John Richardson

[Fiver]

Deleted as redundant.

[Fiver]

None of the organs were found missing at the crime scenes

That's because autopsies weren't performed in the street.

"The parts removed would be of no use for any professional purpose." - Dr Fredrick Gordon Brown.

[Fiver]

I am sure there are many out there who have read my theory on the organs and do concur with all that has been put forward...

Your supporters silence has been rather deafening.

..., its a shame you are not able to take the blinkers off and assess and evaluate the facts and evidence which I have provided, and your replies to what has been put forward are showing signs of desparation in trying to convince yourself that you are right.

We have looked at the speculation and theories that you have provided.

Your theory doesn't match the facts

"The parts removed would be of no use for any professional purpose." - Dr Fredrick Gordon Brown.

[Fiver]

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]

Lets look at the two competing theories.

1) The killer took organs as trophies.

2) Multiple medical personnel interfered with a police investigation in a high profile case to remove organs that were completely useless to them.

Unsurprising, only you see 2 as more likely.

[JeffHamm]

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.

Hi George,

Dr. Phillips is obliged to say he wasn't there during the transit if that were the case, but that doesn't mean he believed organs could have been lost at that stage (his statement about closing up the clothes, for example, indicates what he can testify to doing and by implication an act he believes would prevent such loss).

I should make it clear, Dr. Phillips reference to some organs being excised could, of course, be referring to the entrails that were placed over Annie's shoulders, and what he's indicating is that he placed them back in the body and closed up the clothes, etc. I recognized, and in my own defence, did mention that I think his statement is open to a few interpretations when it comes to knowing exactly what he's referring to. The problem for us is that one of those interpretations is that he noted the uterus missing, and therefore we cannot conclusively prove he hadn't made note of that at the time.

Also, we must take into account that Dr. Phillips was very reluctant to describe the injuries and mutilations and had a back and forth with the coroner on that point. So his reluctance to go into details seems like a reflection of what we know about his view of describing the nature and extent of the injuries - the less said the better. At this point of this testimony he has not yet had to present the information about the mutilations, so he has not yet said that the uterus was found to be missing. His evasiveness in his response at this point in time might not be so unexpected.

Sadly for us, written text strips from us some information that is useful in interpreting words and their intent. Depending upon the tone in which the sentence "Some portions had been excised", he could very well be indicating confidence that some portions were missing at the crime scene - if he was getting irritated with the coroner, which the previous back and forth about presenting the details is likely to have done, then his abrupt and truncated statement could reflect his mood. This is a constant problem we face - we're interested in the specifics, but with such limited testimony that does not explore the details, the ambiguity of language hinders our understanding.

I do see how your suggestion could be what he meant, of course, but I also see how he could actually be indicating that he noted the uterus was missing while at the crime scene. His testimony is just not specific enough for us to know exactly what he means.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

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

Hi George,

Ah, yes, you had mentioned that. I was thinking of the other report you also mentioned which describes a pretty clear chain of custody. Unfortunately, there are a few examples where the description of what happened at the mortuaries seems to differ substantially between who says what. The most comical at times is the issue around the stays in the Nichols' inquest, where the mortuary attendant says she wasn't wearing any, and someone pointed out to him that he showed them the stays, etc.

There's also some testimony where someone says they washed the body at the instructions of one of the PCs, but the PC states they never told anyone to undress and wash the body, and so forth.

Where the body was at the time the nurses found it seems another example of this confusion, and it is unfortunate that yet again we are faced with a situation where it would have been really helpful if the inquest had examined this contradiction in detail to find out where the mistake is and work out exactly what happened.

But, I rather doubt the body was left unattended in the yard, so even if it was there when the nurses arrived, I think it pushes beyond breaking the idea that it wasn't under custody at that time. If it were, I rather suspect there would have been questions raised about how it got there, or at least, why was it left unattended in the yard? Particularly in light of the coroner's questions with regard to when the organs may have gone missing - if he knew it were left in the yard unattended, I think he would have grilled the police pretty hard on that point. But of course, what I think is only that, what I think, it's not a fact.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

But, I rather doubt the body was left unattended in the yard, so even if it was there when the nurses arrived, I think it pushes beyond breaking the idea that it wasn't under custody at that time. If it were, I rather suspect there would have been questions raised about how it got there, or at least, why was it left unattended in the yard? Particularly in light of the coroner's questions with regard to when the organs may have gone missing - if he knew it were left in the yard unattended, I think he would have grilled the police pretty hard on that point. But of course, what I think is only that, what I think, it's not a fact.

- Jeff

What you doubt and what you think is irrelevant to what the facts and the evidence shows.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Lets look at the two competing theories.

1) The killer took organs as trophies. murders

I keep asking the question if organ harvesting was the reason for the murders why did the killer mutilate the abdomen in such a way that any organs he was seeking would be damaged? and why do we see no evidence that any attempt was made to remove organs from any of the other 7 victims who have been attributed to this same killer?

2) Multiple medical personnel interfered with a police investigation in a high profile case to remove organs that were completely useless to them.

This was 1888 not 2023 things were much different then, we know organs were traded from mortuaries that is documented the organs were not completely useless to them, the whole uterus intact was taken from Eddowes along with the fallopian tubes attached a perfect specimen for medical research

Unsurprising, only you see 2 as more likely.

The way I see it is that we have two different methods of the uterus being removed from Chapman and Eddowes one removed expertly and the other not so expertly. Add to that both these bodies were taken to two different mortuaries so with that difference the warning bells should ring because if the killer removed the uterus from Chapman with expert knowledge how come he did not use that same method to simply remove the uterus from Eddowes?

It has been suggested that the killer was acting in haste, but that maybe not the case because the killer was able to extract the kidney from Eddowes quite easily and the haste factor doesn't really apply because that is probably the most difficult organ to locate from a blood-filled abdomen in almost
total darkness.

Another way to explain the difference in how the organs were removed could have been due to the fact that whoever removed the uterus from Chapman at her mortuary may not have been the same remover of the organ from Eddowes at a different mortuary.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

What you doubt and what you think is irrelevant to what the facts and the evidence shows.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

Perhaps you are unaware of the implications of my closing statement where I said "But of course, what I think is only that, what I think, it's not a fact."?

- Jeff

[Fiver]

I keep asking the question if organ harvesting was the reason for the murders why did the killer mutilate the abdomen in such a way that any organs he was seeking would be damaged? and why do we see no evidence that any attempt was made to remove organs from any of the other 7 victims who have been attributed to this same killer?

These are arguments against your theory that multiple medical personnel interfered with a police investigation in a high profile case to remove organs that were completely useless to them.

[Trevor Marriott]

[/B]

These are arguments against your theory that multiple medical personnel interfered with a police investigation in a high profile case to remove organs that were completely useless to them.

Do you not read what I have put?

The uterus and fallopian tubes removed from Chapman were removed with medical expertise according to the doctor and the coroner and therefore a perfect specimen. So how can you describe that as a useless specimen? The kidney removed for Eddowes was also a useable specimen no one described it as not being that. The attempt at removing the uterus in Eddows case was clearly not fully achieved and only a portion taken

So if the killer removed the uterus from Chapman with no problems and he also removed a kidney from Eddowes again with no problems, given that shows a level of expertise, so why was he not able to make a simple removal of just the uterus from Eddowes? To me that shows the work of someone not fully au fait with how to remove a uterus, and points away from the person who removed the uterus from Chapman who effected a more complicated removal of Chapman's organ.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

The way I see it is that we have two different methods of the uterus being removed from Chapman and Eddowes one removed expertly and the other not so expertly. Add to that both these bodies were taken to two different mortuaries so with that difference the warning bells should ring because if the killer removed the uterus from Chapman with expert knowledge how come he did not use that same method to simply remove the uterus from Eddowes?

It has been suggested that the killer was acting in haste, but that maybe not the case because the killer was able to extract the kidney from Eddowes quite easily and the haste factor doesn't really apply because that is probably the most difficult organ to locate from a blood-filled abdomen in almost
total darkness.

Another way to explain the difference in how the organs were removed could have been due to the fact that whoever removed the uterus from Chapman at her mortuary may not have been the same remover of the organ from Eddowes at a different mortuary.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor,

The ‘blood filled abdomen’ things has surely been debunked by someone on here?

[JeffHamm]

Trevor,

The ‘blood filled abdomen’ things has surely been debunked by someone on here?

Hi Herlock,

I believe someone did present reasoned arguments against that description, however, the same can be said for many JtR topics, big and small, and yet they will still be presented as the one true anchor in a raging sea of false belief. There is no shield that protects one from alternative views more completely than ones own beliefs.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Do you not read what I have put?

The uterus and fallopian tubes removed from Chapman were removed with medical expertise according to the doctor and the coroner and therefore a perfect specimen. So how can you describe that as a useless specimen? The kidney removed for Eddowes was also a useable specimen no one described it as not being that. The attempt at removing the uterus in Eddows case was clearly not fully achieved and only a portion taken

So if the killer removed the uterus from Chapman with no problems and he also removed a kidney from Eddowes again with no problems, given that shows a level of expertise, so why was he not able to make a simple removal of just the uterus from Eddowes? To me that shows the work of someone not fully au fait with how to remove a uterus, and points away from the person who removed the uterus from Chapman who effected a more complicated removal of Chapman's organ.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

The uterus and kidney were never examined by the doctors, so how do you know they were in perfect condition? All the doctors could examine were the injuries, such as how the membrane over the kidney appeared to have been carefully cut. However, a cut in a membrane might appear to be a clean straight cut (or what ever a careful cut looks like) but that doesn't mean the kidney underneath wasn't damaged by inserting the knife too far in the first place.

You do not know the condition of the kidney, and the doctors did not examine it, therefore it is unsafe to assume that the kidney was a useable specimen. The same goes for Chapman's uterus.

In fact, if you look at the evidence of the crime, it appears JtR damaged many organs (there were cuts to the liver, for example), so it seems more probable that the missing organs were likewise damaged. Even if you don't agree with my probability assessment, you have to agree that it was possible for the missing organs to have been damaged, therefore your assumption they were in a usable/sellable condition is unsafe.

In short, the missing organs could have been damaged, therefore your theory is unsafe because we do not know the condition of the missing organs.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Do you not read what I have put?

The uterus and fallopian tubes removed from Chapman were removed with medical expertise according to the doctor and the coroner and therefore a perfect specimen. So how can you describe that as a useless specimen? The kidney removed for Eddowes was also a useable specimen no one described it as not being that. The attempt at removing the uterus in Eddows case was clearly not fully achieved and only a portion taken

So if the killer removed the uterus from Chapman with no problems and he also removed a kidney from Eddowes again with no problems, given that shows a level of expertise, so why was he not able to make a simple removal of just the uterus from Eddowes? To me that shows the work of someone not fully au fait with how to remove a uterus, and points away from the person who removed the uterus from Chapman who effected a more complicated removal of Chapman's organ.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So according to your thinking Eddowes skilfully removed kidney but unskilfully removed uterus should indicate that her kidney and uterus were removed by two different body part thief’s.

Correct?