Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Richardson

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    I’m wearing no goggles Trevor but I think that you spend too much time wearing the ‘I’m an ex-police officer so I must be right’ goggles.
    It's all the facts and the evidence medical included both from the doctors of the day and modern-day medical experts who have given invaluable medical advice surrounding all the murders that have to be considered, which you constantly ignore. There are far more points that suggest the killer didn't remove the organs than those that do.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

      It's all the facts and the evidence medical included both from the doctors of the day and modern-day medical experts who have given invaluable medical advice surrounding all the murders that have to be considered, which you constantly ignore. There are far more points that suggest the killer didn't remove the organs than those that do.

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
      Nope. Far more point to the killer taking them. You just magnify the points that appear to support your theory.

      Why no body parts stolen from Nichols or Stride?
      Regards

      Sir Herlock Sholmes.

      “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

        5. I can’t recall which but it was stated that for one of the murders a Constable was left guarding the body which would hardly have been conducive to body part stealing.

        But the mortuary you refer to where is the evidence to show that the mortuary was sealed off and no one was allowed in, The constable was there to stop unauthorised persons from gaining entry. The nurses went in and washed the body so why not the mortuary attendant and any other authorised persons
        From the Chapman inquest:

        Sergeant Baugham [Badham], 31 H, stated that he conveyed the body of the deceased to the mortuary on the ambulance.
        [Coroner] Are you sure that you took every portion of the body away with you? - Yes.
        [Coroner] Where did you deposit the body? - In the shed, still on the ambulance. I remained with it until Inspector Chandler arrived. Detective-Sergeant Thicke viewed the body, and I took down the description. There were present two women, who came to identify the body, and they described the clothing. They came from 35, Dorset-street.

        Inspector Chandler, recalled, said he reached the mortuary a few minutes after seven. The body did not appear to have been disturbed. He did not stay until the doctor arrived. Police-constable 376 H was left in charge, with the mortuary keeper. Robert Marne, the mortuary keeper and an inmate of the Whitechapel Union Workhouse, said he received the body at seven o'clock on Saturday morning. He remained at the mortuary until Dr. Phillips came. The door of the mortuary was locked except when two nurses from an infirmary came and undressed the body. No one else touched the corpse. He gave the key into the hands of the police.

        Dr. George Baxter Phillips
        The Coroner: The thickening of the tongue would be one of the signs of suffocation? - Yes. My impression is that she was partially strangled. Witness added that the handkerchief produced was, when found amongst the clothing, saturated with blood. A similar article was round the throat of the deceased when he saw her early in the morning at Hanbury-street.
        [Coroner] It had not the appearance of having been tied on afterwards? - No. Sarah Simonds, a resident nurse at the Whitechapel Infirmary, stated that, in company of the senior nurse, she went to the mortuary on Saturday, and found the body of the deceased on the ambulance in the yard. It was afterwards taken into the shed, and placed on the table.

        Dr. George Baxter Phillips​
        [Coroner] 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.

        It appears that there was a chain of custody of the body until it was locked in the mortuary shed and the key put into the hands of the police. However, the two nurses found the body in the yard outside the mortuary shed. The coroner asks Baugham if he took every portion away with him, and is then asking questions as to whether the missing organs could have been lost in transit. Note that Phillips replied that he wasn't present at the transit, but that "some portions had been excised" but doesn't state when the excision took place. I would have expected Phillips to reply "No, they were missing when I examined the body at #29".


        Who moved the body into the yard, and why?​​
        Last edited by GBinOz; 07-15-2023, 02:57 PM.
        They are not long, the days of wine and roses:
        Out of a misty dream
        Our path emerges for a while, then closes
        Within a dream.
        Ernest Dowson - Vitae Summa Brevis​

        ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

          Nope. Far more point to the killer taking them. You just magnify the points that appear to support your theory.

          Why no body parts stolen from Nichols or Stride?
          Because the bodies were not opened up in such a way that the organs could be removed before the post-mortem, and if the killer was harvesting organs conversely then why no attempt by the killer to open up the abdomens to facilitate removals from the other victims?

          Eddowes and Chapman were the only two victims where organs could have been taken at the mortuary and then when the post-mortem was carried out the killer would be blamed because the doctors at the crime scenes only carried out a cursory examination which didn't involve delving deep into abdomens to see if organs had been removed

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

            Because the bodies were not opened up in such a way that the organs could be removed before the post-mortem, and if the killer was harvesting organs conversely then why no attempt by the killer to open up the abdomens to facilitate removals from the other victims?

            Eddowes and Chapman were the only two victims where organs could have been taken at the mortuary and then when the post-mortem was carried out the killer would be blamed because the doctors at the crime scenes only carried out a cursory examination which didn't involve delving deep into abdomens to see if organs had been removed

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
            Basically, you’ve adopted this theory because, contrary to what the doctors said at the time, you don’t think that the killer had enough time in Mitre Square - it doesn’t bother you a jot that we can’t know exactly how much time the killer had available or the fact that the doctors at who were there said that the killer had ample time.

            Its also interesting that you accept a doctor’s opinion when he talks about medical knowledge (because it suits you) but you disagree with the doctors who said that the killer had enough time in Mitre Square (because it doesn’t suit you)

            It also doesn’t bother you that the killer had plenty of time in Hanbury Street. So the starting out point for your theory is you disagreeing with the doctors in Mitre Square only. And just for that reason, and because you know that a trade for body parts existed, you’ve woven a theory which you are unsuccessfully trying to convince everyone must be true.
            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes.

            “A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

              Because the bodies were not opened up in such a way that the organs could be removed before the post-mortem, and if the killer was harvesting organs conversely then why no attempt by the killer to open up the abdomens to facilitate removals from the other victims?

              Eddowes and Chapman were the only two victims where organs could have been taken at the mortuary and then when the post-mortem was carried out the killer would be blamed because the doctors at the crime scenes only carried out a cursory examination which didn't involve delving deep into abdomens to see if organs had been removed

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
              Hi Trevor,

              Ummm, .... Kelly? The organs were removed from the body and placed around the room, so all anyone had to do was pick one up and take it. How would an attendant know the police had made a list?

              There is plenty of evidence indicating her heart was taken away. Despite your arguments that the description of the heart being absent could just mean it was absent from the chest cavity, that doesn't mean that was the case (your alternative is "unsafe to rely upon"). And given we have the list of organs found at the scene, which does not list the heart, the balance of probabilities is that the heart was missing from the scene as well, making your alternative even more "unsafe to rely upon" than the original hypothesis that JtR took her heart.

              The taking of body parts as trophies by killers who mutilate and open up the body of their victims is disturbingly common (fortunately that sort of killer is not). They do not do this to harvest particular organs, but to take a memento. And they do not necessarily do this each and every time. We see other signs of trophy taking by JtR as well, Chapman's missing rings for example. I would not be at all surprised if he took other such items from other victims, that were not noticed as being missing simply because they would not be missed. Trophies are often items that have no apparent value - it's not the value of the item that matters but the fact it serves as a reminder of that victim. Similarly, the body parts do not have to have a "value" as we understand it, because the "value" is something idiosyncratic to the killer's way of thinking - which is clearly unlike ours.

              Clearly with Stride, if she was a victim, it wasn't possible at all due to the lack of mutilations (multiple lines of explanations exist for that, including her not being a victim of JtR) and Nichols, who was the first of the mutilation murders, and so the idea of taking an organ may not have yet formulated in JtR or, alternatively, there is the possibility that the arrival of Cross/Lechmere resulted in his departure before he completed what he would have otherwise done. Again, we can't know, but there are a multiple lines of possibilities that cannot be closed, hence making your theory "unsafe to rely upon completely". Is your idea worth considering? Yes, of course, and if any evidence ever turns up to support it, then the ranking of the explanations could change (note, simply showing there was a market for organs isn't evidence that these organs from these crimes were taken for that market). However, the fact that people don't ascribe to your explanation does not mean they haven't considered it, so your statements to the contrary are incorrect. Considering something does not mean one has to agree with it - that isn't what considering means. You might get a bit more traction if you presented your alternative in language that does not indicate it is being presented as the only possible explanation - it isn't, it is a speculative alternative, offered only as a warning not to become too closed minded given that the information we actually have is not complete.

              In other words, the organ harvesting at the mortuary alternative has little actual evidential support as an explanation for these particular crimes, and is simply one of the many speculative "but if ..." or "maybe ..." type of ideas that get thrown out as a demonstration of what happens when dealing with a set of evidence that is insufficient to solve a case. The taking of organs by JtR is currently the best hypothesis based upon the information we have is currently have, and was the conclusion of the police at the time, who knew a lot more than we do now.

              - Jeff
              Last edited by JeffHamm; 07-15-2023, 09:30 PM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
                Hi Trevor,

                Ummm, .... Kelly? The organs were removed from the body and placed around the room, so all anyone had to do was pick one up and take it. How would an attendant know the police had made a list?

                But no organs were taken by the killer, and to be fair he could have taken the whole contents of her abdomen

                There is plenty of evidence indicating her heart was taken away. Despite your arguments that the description of the heart being absent could just mean it was absent from the chest cavity, that doesn't mean that was the case (your alternative is "unsafe to rely upon"). And given we have the list of organs found at the scene, which does not list the heart, the balance of probabilities is that the heart was missing from the scene as well, making your alternative even more "unsafe to rely upon" than the original hypothesis that JtR took her heart.

                There is an ambigiuos statement from the doctor that the heart was missing from the pericardium following this there is no evidence from any medical men that the heart was confirmed as taken away by the killer, not even in Bonds report to Anderson.

                The taking of body parts as trophies by killers who mutilate and open up the body of their victims is disturbingly common (fortunately that sort of killer is not). They do not do this to harvest particular organs, but to take a memento. And they do not necessarily do this each and every time. We see other signs of trophy taking by JtR as well, Chapman's missing rings for example. I would not be at all surprised if he took other such items from other victims, that were not noticed as being missing simply because they would not be missed. Trophies are often items that have no apparent value - it's not the value of the item that matters but the fact it serves as a reminder of that victim. Similarly, the body parts do not have to have a "value" as we understand it, because the "value" is something idiosyncratic to the killer's way of thinking - which is clearly unlike ours.

                As far as the anatomy act is concerned which allowed bona fide medical persons free access to organs from a mortuary and there is a price list as t what they have to pay and as we know their was an illicit trade in organs from mortuaries

                Clearly with Stride, if she was a victim, it wasn't possible at all due to the lack of mutilations (multiple lines of explanations exist for that, including her not being a victim of JtR) and Nichols, who was the first of the mutilation murders, and so the idea of taking an organ may not have yet formulated in JtR or, alternatively, there is the possibility that the arrival of Cross/Lechmere resulted in his departure before he completed what he would have otherwise done. Again, we can't know, but there are a multiple lines of possibilities that cannot be closed, hence making your theory "unsafe to rely upon completely". Is your idea worth considering? Yes, of course, and if any evidence ever turns up to support it, then the ranking of the explanations could change (note, simply showing there was a market for organs isn't evidence that these organs from these crimes were taken for that market). However, the fact that people don't ascribe to your explanation does not mean they haven't considered it, so your statements to the contrary are incorrect. Considering something does not mean one has to agree with it - that isn't what considering means. You might get a bit more traction if you presented your alternative in language that does not indicate it is being presented as the only possible explanation - it isn't, it is a speculative alternative, offered only as a warning not to become too closed minded given that the information we actually have is not complete.

                Yes its easy to make that sort of excuse for the other victims, but if the killer was murdering and taking trophies why did he not find a victim and go to a location of his choice where he could carry out the murder and removal of the organs.

                In other words, the organ harvesting at the mortuary alternative has little actual evidential support as an explanation for these particular crimes, and is simply one of the many speculative "but if ..." or "maybe ..." type of ideas that get thrown out as a demonstration of what happens when dealing with a set of evidence that is insufficient to solve a case. The taking of organs by JtR is currently the best hypothesis based upon the information we have is currently have, and was the conclusion of the police at the time, who knew a lot more than we do now.- Jeff
                It may explain all the ambiguities in these murders as to why some victims were missing organs and the medical opinion at the time was that whoever removed those organs had more than a basic knowledge of anatomy and then we see evidence of botched removals, we also have to take into account two different methods of the removal of the uterus from Chapman and Eddowes, and the fact that these different extractions took place at two different mortuaries, coupled with the known fact that there was an illicit trade in organs with mortuary attendants being complicit in the illicit trade

                Not to mention the time the killer would have had with Eddowes and having to murder and mutilate in a time in almost total darkness, which I find unbelievable having regard to the doctor's comments from the crime scene as to how long it would have taken the killer to do all that he is alleged to have done.

                I now grow tired of having to keep repeating the same things over again, you have a hypothesis that JTR removed the organs but in my opinion that is not proved conclusively beyond a reasonable doubt.






                Comment


                • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                  Basically, you’ve adopted this theory because, contrary to what the doctors said at the time, you don’t think that the killer had enough time in Mitre Square - it doesn’t bother you a jot that we can’t know exactly how much time the killer had available or the fact that the doctors at who were there said that the killer had ample time.

                  There is no evidence to show that, if the killer and Eddowes were seen by Lawende there is no evidence to show what time they left that location and into the square

                  Its also interesting that you accept a doctor’s opinion when he talks about medical knowledge (because it suits you) but you disagree with the doctors who said that the killer had enough time in Mitre Square (because it doesn’t suit you)

                  Dr Brown says at least 5 mins would be needed, Dr Sequeira says 3 mins is that not a conflict?

                  It also doesn’t bother you that the killer had plenty of time in Hanbury Street. So the starting out point for your theory is you disagreeing with the doctors in Mitre Square only. And just for that reason, and because you know that a trade for body parts existed, you’ve woven a theory which you are unsuccessfully trying to convince everyone must be true.
                  YOu do not know how long the killer had on Hanbury Street in fact the TOD cannot be verified



                  Comment


                  • Hi Trevor,

                    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                    I now grow tired of having to keep repeating the same things over again, you have a hypothesis that JTR removed the organs but in my opinion that is not proved conclusively beyond a reasonable doubt.[/B]

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                    Yes, that is what I said, there is a hypothesis that the killer took organs from the crime scenes. You have an alternative hypothesis, that unbeknownst to any of the medical staff who visited the crime scenes, and later performed the autopsies, some organs were stolen from multiple different mortuary locations to be sold on the black market.

                    All I am saying is that the information we have available to us now, and apparently the information available to the police and medical people at the time (which is more information than we have, obviously), points to the former as there is no evidence at all of the latter possibility.

                    The difference in the "technique" used to remove the uterus from Chapman and Eddowes is not evidence of two different people performing the removals, despite your suggestion that it may. Rather, we must consider the details of the two different crimes. First, Chapman appears to be killed when there was much more light than Eddowes. Second, JtR appears to be in a greater state of agitation at the Eddowes murder (frenzied attack on the face, for example), resulting in a botched removal of the uterus (about 1/3rd I believe was still in the body) and damaging the bowel resulting in faecal matter spillage. Third, "anatomical knowledge" (knowing where organs might be found) is not the same as "medical surgical knowledge" (being trained in standard procedures to remove human organs). That means, while JtR may have an idea where to find things, he need not have a standard way of cutting them out. The fact he appears to have done it differently may reflect any or all of the following (they are not mutually exclusive):

                    a) differences in lighting conditions
                    b) differences in his general state of agitation
                    c) the fact he isn't trained in any particular method

                    We don't know, but there is certainly no reason to immediately jump to the unsafe conclusion that the removals were done by different people.

                    We also have to consider the fact that Dr. Phillips was called to the Eddowes crime scene for consultation. While we do not know what that involved, it seems reasonable for us to consider the probability that they examined the body. Moreover, given that Chapman's uterus was missing, it would be unwise to dismiss the probability that during that examination that would be something they would check on. Unfortunately for us, there is no record of what consultation procedures were carried out at the crime scene, so I recognize these are not substantiated as facts - but there is as much evidence for this to have happened as you have put forth with regards to your alternative hypothesis.

                    Ergo, it is entirely unsafe to rely upon organ theft as an explanation, which you appear to be doing. If you are not relying upon organ theft to be true, then you simply need to present it in less definitive terms and stop claiming that those who simply support a different, but also viable, explanation are somehow "blinkered".

                    - Jeff
                    Last edited by JeffHamm; 07-15-2023, 10:53 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
                      Hi Trevor,



                      Yes, that is what I said, there is a hypothesis that the killer took organs from the crime scenes. You have an alternative hypothesis, that unbeknownst to any of the medical staff who visited the crime scenes, and later performed the autopsies, some organs were stolen from multiple different mortuary locations to be sold on the black market.

                      All I am saying is that the information we have available to us now, and apparently the information available to the police and medical people at the time (which is more information than we have, obviously), points to the former as there is no evidence at all of the latter possibility.

                      The difference in the "technique" used to remove the uterus from Chapman and Eddowes is not evidence of two different people performing the removals, despite your suggestion that it may. Rather, we must consider the details of the two different crimes. First, Chapman appears to be killed when there was much more light than Eddowes. Second, JtR appears to be in a greater state of agitation at the Eddowes murder (frenzied attack on the face, for example), resulting in a botched removal of the uterus (about 1/3rd I believe was still in the body) and damaging the bowel resulting in faecal matter spillage. Third, "anatomical knowledge" (knowing where organs might be found) is not the same as "medical surgical knowledge" (being trained in standard procedures to remove human organs). That means, while JtR may have an idea where to find things, he need not have a standard way of cutting them out. The fact he appears to have done it differently may reflect any or all of the following (they are not mutually exclusive):

                      Two different methods of extraction of the same organ from two different mortuaries

                      a) differences in lighting conditions
                      b) differences in his general state of agitation
                      c) the fact he isn't trained in any particular method

                      The issue with the lighting is important because if Chapman was killed at an early time of death then it would have been total darkness in the rear yard. Yet the doctor and the coroner state that the killer had more than enough anatomical knowledge not only to find the uterus but to surgically remove it with the fallopian tubes attached, and the TOD is not conclusive

                      We don't know, but there is certainly no reason to immediately jump to the unsafe conclusion that the removals were done by different people.

                      There is no unsafe conclusion just look at the facts, different methods different hands

                      We also have to consider the fact that Dr. Phillips was called to the Eddowes crime scene for consultation. While we do not know what that involved, it seems reasonable for us to consider the probability that they examined the body. Moreover, given that Chapman's uterus was missing, it would be unwise to dismiss the probability that during that examination that would be something they would check on. Unfortunately for us, there is no record of what consultation procedures were carried out at the crime scene, so I recognize these are not substantiated as facts - but there is as much evidence for this to have happened as you have put forth with regards to your alternative hypothesis.

                      To say the body was examined at the crime scene and organs were found missing is making it up, the inquest testimony from the medical men does not support that suggestion

                      Ergo, it is entirely unsafe to rely upon organ theft as an explanation, which you appear to be doing. If you are not relying upon organ theft to be true, then you simply need to present it in less definitive terms and stop claiming that those who simply support a different, but also viable, explanation are somehow "blinkered".

                      - Jeff
                      I can't present it in any clearer terms than I have done, you and Herlock need to take a step back and appraise all the facts which I have presented which are many instead of cherry-picking parts which you choose to argue on which have no foundation.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                        I can't present it in any clearer terms than I have done, you and Herlock need to take a step back and appraise all the facts which I have presented which are many instead of cherry-picking parts which you choose to argue on which have no foundation.
                        Hi Trevor,

                        You've presented your arguments clear enough, they just don't lead to a safe conclusion. I have appraised the facts, as we know them, and I've compared them to the two different hypotheses in question. As a result of that appraisal, your alternative comes out the less convincing.

                        Your presentation makes your reasoning appear flawed. For example, you point out the ToD is not conclusive, and so you suggest Annie may have been killed in total darkness, and use that possibility to conclude the killer must have had surgical knowledge (although you continue to incorrectly use the term "anatomical knowledge", which is not the same thing).

                        But the flaw in your reasoning is that you cannot say with certainty that she was killed in total darkness, because as you point out, the ToD is not conclusive in your view. If it is not conclusive in your view, then you cannot draw conclusions but rather only speculate upon what the implications of different possibilities are. And speculations are just something one makes up as a "possible explanation", otherwise known as a hypothesis.

                        As you know, my reading of the information that we have leads me to the conclusion that the ToD is far more likely to be in the vicinity of 5:25, as that time does not contradict any of the testimonies, medical or eye/ear witnesses. Moreover, that ToD is resistant to change even if one has concerns about some of the eye/ear witnesses - even dismissing all of them still leaves 5:25 in the list of possible times due to the inherant error margins of the medical estimates for ToD. As such, I believe that to be the most evidence based ToD, though I've also said that doesn't mean I wouldn't reassess my opinion in light of new evidence (note, evidence, not speculations).

                        You seem to have misunderstood me where I suggested the doctors may have examined Eddowes with respect to whether or not her uterus was missing. You seem to have interpreted what I said as if I were saying that did happen - but having re-read my post it is very clear that is not what I had written at all. I pointed out that it would be "unwise to dismiss the possibility" ..., meaning it would be unsafe to base an explanation that requires they did not do what seems a likely crime-scene analysis. You are doing that with your organ thieves though, as your explanation requires that the doctors had not noted her missing uterus at the crime scene - that is unsafe because it has not conclusively been shown they did not make such an examination. And yes, I did just "make it up" because that is what a hypothesis is - something we make up, like your organ thieves - you made them up and present them as possibilities. You haven't shown there to be organ thieves connected to the crimes, the police didn't suspect organ thieves, the doctors didn't suggest organ thieves, rather you made them up and suggested them. It's a hypothesis, and we make up hypotheses, and if what we make up happens to be what actually happened, then our made up story will explain the evidence really well. That's how it works, that's what constitutes evidence based investigation - make up as many things as possible, then look to see if those things happened. I can't prove the doctors noted her uterus was missing, so I don't insist they did, I only suggested they may have, and given we do not have a description of what the doctors consulted upon at the crime scene, then we are simply left with maybe they did and maybe they did not - and any theory that requires either of those is by definition unsafe. Your organ thieves require they did not, and therefore it is unsafe.

                        Of course, if you have access to a document outlining what the medical people did and did not take note of when consulting at the crime scene then by all means present it here and I will be more than happy to remove that from the list of things we need to consider as possible. If you do not, however, have such information, I then put it to you that "organ theft" is unsafe because it cannot be conclusively proven the doctors did not examine for the presence/absence of the uterus at the crime scene.

                        And, to anticipate your response of they did not mention it at the inquest, I then put forth the fact that they did not mention Kelly's heart on the police list of organs, and will hold you to the same criterion when evaluating that information as you seem to be of the opinion that just because the police didn't list the heart when listing the organs found, they had found it all the same.

                        Also, you clearly did not understand the start of my post. I outlined many different reasons why the same person might (note that word, might, it is important to understand that to comprehend what I'm saying here) remove the uterus differently between the Chapman and Eddowes crimes. And by doing so, I demonstrate why it is unsafe to base a theory that relies on two different people, which your organ thieves idea does, and that makes what you're suggesting an unsafe conclusion, by the very definition of what you yourself say makes something unsafe.

                        You're presenting your speculations as if they are proven fact, or at least as if they are the only possible lines of speculation worthy of following. They are not, by any stretch of the imagination. They are, by your own criterions, unsafe.

                        But unsafe applies to everything in JtR, so it's a bit redundant. What people are doing is evaluating a collection of possible explanations, any and all of which are to some degree or another unsafe, and deciding which of those is the "least unsafe". We all tend to evaluate the evidence differently because some of that evaluation comes down to subjective ideas due to our inability to gather more information. So the fact that some people rank your suggestions as more unsafe than some other suggestion is not evidence people have not considered your suggestion. Just because I don't buy it doesn't mean I didn't look at it and compare it with other suggestions.

                        I have, but you've presented nothing that conclusively proves that organ thieves took any of the JtR victim's organs. And since you say that if something cannot be conclusively proven it is unsafe, therefore your organ thieves are unsafe by your own criterion. Presenting your argument is not conclusively proving anything, particularly as the conclusion you draw about multiple people having to have removed the organs is not as conclusive as you may think it is; there are many other viable explanations for that evidence that do not involve more than just one JtR doing the removal, no thieves required.

                        - Jeff
                        Last edited by JeffHamm; 07-16-2023, 12:14 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Deleted - point already raised earlier
                          Last edited by etenguy; 07-16-2023, 12:29 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                            From the Chapman inquest:

                            ...

                            Dr. George Baxter Phillips​
                            [Coroner] 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] [/COLOR][/I]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.

                            It appears that there was a chain of custody of the body until it was locked in the mortuary shed and the key put into the hands of the police. However, the two nurses found the body in the yard outside the mortuary shed. The coroner asks Baugham if he took every portion away with him, and is then asking questions as to whether the missing organs could have been lost in transit. Note that Phillips replied that he wasn't present at the transit, but that "some portions had been excised" but doesn't state when the excision took place. I would have expected Phillips to reply "No, they were missing when I examined the body at #29".


                            Who moved the body into the yard, and why?​​
                            Hi George,

                            Nice post. It is a shame that the statement "Some portions had been excised." was not made more specific, as you point out, to include the bit you expected or to exclude that possibility. Unfortunately, people's speech often leaves somethings out because they feel it is patently obvious, something we are all to able to show is just not true. Language is a horribly imprecise method of communication, but it is what we have to work with. If this were a criminal trial, there would be a lot more questions asked, details more thoroughly explored, and so forth to clear up such unanswered questions that we are now faced with. But the above statement may be all we have as a pointer to the suggestion I have made that it is possible that the doctor's noted the missing uterus at the crime scene, although I was referring to the Eddowes' murder. However, the same concern appears to apply to the Chapman case as well (did Phillips note the uterus was missing when he did the body examination at the scene? He did state he noted heat under the intestines, so we know he was examining the internal cavity at the scene). Sadly, it is not specific enough to shift that from being a possible idea that we cannot conclusively draw or dismiss, but it does mean there is a reason why such an examination might be made at the Eddowes' crime scene - in case the coroner asks this question again, the doctors may have done an "inventory check" before Eddowes' was trasferred. We see quite a thorough list compiled at the Kelly scene, and again, perhaps that in part reflects the coroner having asked this very question at the Chapman case. And the quote suggests such an examination may even have occurred at the Chapman crime scene, in which case the uterus was known to be missing before the body reached the mortuary. The portion of your post I deleted also describes the chain of custody of Chapman's body, and there does not appear to be any opportunity for organ thieves to have stolen anything (unless the argument is that the nurses were the organ thieves I suppose).

                            I do appreciate how you always go back and grab details from the inquest, and I really should learn to do the same more frequently. I do occasionally remember to search for things, and that is in part a result of noting how you always find relevant details that need to be mentioned. So hats off to you.

                            - Jeff
                            Last edited by JeffHamm; 07-16-2023, 12:50 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                              You seem to have misunderstood me where I suggested the doctors may have examined Eddowes with respect to whether or not her uterus was missing. You seem to have interpreted what I said as if I were saying that did happen - but having re-read my post it is very clear that is not what I had written at all. I pointed out that it would be "unwise to dismiss the possibility" ..., meaning it would be unsafe to base an explanation that requires they did not do what seems a likely crime-scene analysis. You are doing that with your organ thieves though, as your explanation requires that the doctors had not noted her missing uterus at the crime scene - that is unsafe because it has not conclusively been shown they did not make such an examination.

                              - Jeff
                              Hi Jeff,

                              I am in total agreement that the logical presumption is that the Doctor would at least notice if there were organs missing at the crime scene. That would be my expectation, but of course my expectation was they they would have used a thermometer to determine temperature and that appears not to be the case. Given the uncertainty of this factor that arose in Chapman's case, it would be reasonable to expect that the question would have been foremost in Eddowes case.

                              In my post #3528 I showed that the chain of custody of Chapman's body was broken. And this:
                              Dr. George Baxter Phillips​
                              [Coroner] 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.


                              Why was Phillips reticent to state when the organs were excised? He speaks of not being involved in the transit, and closing the clothes before transit, neither of which obviate the possibility that they were lost during or after transit. The whole line of the coroner's questioning of Baugham, Chandler and Phillips seems to revolve around an uncertainty of when the organs were excised. Phillips could have clarified the whole situation by just saying "The organs were missing from the body when I examined it at the crime scene". Curious.

                              Cheers, George

                              Ooops, simultaneous post with #3538.
                              Last edited by GBinOz; 07-16-2023, 01:11 AM.
                              They are not long, the days of wine and roses:
                              Out of a misty dream
                              Our path emerges for a while, then closes
                              Within a dream.
                              Ernest Dowson - Vitae Summa Brevis​

                              ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                                Hi George,

                                Unfortunately, people's speech often leaves somethings out because they feel it is patently obvious, something we are all to able to show is just not true.
                                Agreed, but it is also often because they just don't know. It appears to me that Phillips is evading the question.

                                The portion of your post I deleted also describes the chain of custody of Chapman's body, and there does not appear to be any opportunity for organ thieves to have stolen anything (unless the argument is that the nurses were the organ thieves I suppose).

                                - Jeff
                                Hi Jeff,

                                Chapman's body was left in the shed under lock and key with the key in the possession of the police. Then the nurses found the body, still on the ambulance cart, in the yard. Someone must have had access to the body (and the key) in order to move it from the shed to the yard, and access implies opportunity.

                                Best regards, George
                                They are not long, the days of wine and roses:
                                Out of a misty dream
                                Our path emerges for a while, then closes
                                Within a dream.
                                Ernest Dowson - Vitae Summa Brevis​

                                ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X