JtR failed amputation. Torso killer was successful.

[Sam Flynn]

Joshua

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

How so? That only refers to the piece of flesh around the navel, not the portions - plural - Phillips reports as having been excised before he closed up Chapman's clothing at the scene. Even in respect of that piece of navel, there's nothing in the article Joshua posted that says its absence wasn't noted at the scene.

[Sam Flynn]

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

The intestines and stomach, referred to in that article, were not excised, as they were still attached and had not been cut. To "excise" is to cut out, not to pull out.

[Trevor Marriott]

How so? That only refers to the piece of flesh around the navel, not the portions - plural - Phillips reports as having been excised before he closed up Chapman's clothing at the scene. Even in respect of that piece of navel, there's nothing in the article Joshua posted that says its absence wasn't noted at the scene.

Sam
When are you and others going to accept that there is no evidence in the cases of Chapman and Eddowes that the doctors found the organs (uterus and kidney) were missing at the crime scenes. Accept it and move on. no matter how you or others interpret the reports the end result is still the same.

For the final time the coroner would not have asked that question if the doctor had indivated that they were found missing at the crime scene.

Its painful to have to keep reading these wild speculative attempts at trying to prop up the old accepted theories by misinterpretation of the facts, and the evidence.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

Sam
When are you and others going to accept that there is no evidence in the cases of Chapman and Eddowes that the doctors found the organs were missing at the crime scenes.

Short answer: never.

Longer answer: there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the organs in question were present and accounted for at the scenes of crime. The fact that Phillips indicates that "some portions had been excised" from Chapman's body prior to its being taken to the mortuary suggests the very opposite.

As to Eddowes, it is frankly preposterous to believe that, having gone to the trouble of making a massive cut down her abdomen, extruding the intestines and cutting out a length of colon which he left by her side, the killer did not also proceed to remove her kidney (and uterus) at the scene.

[Sam Flynn]

For the final time the coroner would not have asked that question if the doctor had indivated that they were found missing at the crime scene.

Not so; Baxter's question was simply seeking to clarify that they had not gone missing in transit, and nothing more. Phillips answered this very specific question by confirming that, though he'd not been present at the transport, he had closed the victim's clothing at the scene and that "some portions had been excised" - in other words, they had NOT gone missing in transit. It follows, therefore, that their absence had been noted before the body was moved.

[Trevor Marriott]

Not so; Baxter's question was simply seeking to clarify that they had not gone missing in transit, and nothing more. Phillips answered this very specific question by confirming that, though he'd not been present at the transport, he had closed the victim's clothing at the scene and that "some portions had been excised" - in other words, they had NOT gone missing in transit. It follows, therefore, that their absence had been noted before the body was moved.

Well you keep believing that, because as stated there is not one scrap of evidence where any doctor went out on a limb and stated that the organs specifically targetted were found missing at the crime scenes.

Why would they look in the case of Chapman, no other victim up until then had organs removed, so they would have had no reason to check the body in her case. In fact there is no mention of any specific detailed examination of the body at the scene by Phillips in his inquest testimony.

At the crime scene it was nothing more than murder and mutilation which was observed by all those present,

Give it up Sam you are fighting a lost cause

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Harry D]

As to Eddowes, it is frankly preposterous to believe that, having gone to the trouble of making a massive cut down her abdomen, extruding the intestines and cutting out a length of colon which he left by her side, the killer did not also proceed to remove her kidney (and uterus) at the scene.

What reason would a rogue mortuary assistant have for stealing a single kidney?

[Trevor Marriott]

What reason would a rogue mortuary assistant have for stealing a single kidney?

Lets put the record straight, there is no suggestion that a rogue mortuary attendant was responsible for physically removing the organs at the mortuary. Such a person would be incapable of effecting such a removal.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Michael W Richards]

I think that we are having some difficulty with the use of the word "excised", and Sam pointed this out earlier. The intestines were still "attached" to the body...its exactly what is said in the posted quote.

Sam mentioned the word "extruded", and it seems much more appropriate in this situation. When Bagster observed that some items had been excised, Im inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. And again, I believe he was speaking about his observations at the site, on the scene, as he wrapped her clothes around her for transport.

He recognized this once he had placed anything that was removed near her body in order to wrap it. What it was that was excised I would agree was determined at the pm.

[Harry D]

Lets put the record straight, there is no suggestion that a rogue mortuary attendant was responsible for physically removing the organs at the mortuary. Such a person would be incapable of effecting such a removal.

Whoever, then.

Someone, other than the killer that is, randomly removed a kidney from the corpse. You've argued before that it's a difficult organ to locate and extract. Why would someone go to that trouble and risk just to steal a kidney?

[Fisherman]

The killer had cut the abdomens wide open. He had gone through the trouble of moving the intestines out of the way, thereby making the bodies ready for organ extracting. So precisely why would we believe that somebody else took care of that part? Especially since we know quite well that the killer did it himself in the Kelly case, inextricably linked to the Chapman case by way of the cutting away of the abdominal wall in flaps in both these events.
It´s case closed. Pretending otherwise is an irresponsible waste of band width. Let's move on.

[Abby Normal]

The killer had cut the abdomens wide open. He had gone through the trouble of moving the intestines out of the way, thereby making the bodies ready for organ extracting. So precisely why would we believe that somebody else took care of that part? Especially since we know quite well that the killer did it himself in the Kelly case, inextricably linked to the Chapman case by way of the cutting away of the abdominal wall in flaps in both these events.
It´s case closed. Pretending otherwise is an irresponsible waste of band width. Let's move on.

Yes. Lets. Were venturing into lala land with this nonsense.

[John Wheat]

Whoever, then.

Someone, other than the killer that is, randomly removed a kidney from the corpse. You've argued before that it's a difficult organ to locate and extract. Why would someone go to that trouble and risk just to steal a kidney?

Exactly Harry. Besides where is the evidence that someone other than the killer took organs away?

[Trevor Marriott]

The killer had cut the abdomens wide open. He had gone through the trouble of moving the intestines out of the way, thereby making the bodies ready for organ extracting. So precisely why would we believe that somebody else took care of that part? Especially since we know quite well that the killer did it himself in the Kelly case, inextricably linked to the Chapman case by way of the cutting away of the abdominal wall in flaps in both these events.
It´s case closed. Pretending otherwise is an irresponsible waste of band width. Let's move on.

The killer mutilated the abdomens, there was no precision shown in those mutilations. Had there been so it might have been easier to suggest organ harvesting was part of the motive.

Yes it is case closed as far as i am concerned, there is no argument.
The organs were not found to be missing until the post mortems, many hours after the bodies had been left there.

You are another one on here who should take time to read my revised edition of Jack the Ripper The Real Truth. things may become clearer to one and all, but then again I doubt that, Now available in paperback, go on treat yourself you might learn something !

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Jack-Ripper-Truth-Trevor-Marriott/dp/1728912997/ref=sr_1_4_twi_pap_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1544701972&sr=1-4&keywords=trevor+marriott

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

[Trevor Marriott]

Exactly Harry. Besides where is the evidence that someone other than the killer took organs away?

Conversely, Where is the evidence that the killer took them ?

There is none only inferences !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk