Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Richardson

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

  • From the questioning of Dr George Baxter Phillips, under oath, at the Inquest, Wednesday Sept 12th, Daily Telegraph:

    "[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.​

    Phillips is saying that he recognized that some portions had been "excised" at the scene. In case anyone mistakes that terms meaning he specifically noted that the intestines were; "The small intestines and other portions were lying on the right side of the body on the ground above the right shoulder, but attached."

    All this discussion suggesting that there is no official record of organs being taken from the victim at the scene of the crime is incorrect. Phillips saw that "portions had been excised" at the scene.

    He also believed that the killer had even greater skills than were visibly present with Annie cuts, but in the killers haste, he made small cuts that were not surgical grade. Think of the light available there for the killer, think of the stress doing that where he could be discovered at any minute, it seems quite credible he was not at his best form at that minute.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

      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?
      Now it shows you are thinking

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
        From the questioning of Dr George Baxter Phillips, under oath, at the Inquest, Wednesday Sept 12th, Daily Telegraph:

        "[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.​

        Phillips is saying that he recognized that some portions had been "excised" at the scene. In case anyone mistakes that terms meaning he specifically noted that the intestines were; "The small intestines and other portions were lying on the right side of the body on the ground above the right shoulder, but attached."

        All this discussion suggesting that there is no official record of organs being taken from the victim at the scene of the crime is incorrect. Phillips saw that "portions had been excised" at the scene.

        He also believed that the killer had even greater skills than were visibly present with Annie cuts, but in the killers haste, he made small cuts that were not surgical grade. Think of the light available there for the killer, think of the stress doing that where he could be discovered at any minute, it seems quite credible he was not at his best form at that minute.
        No Phillps did not see that organs had been removed what he saw were the intestines over her upper body which he refers to and to which you allude

        Comment


        • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

          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
          I never said they were in perfect condition we know from what was documented that the uterus of Eddowes was damaged when removed, but there is no evidence to suggest that the kidney was botched in removal so we can draw an inference that it was in good condition, as was the uterus of Chapman

          As to the anatomical knowledge shown in the Chapman removals I refer to Dr Phillips and the coroner

          [Coroner] Was there any anatomical knowledge displayed?
          Dr Phillips I think there was.

          Coroners summing up


          "There are no meaningless cuts. It was done by one who knew where to find what he wanted, what difficulties he would have to contend against, and how he should use his knife, so as to abstract the organ without injury to it. No unskilled person could have known where to find it, or have recognised it when it was found"

          You also mention JTR damaging organs if you recall I have said many times that if the killer was organs harvesting why did he mutilate the abdomens of some of the victims and act that would damage any organs he was intent on harvesting

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk​

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

            Your supporters silence has been rather deafening.



            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.

            But that's not true the uterus and the fallopian tubes were a perfect specimen from Chapman

            Comment


            • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

              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
              If the mortuary was full then they would have to have left the body outside after all this mortuary was nothing more than a shed at the workhouse and I would imagine not hold many bodies.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                If the mortuary was full then they would have to have left the body outside after all this mortuary was nothing more than a shed at the workhouse and I would imagine not hold many bodies.
                Hi Trevor,

                I have cut and pasted some timeline detail from here:


                SAT, SEP 8, 1888
                c.6:30am

                Dr Phillips arrived upon the scene and began his initial examination.

                SAT, SEP 8, 1888
                c.6:40am

                The ambulance had arrived and Dr Phillips ordered the body to be taken to the Whitechapel Workhouse Infirmary Mortuary in Eagle St off of Old Montague St.

                SAT, SEP 8, 1888
                7:00am

                Robert Mann received Annie's body at the mortuary.82

                SAT, SEP 8, 1888
                c.7:02am

                Insp Chandler arrived at the mortuary. The body was still on the ambulance, and he took a description of Annie's clothing
                Insp Chandler then left the mortuary, leaving Police Constable Barnes in charge of the body.83

                SAT, SEP 8, 1888
                (7:10am)

                Sgt Thick arrived at the mortuary and took Annie's description

                SAT, SEP 8, 1888
                c.7:30am

                Simmons was taken to the mortuary and immediately recognized Annie, noting that she had on 3 rings when she left the lodging house.

                SAT, SEP 8, 1888
                That Morning

                Donovan identified the body as Annie Siffey. (Most likely Evans also identified the body at this time.)

                SAT, SEP 8, 1888
                11:30am

                Palmer was taken to the mortuary and identified the body as Annie Chapman, (aka Dark Annie).​​​​
                ​​​
                SAT, SEP 8, 1888
                c.2:00pm

                Dr Phillips arrived at the mortuary to conduct the postmortem and found that the body had already been stripped, partially washed, and laid on the table waiting for him. The clothes were tossed into a corner except for the neckerchief which was still around the neck. (The Clerk to the Parish Guardians ordered two nurses, Mary Simonds and Francis Wright, to lay out the body. This was done without police consent.)


                It seems reasonable to me to that when Palmer viewed the body it would have been still clothed and in the mortuary shed. It would seem that between 11:30 am and 2:00 pm the body was moved to the yard where it was found by the nurses.

                From the inquest:
                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.

                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.

                What is the point of the mortuary door being locked, with the key in the hands of the police, if the body was outside? It would also seem to me to be strange that if the mortuary shed was overcrowded, the body of a murder victim would be the one selected to be placed outside. I agree with Jeff in finding it curious that the coroner did not pick up on this anomaly and grill the police over it, however, the removal of the body from a locked shed, to be found in the yard and then moved back into the shed, would seem to be the opportunity for the tampering of the nature that you propose.

                Cheers, George
                It's sad that governments are chiefed by the double tongues. There is iron in your words of death for all Comanche to see, and so there is iron in your words of life. It shall be life. - Ten Bears

                All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. - Bladerunner

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

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                  If the mortuary was full then they would have to have left the body outside after all this mortuary was nothing more than a shed at the workhouse and I would imagine not hold many bodies.

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                  As you said to me, what you imagine is irrelevant to the facts of the case; either you can prove the shed was full or you cannot know. Personally I find it hard to imagine the make shift mortuary was actually full of bodies awaiting autopsy, but I also know I cannot prove that so don't fault people for not agreeing with me. Imagination is a wonderful thing, but it's not a fact generator.

                  - Jeff

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                    I never said they were in perfect condition we know from what was documented that the uterus of Eddowes was damaged when removed, but there is no evidence to suggest that the kidney was botched in removal so we can draw an inference that it was in good condition, as was the uterus of Chapman
                    Chapman's uterus was never examined, so you cannot prove it was not damaged. All that could be examined was the nature of the cuts used to remove it, but not the condition of the actual uterus. It is entirely possible that the uterus was cut from above, or damaged, but taken by JtR all the same. You can't prove it was in perfect shape because it was never seen. Therefore, there is always the possibility it was damaged so your idea of skillful organ theft is unsafe.
                    As to the anatomical knowledge shown in the Chapman removals I refer to Dr Phillips and the coroner

                    [Coroner] Was there any anatomical knowledge displayed?
                    Dr Phillips I think there was.

                    Coroners summing up


                    "There are no meaningless cuts. It was done by one who knew where to find what he wanted, what difficulties he would have to contend against, and how he should use his knife, so as to abstract the organ without injury to it. No unskilled person could have known where to find it, or have recognised it when it was found"
                    So you accept then that murder occurred around 5:25 given the same coroner, during the same summing up, also said:
                    "
                    It is true that Dr. Phillips thinks that when he saw the body at 6.30 the deceased had been dead at least two hours, but he admits that the coldness of the morning and the great loss of blood may affect his opinion; and if the evidence of the other witnesses be correct, Dr. Phillips has miscalculated the effect of those forces. But many minutes after Mrs. Long passed the man and woman cannot have elapsed before the deceased became a mutilated corpse in the yard of 29, Hanbury-street, close by where she was last seen by any witness.
                    "
                    Also, I've bolded in your selected quote where Baxter is describing the cuts involved in the mutilations (he's talking about the difficulties to get at the organ, which means the mutilations to get to it, not the difficulties in removing it - that comes later in his statement), which he describes indicating the evidence (as he sees it) of skill and knowledge being employed in order to get to the object desired. After the underlined section he talks of further evidence for such skill and knowledge being shown in how the uterus itself was removed.

                    In short, the quote you provided has Baxter saying all of the mutilations and the organ removal were performed by the same, skilled and knowledgeable individual. That means Baxter is refuting your theory that two people were involved, an unskilled untrained mutilator and a later skilled trained organ thief. The very quote you provide is entirely against your idea, which makes your theory unsafe.

                    You also mention JTR damaging organs if you recall I have said many times that if the killer was organs harvesting why did he mutilate the abdomens of some of the victims and act that would damage any organs he was intent on harvesting

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk​
                    You seem to have a hard time with this. A serial killer like JtR isn't concerned with obtaining pristine organs even if he takes one as a trophy. Their primary goal is the act of mutilation itself, the trophy taking is about having something tangible as a reminder of the act itself. That's why they take things like cheap rings, or maybe steal underwear (when the attack is indoors), and those who take organs just want a piece of the victim.

                    Why would an organ thief bother to take away Eddowes damaged uterus? It would have no value after they botched it's removal? JtR would take it because any chunk of the victim would be enough. In the Eddowes case he also took a kidney. In Kelly's he took her heart. Basically, he's not concerned with what he takes per se, or even it's condition, he just takes something to have to remind him of the event itself. You seem to struggle with the fact that a mutilating serial killer doesn't actually care about the condition of what he takes when he takes body parts, and they don't actually have a particular organ in mind when they start their attack. That's all after thought stuff, and they don't even do it each and every time they kill someone. Why that mystifies you is beyond me, but that's how it is - they are a very strange and disturbed lot. Sometimes a serial killer will take a victim's head with them (there appears to be indications JtR may have tried to decapitate Annie), but that same serial killer might leave the next victim's head at the scene. Why? I have no idea other than people do not do the same thing exactly the same way each time.

                    - Jeff
                    Last edited by JeffHamm; 07-17-2023, 04:47 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                      Hi Trevor,

                      I have cut and pasted some timeline detail from here:


                      SAT, SEP 8, 1888
                      c.6:30am

                      Dr Phillips arrived upon the scene and began his initial examination.

                      SAT, SEP 8, 1888
                      c.6:40am

                      The ambulance had arrived and Dr Phillips ordered the body to be taken to the Whitechapel Workhouse Infirmary Mortuary in Eagle St off of Old Montague St.

                      SAT, SEP 8, 1888
                      7:00am

                      Robert Mann received Annie's body at the mortuary.82

                      SAT, SEP 8, 1888
                      c.7:02am

                      Insp Chandler arrived at the mortuary. The body was still on the ambulance, and he took a description of Annie's clothing
                      Insp Chandler then left the mortuary, leaving Police Constable Barnes in charge of the body.83

                      SAT, SEP 8, 1888
                      (7:10am)

                      Sgt Thick arrived at the mortuary and took Annie's description

                      SAT, SEP 8, 1888
                      c.7:30am

                      Simmons was taken to the mortuary and immediately recognized Annie, noting that she had on 3 rings when she left the lodging house.

                      SAT, SEP 8, 1888
                      That Morning

                      Donovan identified the body as Annie Siffey. (Most likely Evans also identified the body at this time.)

                      SAT, SEP 8, 1888
                      11:30am

                      Palmer was taken to the mortuary and identified the body as Annie Chapman, (aka Dark Annie).​​​​
                      ​​​
                      SAT, SEP 8, 1888
                      c.2:00pm

                      Dr Phillips arrived at the mortuary to conduct the postmortem and found that the body had already been stripped, partially washed, and laid on the table waiting for him. The clothes were tossed into a corner except for the neckerchief which was still around the neck. (The Clerk to the Parish Guardians ordered two nurses, Mary Simonds and Francis Wright, to lay out the body. This was done without police consent.)


                      It seems reasonable to me to that when Palmer viewed the body it would have been still clothed and in the mortuary shed. It would seem that between 11:30 am and 2:00 pm the body was moved to the yard where it was found by the nurses.

                      From the inquest:
                      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.

                      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.

                      What is the point of the mortuary door being locked, with the key in the hands of the police, if the body was outside? It would also seem to me to be strange that if the mortuary shed was overcrowded, the body of a murder victim would be the one selected to be placed outside. I agree with Jeff in finding it curious that the coroner did not pick up on this anomaly and grill the police over it, however, the removal of the body from a locked shed, to be found in the yard and then moved back into the shed, would seem to be the opportunity for the tampering of the nature that you propose.

                      Cheers, George
                      Hi George,

                      Thanks for posting that time line. I wish we knew what time Sarah Simonds arrived Saturday, as that might help understand things. One possibility strikes me, though, which is that the body was taken outside into better light for the identifications, and it was at that time the nurses arrived. That would reconcile the discrepancies, and indicate that the body was under lock and key, controlled by the police at all times. It would have been taken outside by the police (in my speculative idea here) when being viewed for identification at 7:30 (Simmons), "that morning" (Donovan), and 11:30 (Palmer). If the nurses arrived around 11:30 ish to prep the body for the autopsy at 2:00, then they would have found it outside.

                      The lack of details in the information, of course, leaves us with another one of those head scratching moments that surround these cases.

                      - Jeff

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                        Now it shows you are thinking

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                        So you’re saying that two men went into the mortuary and one was a not-very-good uterus remover whilst the other was a bit of a kidney specialist?

                        Did they take a third person in with them to mop the brow of the kidney specialist whilst handing him various surgical implements?

                        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

                          No Phillps did not see that organs had been removed what he saw were the intestines over her upper body which he refers to and to which you allude

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                          But the point is that the body part thief would have seen that the abdomen had been opened therefore he couldn’t have known that the doctor hadn’t looked. So if he went on to remove an organ that the doctor had previously noticed as being present he’d have been advertising the fact that it had been stolen - either pointing at the guilty party or at least causing an increase in security which would have reduced the opportunity for profit.
                          Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 07-17-2023, 07:07 AM.
                          Regards

                          Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
                            Chapman's uterus was never examined, so you cannot prove it was not damaged. All that could be examined was the nature of the cuts used to remove it, but not the condition of the actual uterus. It is entirely possible that the uterus was cut from above, or damaged, but taken by JtR all the same. You can't prove it was in perfect shape because it was never seen. Therefore, there is always the possibility it was damaged so your idea of skillful organ theft is unsafe.


                            So you accept then that murder occurred around 5:25 given the same coroner, during the same summing up, also said:
                            "
                            It is true that Dr. Phillips thinks that when he saw the body at 6.30 the deceased had been dead at least two hours, but he admits that the coldness of the morning and the great loss of blood may affect his opinion; and if the evidence of the other witnesses be correct, Dr. Phillips has miscalculated the effect of those forces. But many minutes after Mrs. Long passed the man and woman cannot have elapsed before the deceased became a mutilated corpse in the yard of 29, Hanbury-street, close by where she was last seen by any witness.
                            "
                            Also, I've bolded in your selected quote where Baxter is describing the cuts involved in the mutilations (he's talking about the difficulties to get at the organ, which means the mutilations to get to it, not the difficulties in removing it - that comes later in his statement), which he describes indicating the evidence (as he sees it) of skill and knowledge being employed in order to get to the object desired. After the underlined section he talks of further evidence for such skill and knowledge being shown in how the uterus itself was removed.

                            In short, the quote you provided has Baxter saying all of the mutilations and the organ removal were performed by the same, skilled and knowledgeable individual. That means Baxter is refuting your theory that two people were involved, an unskilled untrained mutilator and a later skilled trained organ thief. The very quote you provide is entirely against your idea, which makes your theory unsafe.


                            You seem to have a hard time with this. A serial killer like JtR isn't concerned with obtaining pristine organs even if he takes one as a trophy. Their primary goal is the act of mutilation itself, the trophy taking is about having something tangible as a reminder of the act itself. That's why they take things like cheap rings, or maybe steal underwear (when the attack is indoors), and those who take organs just want a piece of the victim.

                            Why would an organ thief bother to take away Eddowes damaged uterus? It would have no value after they botched it's removal? JtR would take it because any chunk of the victim would be enough. In the Eddowes case he also took a kidney. In Kelly's he took her heart. Basically, he's not concerned with what he takes per se, or even it's condition, he just takes something to have to remind him of the event itself. You seem to struggle with the fact that a mutilating serial killer doesn't actually care about the condition of what he takes when he takes body parts, and they don't actually have a particular organ in mind when they start their attack. That's all after thought stuff, and they don't even do it each and every time they kill someone. Why that mystifies you is beyond me, but that's how it is - they are a very strange and disturbed lot. Sometimes a serial killer will take a victim's head with them (there appears to be indications JtR may have tried to decapitate Annie), but that same serial killer might leave the next victim's head at the scene. Why? I have no idea other than people do not do the same thing exactly the same way each time.

                            - Jeff
                            As normal Jeff you are blinkered in your assessment of the evidence and the facts one final time I will attempt to explain

                            If as I suggest the organs were not taken by the killer but removed at the mortuaries by two different persons that is a good reason to explain the different extractions of the organs. I am not suggesting that the same person went to the two different mortuaries and was responsible for taking both sets of organs from both victims.

                            You have to appreciate that there was an illicit trade in organs from mortuaries and I would suspect that each mortuary attendant who was complicit in this trade had their own individual conspirators who they worked closely with. So the level of skill in removing the organs and the nature of the extractions is easily explained by two different persons at the two different mortuaries removing the organs in their own ways, that's what we see the differences in the extractions suggesting two different persons.

                            When you say what use was a damaged uterus, whose to say that the person who removed it thought that he had removed it in a way so that it could be used as a specimen or he had to remove it in haste. After all, we know the kidney was removed and there was no comment from the doctors to say it was a botched removal.

                            I also have to ask the same two questions I have asked many times which it seems no one wants to answer and that is firstly why if it suggested that the killer was harvesting organs did he remove a second uterus from Eddowes when he had removed a perfect specimen from Chapman?

                            And if organ harvesting was part of his motive why do we see no evidence of any attempt made to remove any organs from all the other victims, and don't say he was disturbed that old chestnut is wearing thin now. We have only two victims where organs were found missing at the post mortems, the only two victims that had their abdomens ripped open in such a way that organs could be removed at the mortuaries undetected and therefore when the post mortems were carried out the missing organs were attributed wrongly to the killer

                            As to Kelly if Insp Reid is to be believed and I do believe him when he says no organs were taken away by the killer, conversely if you say that the killer was organ harvesting why did he not take away any more organs from Kelly after all he had all the abdomen to choose from?





                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                              But the point is that the body part thief would have seen that the abdomen had been opened therefore he couldn’t have known that the doctor hadn’t looked. So if he went on to remove an organ that the doctor had previously noticed as being present he’d have been advertising the fact that it had been stolen - either pointing at the guilty party or at least causing an increase in security which would have reduced the opportunity for profit.
                              The mortuary attendant would have been in the know, and we know that the doctors did not find any organs missing at the crime scenes because with Chapman they treated the murder as simply murder and mutilation. She was the first victim where organs were found to be missing. Prior to her murder, we had Nichols who no attempt was made to remove organs, then Stride who the same applied. So with Chapman they had no need to examine the body at the crime scene for missing organs. With that in mind why would they check for missing organs when they had victims which they were attributing to the same killer who were simply murdered? The same scenario applies to Eddowes.



                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                                So you’re saying that two men went into the mortuary and one was a not-very-good uterus remover whilst the other was a bit of a kidney specialist?

                                Did they take a third person in with them to mop the brow of the kidney specialist whilst handing him various surgical implements?
                                Sarcasm is the lowest form of with

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X