JtR failed amputation. Torso killer was successful.

[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

[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]

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

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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?

[Sam Flynn]

Yes the intestines had been excised

They had been extruded, but not excised.

[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

[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