JtR failed amputation. Torso killer was successful.

[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.

[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.

[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).

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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.

[Sam Flynn]

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.

Unfortunately, those aren't Bagster Phillips' post mortem notes, but an editorial in The Lancet written weeks after the murder, when the full story had already been covered in the press. This editorial may have conflated a number of strands of testimony, not necessarily solely that of Dr Phillips, and we can't tell that it's written in chronological order of discovery. "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.

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. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this was indeed the case, but there's no direct evidence I can recall which shows that the absence of the organs was noticed before Chapman was taken away from Hanbury Street.

[Michael W Richards]

The organs of chapman and Eddowes were not found to be missing until the post mortems many hours later after the bodies had been removed from the crime scenes
Might I suggest you read my new review of mitre square in my revised edition of Jack the Ripper-the real truth

It also covers the Kelly murder

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

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.

[Trevor Marriott]

I understand your committment to this belief Trevor, but we have statements from qualified contemporary medical experts who disagree with you. The bodies were examined where they lay, and obviously missing parts were determined. The only case where that took a little extra time is in room 13.

The organs of chapman and Eddowes were not found to be missing until the post mortems many hours later after the bodies had been removed from the crime scenes
Might I suggest you read my new review of mitre square in my revised edition of Jack the Ripper-the real truth

It also covers the Kelly murder

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Michael W Richards]

Yes, but not the killer !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I understand your committment to this belief Trevor, but we have statements from qualified contemporary medical experts who disagree with you. The bodies were examined where they lay, and obviously missing parts were determined. The only case where that took a little extra time is in room 13.

[Trevor Marriott]

Good question Trevor, when you also imagine, in Chapmans case, that he is doing this with some 17 people I believe sleeping in the building and the yard windows that faced into the area by the cellar steps. It would seem to me that someone who would even attempt this had to have some confidence that he could pull this off without getting caught. The speed is an issue. This is someone who has done similar things before, in rapid succession. Processing.

Yes, but not the killer !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

Not much more complicated than cutting a head of cabbage from its stem, albeit a cabbage stem is thicker and tougher.

[Michael W Richards]

I think when it comes to organ removal, there is a big difference between reading about removing them, and actually being able to do it, especially in almost total darkness without a lot of practice.

As i have said before, for the killer to have removed Eddowes organs in the little time available to him he must have been as proficient, if not even more than Dr Browns expert, and I would suggest those persons were few and far between in 1888, and if the killer were of that category why would he take organs when he could have freely obtained them?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Good question Trevor, when you also imagine, in Chapmans case, that he is doing this with some 17 people I believe sleeping in the building and the yard windows that faced into the area by the cellar steps. It would seem to me that someone who would even attempt this had to have some confidence that he could pull this off without getting caught. The speed is an issue. This is someone who has done similar things before, in rapid succession. Processing.