JtR failed amputation. Torso killer was successful.

[Trevor Marriott]

That's what it all boils down to it would seem - an effort to flog your book? Well, flog away - I have no interest at all to prolong any discussion that could in any way encourage anybody to make that purchase and so I'm off.

Thats it run away from the truth !

As Jack Nicholson said in the film A few good men, "The truth, you cant handle the truth" never more true words spoken

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

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.

That's what it all boils down to it would seem - an effort to flog your book? Well, flog away - I have no interest at all to prolong any discussion that could in any way encourage anybody to make that purchase and so I'm off.

[Sam Flynn]

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.

Who needs precision, when the cuts made in the abdomens were so ridiculously large that the organs in question were easily within reach?

[Sam Flynn]

When Bagster observed that some items had been excised, Im inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

He meant "cut out", no doubt - "excise" is a very specific word, and a medical man wouldn't have used it unless he'd meant to.

[John Wheat]

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

There is none only inferences !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But that is clearly the likeliest scenario. So it's up to those proposing something different to come up with the evidence.

[Sam Flynn]

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.

A child could do it.

[Sam Flynn]

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

Precisely. And why not take (both) kidneys from the other victims, too, if he had time and privacy on his side? Why not do a better, more consistent, job on the uteri and bladders?

[Sam Flynn]

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

Three bodies are found ripped open with their bowels pulled out. They are taken to separate mortuaries staffed by different people, yet all three transpire to have organs missing. Who's taking the organs? An itinerant mortuary attendant? The offal equivalent of the tooth fairy?

[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

[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.
Itīs 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.

[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?

[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.
Itīs 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.

[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.
Itīs case closed. Pretending otherwise is an irresponsible waste of band width. Let's move on.

[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?

[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.