JtR failed amputation. Torso killer was successful.

[Batman]

At the inquest, Philips indicates he believes that JtR removed organs.

Even a medical undergraduate couldn't fail to notice with Chapman lying there with her intestines on her shoulder and spread legged with her abdominal cavity open, that lots of organs that are supposed to be there... aren't... and aren't sitting over her shoulder either.

[Trevor Marriott]

On Chapmans murder Trevor, Bagster's pm notes include this:

"The abdomen had been entirely laid open: the intestines, severed from their mesenteric attachments, had been lifted out of the body and placed on the shoulder of the corpse; whilst from the pelvis, 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, which must therefore must have at least 5 or 6 inches in length, probably more. The appearance of the cuts confirmed him in the opinion that the instrument, like the one which divided the neck, had been of a very sharp character. The mode in which the knife had been used seemed to indicate great anatomical knowledge."

These comments obviously refer to the disposition at the crime scene, not the disposition on the autopsy table. I read that as his observations while over the body at the scene, and it includes finding no trace of certain parts.

I have to repeat yet again for clarity. With regards to Chapman, the uterus and its appendages were not found to be missing at the crime scene. There was no such and examination done at the crime scene to determine this.

The same applies to the removal of the organs from Eddowes.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Michael W Richards]

I have to repeat yet again for clarity. With regards to Chapman, the uterus and its appendages were not found to be missing at the crime scene. There was no such and examination done at the crime scene to determine this.

The same applies to the removal of the organs from Eddowes.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Not to beat this to death, but when Phillips is directly quoted...for Sam ...he said this;

"Was the whole of the body there? - No; the absent portions being from the abdomen.
[Coroner] Are those portions such as would require anatomical knowledge to extract? - I think the mode in which they were extracted did show some anatomical knowledge.
[Coroner] You do not think they could have been lost accidentally in the transit of the body to the mortuary? - I was not present at the transit. I carefully closed up the clothes of the woman. Some portions had been excised"

Now, Bagster says to the question of a complete corpse being "there", "No. The absent portions being from the abdomen." That to me does not sound like Bagster is being asked about how he found the corpse once cleaned and on a table. The "there" to me anyway, seems like...as he found her as she lay. Not definitive, but it, again to me, doesnt sound like the observations he made were not about the body while still in the yard.

[Trevor Marriott]

"No trace of these parts could be found", for example, could well refer to a later search after the organs had been discovered missing at autopsy.

The above relates to when the organs were found missing at the mortuary. there was no search made for them after that

That said, it doesn't negate the possibility that Phillips noticed that the abdominal organs in question were missing when Chapman was found, simply by inspecting the gaping hole that the killer had cut in her abdomen

There is no evidence to show he ever did that either !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Not to beat this to death, but when Phillips is directly quoted...for Sam ...he said this;

"Was the whole of the body there? - No; the absent portions being from the abdomen.
[Coroner] Are those portions such as would require anatomical knowledge to extract? - I think the mode in which they were extracted did show some anatomical knowledge.
[Coroner] You do not think they could have been lost accidentally in the transit of the body to the mortuary? - I was not present at the transit. I carefully closed up the clothes of the woman. Some portions had been excised"

Now, Bagster says to the question of a complete corpse being "there", "No. The absent portions being from the abdomen." That to me does not sound like Bagster is being asked about how he found the corpse once cleaned and on a table. The "there" to me anyway, seems like...as he found her as she lay. Not definitive, but it, again to me, doesnt sound like the observations he made were not about the body while still in the yard.

Perhaps you should read on

[Coroner] You do not think they could have been lost accidentally in the transit of the body to the mortuary? -

Phillips - I was not present at the transit. I carefully closed up the clothes of the woman. Some portions had been excised.

If they had been found missing at the scene the above question would not have been asked

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

Not to beat this to death, but when Phillips is directly quoted...for Sam ...he said this;

[Coroner] You do not think they could have been lost accidentally in the transit of the body to the mortuary? - I was not present at the transit. I carefully closed up the clothes of the woman. Some portions had been excised"

That to me... doesnt sound like the observations he made were not about the body while still in the yard.

I agree, and thanks for finding a contemporary report of Philips' testimony that confirms this (which the Lancet editorial doesn't).

[Sam Flynn]

Perhaps you should read on

[Coroner] You do not think they could have been lost accidentally in the transit of the body to the mortuary? -

Phillips - I was not present at the transit. I carefully closed up the clothes of the woman. Some portions had been excised.

If they had been found missing at the scene the above question would not have been asked

And Phillips' response was that he'd closed up her clothing prior to transit, having found that "some portions had been excised". Baxter's question was to clarify this point, and Phillips obliged.

[Batman]

I have to repeat yet again for clarity. With regards to Chapman, the uterus and its appendages were not found to be missing at the crime scene. There was no such and examination done at the crime scene to determine this.

The same applies to the removal of the organs from Eddowes.

That is a positive claim that you have evidence that the determination wasn't identified where the bodies laid. That hasn't been demonstrated.

The very fact there is blood splatter forensics at Chapman's scene, shows they were undertaking careful notes.

They must do. Removing the body doesn't take all the blood splatter forensics with it.

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Batman;465869]That is a positive claim that you have evidence that the determination wasn't identified where the bodies laid. That hasn't been demonstrated.

I have demonstrated that in a previous post please try to keep up

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

And Phillips' response was that he'd closed up her clothing prior to transit, having found that "some portions had been excised". Baxter's question was to clarify this point, and Phillips obliged.

Yes the intestines had been excised

If they had been found missing at the crime scene it would have been made clear at the inquest, and there would have been no need for the coroner to ask this question when the evidence was given that the uterus and the fallopian tubes were missing. It is simple logic, which part do you not understand?

If they had been found missing at the scene the above question would not have been asked

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

Yes the intestines had been excised

They had been extruded, but not excised.

[Batman]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;465877]

That is a positive claim that you have evidence that the determination wasn't identified where the bodies laid. That hasn't been demonstrated.

I have demonstrated that in a previous post please try to keep up

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

What post number?

[Michael W Richards]

Perhaps you should read on

[Coroner] You do not think they could have been lost accidentally in the transit of the body to the mortuary? -

Phillips - I was not present at the transit. I carefully closed up the clothes of the woman. Some portions had been excised.

If they had been found missing at the scene the above question would not have been asked

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I read that as a request for clarity on the issue Trevor. And the "excisions" Bagster mentions he had noticed prior to "closing up the clothes".

I think the preliminary examination at the crime scene revealed that items had been excised and not yet fully identified, which ones and specifically how much of them, was determined when the pm was done. The Volte Face that was done with Kelly was done so the anatomical integrity of the deceased could be determined, it would be almost impossible to determine which items were absent until all the excised materials were catalogued. There was a lot of biological matter to sort through there.

[Joshua Rogan]

I read that as a request for clarity on the issue Trevor. And the "excisions" Bagster mentions he had noticed prior to "closing up the clothes".

I think the preliminary examination at the crime scene revealed that items had been excised and not yet fully identified, which ones and specifically how much of them, was determined when the pm was done.

Inspector Chandler and Dr Phillips mention some excised parts at Annie's inquest (from Daily Telegraph 14 Sept);

"A portion of the intestines, still connected with the body, were lying above the right shoulder, with some pieces of skin. There were also some pieces of skin on the left shoulder."

"The small intestines and other portions were lying on the right side of the body on the ground above the right shoulder, but attached. There was a large quantity of blood, with a part of the stomach above the left shoulder"

One piece of abdominal wall was never found, presumed taken by the killer along with the uterus. I doubt they discovered this until the PM though.

[Trevor Marriott]

Inspector Chandler and Dr Phillips mention some excised parts at Annie's inquest (from Daily Telegraph 14 Sept);

"A portion of the intestines, still connected with the body, were lying above the right shoulder, with some pieces of skin. There were also some pieces of skin on the left shoulder."

"The small intestines and other portions were lying on the right side of the body on the ground above the right shoulder, but attached. There was a large quantity of blood, with a part of the stomach above the left shoulder"

One piece of abdominal wall was never found, presumed taken by the killer along with the uterus. I doubt they discovered this until the PM though.

Joshua

Thanks for posting that. No pun intended but its killed this particular issue.

The silence is deafening !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk