Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim?

[Sam Flynn]

But it must have come from Dr Phillips.

It could just as easily have come from newspaper reports or clubroom gossip. It's noteworthy that the editorial also references what Wynne Baxter said and did at the inquest, so it's obviously not based on an interview with either Baxter or Phillips, just on a report (or reports) of the proceedings.

The Lancet editorial certainly doesn't claim to have been based an interview with either man, so the time-honoured tradition of turning those words into a direct Phillips quote is entirely without foundation.

I am sure the author of that piece did not invent all of that.

The author certainly zhoozhed it up - "one sweep of the knife", indeed!

[Trevor Marriott]

Phillips did not say that. The quote is not from Dr Phillips, but is an "opinion piece" written by an editorial writer for the Lancet, link below:

https://www.casebook.org/press_repor...cet880929.html

But it must have come from Dr Phillips. I am sure the author of that piece did not invent all of that.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Batman]

Michael, I really would urge you to look up the case of Robert Napper, and particularly his murders of Rachel Nickell in 1992 [outdoors, overkill, stabbed forty-nine times] and Samantha Bisset in 1993 [indoors, stabbed in the neck and chest, mutilated, body parts taken away as trophies]. You may think one 'does not equate' with the other, but Napper evidently didn't give a rat's arse what others might think. And ask yourself what 'purpose' he had for any of it. At least you have his identity and he is still alive so you'd have a better shot at your own question than trying to fathom the mind of the man who killed Kelly and took her apart.

I doubt very much that Napper had read about Martha Tabram and Mary Kelly, considered the differences in the handiwork and decided to do something similar himself. And it's a dead cert that whoever killed Tabram and Kelly did not see into the future and decide to beat Napper to it.

So how can we easily dismiss the possibility that a man with a mind similar to Napper's was active in London a century before him, and could therefore have been responsible for both ?

Love,

Caz
X

Naper is a good case for Kozminski. Not only did Naper have Schizophrenia but he also had Asperger's syndrome. Like Kozminski it was family that reported Naper... only in Naper's case, the investigators failed to follow through properly on the information from his mum.

[caz]

Martha was overkill too...stabbing overkill, which does not equate with slicing open the body and cutting pieces off/out. In Marys case, how about slashing a face with a knife back and forth, now what purpose would that have? Or placing organs under her head...

Michael, I really would urge you to look up the case of Robert Napper, and particularly his murders of Rachel Nickell in 1992 [outdoors, overkill, stabbed forty-nine times] and Samantha Bisset in 1993 [indoors, stabbed in the neck and chest, mutilated, body parts taken away as trophies]. You may think one 'does not equate' with the other, but Napper evidently didn't give a rat's arse what others might think. And ask yourself what 'purpose' he had for any of it. At least you have his identity and he is still alive so you'd have a better shot at your own question than trying to fathom the mind of the man who killed Kelly and took her apart.

I doubt very much that Napper had read about Martha Tabram and Mary Kelly, considered the differences in the handiwork and decided to do something similar himself. And it's a dead cert that whoever killed Tabram and Kelly did not see into the future and decide to beat Napper to it.

So how can we easily dismiss the possibility that a man with a mind similar to Napper's was active in London a century before him, and could therefore have been responsible for both ?

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

Dr Phillips observed.."the uterus and its appendages with the upper portion of the vagina and the posterior two thirds of the bladder, had been entirely removed. No trace of these parts could be found and the incisions were cleanly cut, avoiding the rectum, and dividing the vagina low enough to avoid injury to the cervix uteri. Obviously the work was that of an expert- of one, at least, who had such knowledge of anatomical or pathological examinations as to be enabled to secure the pelvic organs with one sweep of the knife".

Phillips did not say that. The quote is not from Dr Phillips, but is an "opinion piece" written by an editorial writer for the Lancet, link below:

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/lancet/lancet880929.html

[Batman]

The killer had some skills with a knife. Established point.

What I would say is this. Murders like this are so rare that no one existed in the UK or anywhere else, who had the experience to tell us if there was a medically experienced hand at work or not.

The first person to have a better chance at doing this was Bond because he was not just doing the medical examination of MJK but had been appointed to do a meta-analysis of the C5. Anderson sent him all the required documentation.

In the end, Bond decided that the murderer couldn't have done anything a slaughterer or butcher couldn't have also done.

[Michael W Richards]

We don't know anything about the condition of the organs that were removed. Unless one believes the From Hell letter's contents.

The removed organs could have been slashed and punctured badly.

Dr Phillips observed.."the uterus and its appendages with the upper portion of the vagina and the posterior two thirds of the bladder, had been entirely removed. No trace of these parts could be found and the incisions were cleanly cut, avoiding the rectum, and dividing the vagina low enough to avoid injury to the cervix uteri. Obviously the work was that of an expert- of one, at least, who had such knowledge of anatomical or pathological examinations as to be enabled to secure the pelvic organs with one sweep of the knife".

The killer had some skills with a knife. Established point.

The latter point is often debated here, my personal take is that he had anatomical knowledge as well, as Phillips stated above. I think in Annies case we see the quintessential Ripper murder, and therefore the one with the most to teach us about the killer.

Its the reason that in September they adjusted their view towards people who had training, beyond that of a butcher, which is the highest skill designation one could see in the case of Mary Kelly. At best this guy was a butcher. And in Liz Strides case, all he needed was a knife and bad judgement.

[Batman]

Chapman had her uterus with the fallopian tubes removed undamaged.

Eddowes had her kidney removed undamaged
Eddowes had her uterus fully removed with the exception of one small piece. I doubt that would have rendered that organ unfit for any research.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

We don't know anything about the condition of the organs that were removed. Unless one believes the From Hell letter's contents.

The removed organs could have been slashed and punctured badly.

[Trevor Marriott]

Let's be clear, damaged and decayed organs were of no use at all for any medical research, and would also be of limited use even in teaching.

Trevor who is the main supporter of this idea, is of course fully entitled to put the idea forward. However at present he has not been able to establish that a market for damaged uteri existed.

Steve

Chapman had her uterus with the fallopian tubes removed undamaged.

Eddowes had her kidney removed undamaged
Eddowes had her uterus fully removed with the exception of one small piece. I doubt that would have rendered that organ unfit for any research.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

It's hard to imagine someone taking organs with the intent of selling them without a buyer already lined up. I just can't see a guy standing on the street saying "hey, I got organs here. Female organs." On the other hand, it would seem to me that if someone were smart enough to be a doctor that he would have realized that the police had considered this angle and that this probably was not a good time to be engaging in this practice. They would also be taking an enormous risk if the killer talked and spilled the beans on who he was working for. Still there are always people willing to take risks.

c.d.

I don’t know where this idea of A thief stealing organs to sell keeps
coming from.

Bona fide medical persons from bona fide medical facilities for bona fide reasons medical research and teaching medical students

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[c.d.]

It's hard to imagine someone taking organs with the intent of selling them without a buyer already lined up. I just can't see a guy standing on the street saying "hey, I got organs here. Female organs." On the other hand, it would seem to me that if someone were smart enough to be a doctor that he would have realized that the police had considered this angle and that this probably was not a good time to be engaging in this practice. They would also be taking an enormous risk if the killer talked and spilled the beans on who he was working for. Still there are always people willing to take risks.

c.d.

[Trevor Marriott]

One of the big issues here is one which pops up time and time again. It is the misuse and understanding of the term "Medical Research" , used so often by those who have no real understanding of what it means, or how it is and was conducted.

Time and time again it is used in terms that are closer to Mary Shelly, than to real medical research.
Let's be clear, damaged and decayed organs were of no use at all for any medical research, and would also be of limited use even in teaching.

However the mantra of medical research gets trotted out time after time, with no supporting evidence that any such research was taking place in the UK, which would required the uterus, in addition of course if we use the C5, that organ is only taken in 40% of cases. If we add Tabram and Mackenzie it is less than 30% .

There appears to be no provable argument that these organs were specifically targeted for research purposes.
Trevor who is the main supporter of this idea, is of course fully entitled to put the idea forward. However at present he has not been able to establish that a market for damaged uteri existed.

Steve

Organs for Medical research includes medical schools for teaching purposes incorporates all organs as you would expect. I simply said that having regard to the uterus being common to females that would make it more of a valuable commodity.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

Sure, not the general public, but how would a thief even begin to sell organs on the black market if they were robbing them from the morgue?

In my case, it was the killer who took the organs.

My comment was with reference to a theory from around 2000, about 18 years ago. That the killer might be medically trained, but not licensed, so was not a member of the BMA.
Therefore, he would be unable to obtain organs for study.

I came across a few stories about European doctors who emigrated to England in the 19th century but could not obtain a license to practice.
I had to wonder if this obstacle could have lead to a motive.

[etenguy]

One of the big issues here is one which pops up time and time again. It is the misuse and understanding of the term "Medical Research" , used so often by those who have no real understanding of what it means, or how it is and was conducted.

Time and time again it is used in terms that are closer to Mary Shelly, than to real medical research.
Let's be clear, damaged and decayed organs were of no use at all for any medical research, and would also be of limited use even in teaching.

However the mantra of medical research gets trotted out time after time, with no supporting evidence that any such research was taking place in the UK, which would required the uterus, in addition of course if we use the C5, that organ is only taken in 40% of cases. If we add Tabram and Mackenzie it is less than 30% .

There appears to be no provable argument that these organs were specifically targeted for research purposes.
Trevor who is the main supporter of this idea, is of course fully entitled to put the idea forward. However at present he has not been able to establish that a market for damaged uteri existed.

Steve

I agree. Though of course the bigger market would have been medical schools for teaching purposes and we do know that there was significant growth of medical schools in the nineteenth century and cadavers were in short supply. I don't think damaged organs would have been particularly useful, nor do I think the missing organs made their way to medical schools, but a better bet than medical research I think.

[Elamarna]

One of the big issues here is one which pops up time and time again. It is the misuse and understanding of the term "Medical Research" , used so often by those who have no real understanding of what it means, or how it is and was conducted.

Time and time again it is used in terms that are closer to Mary Shelly, than to real medical research.
Let's be clear, damaged and decayed organs were of no use at all for any medical research, and would also be of limited use even in teaching.

However the mantra of medical research gets trotted out time after time, with no supporting evidence that any such research was taking place in the UK, which would required the uterus, in addition of course if we use the C5, that organ is only taken in 40% of cases. If we add Tabram and Mackenzie it is less than 30% .

There appears to be no provable argument that these organs were specifically targeted for research purposes.
Trevor who is the main supporter of this idea, is of course fully entitled to put the idea forward. However at present he has not been able to establish that a market for damaged uteri existed.

Steve