe would be reasonable procedure, I'll just add that checking the body for warmth immediately at the scene makes a thousand times more sense than waiting until it's at the mortuary. I expect you to acknowledge that.

Whether that means Philips noticed the organs were missing in the backyard is another matter. I mainly mentioned Philips' backyard internal examination of Chapman for Jeff Hamm as an example of a relatively thorough in-situ examination.

You mistake the fact that Philips did not specifically mention that the organs were missing during the examination in the yard for evidence that they were still there. That is an invalid argument.

so he checked the body for warmth whats that got to do with whether or not the uterus was missing or not?

It is not an invalid argument it is an important fact did you not read my last post. If the uterus had been found missing he would have said so, and then the coroner would not have asked if they dropped out in transit to the mortuary, because he would said he found them missing when he examined the body at the crime scene.

Geeesh some of you are hard work

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Jeff

Hi Trevor,

Your idea of 100% safe is what is unsafe. As Kattrup points out, Chapman's body was checked for warmth under the intestines, and we know that was done by touch. So we know the doctors did do crime scene examinations of the bodies, at least starting with Chapman. At the inquest, the doctor's are only going to mention the post-mortem results as that would be a far more detailed analysis that would include everything they would have noted at the crime scene and more, with specific details in addition. Basically, the examination at the crime scene would be less official and less precise information - the post-mortem trumps it. We know very early in the series there was not even rudimentary examination of the bodies, hence Nichols abdominal wounds were not even noticed. This looked bad on the doctors, and they started doing more (again, checked under the intestines and found the body was still warm there).

Phillips gives a detailed report of the crime scene and how he found the body and describes the position of the body etc why would he even check to see if organs were missing Chapman was the first victim to be found with organs missing at the post mortem stage so there would be no need fror him to check.

If the uterus had been found missing he would have said so, and then the coroner would not have asked if they dropped out in transit to the mortuary, because he would said he found them missing when he examined the body at the crime scene.

With Chapman's uterus taken, and a proposed motive based upon that, we now have the third mutilation murder in Eddowes. It only stands to reason that there is a good and reasonable likelihood that the doctors may have checked to see if the murderer has again taken the uterus again; to restate, that was the proposed motive from Chapman's inquest. Dr. Brown's decision to summon Dr. Phillips, who had examined Chapman and who therefore would be familiar with the missing uterus, makes a lot of sense if the uterus was known to have been taken again (of course, it also makes sense given both were mutilation murders, that alone could account for that - note, I'm not even propping up my own suggestion, I'm examining all possibilities - give it a try sometime, you might enjoy it). In the end, to continue to try and prop up the mythical organ thieves, for which is there is not even a suggestion, makes you the one looking desperate by comparison.

Dr Brown gives a detailed report of how he found the body at the crime scene, Having found the abdomen ripped open would you not have thought that he would checked to see if the uterus was missing and if he found it was, it would have been in his testiimony, but nowhere is there any mention throughout his testimony of them being found missing at the crime scene,

You cannot be sure they did not examine the body at the crime scene, and it is far more reasonable that they did (what else would they be doing the whole them they are there? playing gin rummy?). I am not saying that it is certain they did note the uterus was missing, I'm only saying that there is reason to suspect they may have. But because they may have, there is doubt about the claim they did not notice the organs were missing at the crime scene, making your claim unsafe.

I can be sure because Dr Brown`s testimony on oath tells us that he did not carry out a full examination at the crime scene otherwise he would have recorded that fact and would have discovered the uterus missing after all it would not have been difficult because the intestines that are located near to the uterus were already out of the abdomen.

And there is 0 evidence the organs were present at the crime scene. There is only your speculation that they were there, and your speculation is not evidence, no matter how many times you repeat that unsafe claim. You may notice that this is just your approach being applied. Sorry if your methods work against you, but that's how it is.

Dont be sorry I should be saying that to you because your attempt at showing the organs qwere missing at the crime scene has yet again sunk without trace

Its not speculation it is a fact, which is borne out by no medical evidence to show the organs were found missing from the body at the crime scene that is something you have to accept but it seems you dont want to and are still prepared tp prop up the old acceptes theory

And as for my theory as has been shown on here there are others that have also questioned the killer removing these organs at the crime scenes given the lighting and the anatomical knowledge required.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

- Jeff