Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Richardson

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

  • Hi Trevor,
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    As normal Jeff you are blinkered in your assessment of the evidence and the facts one final time I will attempt to explain
    Sigh. And as normal you fail to comprehend that when people assess the evidence and compare it to your explanation and find that explanation to be unnecessarily overly complicated because you have shown no evidence connecting these crimes to any person involved at either end of black market organ sales - at best you have pointed out there was such a trade, but nothing you have presented shows that trade is linked - it's all maybe's, if's, and so forth - it is by your own definition due to lack of any actual proof therefore unsafe. You fail to comprehend that people can assess your theory, find it wanting, and not because they are "blinkered" but because they are not.
    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.
    Who are these mortuary attendants? What are their names? Show that these people have been arrested, or suspected, of being involved in this organ trade. Something, anything at all, that links someone at the mortuaries with this illegal trade. Show evidence that at the time of these crimes there were cases of medical people or institutions found to be involved in the trade of kidneys and/or uterus - not whole bodies, but just those organs. Show something that this trade was active at the time, and show a link to the case or at least a link to the mortuaries through people who were there. You can't, because as far as we know there isn't such a link, hence your idea is unsafe because there is no evidence for it. There is only a hypothesis that maybe there was a link. That's not sufficient because everything can be explained without inserting this complication for which there is no justification. Your belief is not evidence, it is not facts, it is just an idea that need actual support.
    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.
    As you are so found of saying, none of that is proof, so it doesn't amount to anything. Show an example of illegal trade in damaged organs. Show that medical researchers actually were known to buy damaged organs. While that doesn't prove these organs were actually sold, it would at least show that damaged organs could be sold. Otherwise, why would they bother to take Eddowes's damaged uterus? That makes no sense, it makes your idea unsafe.
    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?
    It has been addressed. I covered that earlier, because serial killers who take body parts as trophies don't care if they are perfect speciments - they just want part of the body. They don't even care if they take the same part each time, hence he didn't take Kelly's uterus, but appears to have taken her heart instead. There is no mystery here when viewed as JtR taking body parts as a trophy, but there is a mystery when viewed as a professional medical person taking specimens for sale as damaged goods are worthless to them. Your idea is not well founded, and it is unsafe to rely upon because not only is there no evidence linking the cases to an illegal organ trade, the idea raises questions as to why Eddowes' uterus, being damaged, was taken.
    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
    Again, this has all been explained. Obviously in the Stride case he couldn't take organs because he didn't mutilate her. So either Stride is not a victim of JtR, making the lack of organ harvesting moot, or something resulted in JtR leaving before he could start on the abdominal mutilations. We don't know what that something was, but many ideas are floated around, none of which can be proven of course.

    And despite your blinkers, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that Kelly's heart was taken, which means, starting from Chapman, every victim who had their abdomen cut open had an organ taken away. Nichols mutilations were not as sever, he didn't remove her intestines for example, but being the first of the series it may be that taking an organ didn't occur to him at that time, or he was interrupted when Cross/Lechmere showed up (a possibility that shouldn't be dismissed - it's not a chesnut, it is something we have to consider as possible because we lack the information to rule it out), or it may even be as simple as the fact that even serial killers who take organs from some victims do not necessarily take organs from all of them. You have an incorrect belief that serial killers who take organs from some victims are somehow obliged to take organs from all of them. They don't work that way, so arguments based upon presuming they do are not only unsafe, they are incorrect.
    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?


    And as you've said to be, what you believe is not evidence, and there is a lot of evidence that contradicts Reid's claim, which by your own definition (at least when it comes to awkward bits of evidence that contradict your theory) Reid's statements are unsafe to rely upon.

    That's the problem with your presentation. Everything, including tone, including style of argument that I'm presenting here, is based upon how you yourself present your theory. When you cry "blinkered" about others, you demonstrate your own "blinkers" because your replies show a clear lack of comprehension of what I've actually said. The reasons I've used to call your theory unsafe, and the evidence you put forth as "unsafe", are the very reasons you cry "unsafe" for any evidence presented that contradicts your view. You can't have it both ways, when your evidence is no closer to "proof" than the evidence against it, then your evidence is as unsafe as you claim the counter evidence is. If you could take your blinkers off, and recognize that, then you might realise that you are just offering an alternative line of speculation to be considered. In that sense, sure, I can see how your theory "works", but your theory also only "works" if almost all of the reports we have are actually not just wrong, but entirely wrong in the polar opposite direction of what actually happened. And that is not realistic, hence, your theory is not realistic given the information we have. If you can supply information that could only exist if you are correct, like a direct link to illegal organ trade and someone who worked at the Chapman mortuary and another person who worked at the Eddowes' mortuary, both of whom had the training in surgical procedures that you say they had to have had to remove the organs, and who can be shown to have been at those mortuaries before the autopsies, then you would start having some evidence for your idea. Until you can show something of that sort of evidence, you've only got an overly complicated idea for which most of the record presents information that goes against it.

    You can repeat ad infinitum that Kelly's heart was not missing, but that does not mean there aren't multiple sources of information that point in the direction that it was. As such, you cannot prove her heart was found, making it unsafe to say it was. I'm not saying it definitely was taken away, because I wasn't there, the information is incomplete, but rather I am saying the majority of information points to it being missing, so that is a safer bet than it being present. New information, depending upon what it is, could very well change my view. I'm not confident in saying you are open to the same.

    - Jeff

    Comment


    • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
      Hi Trevor,

      Sigh. And as normal you fail to comprehend that when people assess the evidence and compare it to your explanation and find that explanation to be unnecessarily overly complicated because you have shown no evidence connecting these crimes to any person involved at either end of black market organ sales - at best you have pointed out there was such a trade, but nothing you have presented shows that trade is linked - it's all maybe's, if's, and so forth - it is by your own definition due to lack of any actual proof therefore unsafe. You fail to comprehend that people can assess your theory, find it wanting, and not because they are "blinkered" but because they are not.

      Who are these mortuary attendants? What are their names? Show that these people have been arrested, or suspected, of being involved in this organ trade. Something, anything at all, that links someone at the mortuaries with this illegal trade. Show evidence that at the time of these crimes there were cases of medical people or institutions found to be involved in the trade of kidneys and/or uterus - not whole bodies, but just those organs. Show something that this trade was active at the time, and show a link to the case or at least a link to the mortuaries through people who were there. You can't, because as far as we know there isn't such a link, hence your idea is unsafe because there is no evidence for it. There is only a hypothesis that maybe there was a link. That's not sufficient because everything can be explained without inserting this complication for which there is no justification. Your belief is not evidence, it is not facts, it is just an idea that need actual support.

      As you are so found of saying, none of that is proof, so it doesn't amount to anything. Show an example of illegal trade in damaged organs. Show that medical researchers actually were known to buy damaged organs. While that doesn't prove these organs were actually sold, it would at least show that damaged organs could be sold. Otherwise, why would they bother to take Eddowes's damaged uterus? That makes no sense, it makes your idea unsafe.

      It has been addressed. I covered that earlier, because serial killers who take body parts as trophies don't care if they are perfect speciments - they just want part of the body. They don't even care if they take the same part each time, hence he didn't take Kelly's uterus, but appears to have taken her heart instead. There is no mystery here when viewed as JtR taking body parts as a trophy, but there is a mystery when viewed as a professional medical person taking specimens for sale as damaged goods are worthless to them. Your idea is not well founded, and it is unsafe to rely upon because not only is there no evidence linking the cases to an illegal organ trade, the idea raises questions as to why Eddowes' uterus, being damaged, was taken.

      Again, this has all been explained. Obviously in the Stride case he couldn't take organs because he didn't mutilate her. So either Stride is not a victim of JtR, making the lack of organ harvesting moot, or something resulted in JtR leaving before he could start on the abdominal mutilations. We don't know what that something was, but many ideas are floated around, none of which can be proven of course.

      And despite your blinkers, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that Kelly's heart was taken, which means, starting from Chapman, every victim who had their abdomen cut open had an organ taken away. Nichols mutilations were not as sever, he didn't remove her intestines for example, but being the first of the series it may be that taking an organ didn't occur to him at that time, or he was interrupted when Cross/Lechmere showed up (a possibility that shouldn't be dismissed - it's not a chesnut, it is something we have to consider as possible because we lack the information to rule it out), or it may even be as simple as the fact that even serial killers who take organs from some victims do not necessarily take organs from all of them. You have an incorrect belief that serial killers who take organs from some victims are somehow obliged to take organs from all of them. They don't work that way, so arguments based upon presuming they do are not only unsafe, they are incorrect.

      And as you've said to be, what you believe is not evidence, and there is a lot of evidence that contradicts Reid's claim, which by your own definition (at least when it comes to awkward bits of evidence that contradict your theory) Reid's statements are unsafe to rely upon.

      That's the problem with your presentation. Everything, including tone, including style of argument that I'm presenting here, is based upon how you yourself present your theory. When you cry "blinkered" about others, you demonstrate your own "blinkers" because your replies show a clear lack of comprehension of what I've actually said. The reasons I've used to call your theory unsafe, and the evidence you put forth as "unsafe", are the very reasons you cry "unsafe" for any evidence presented that contradicts your view. You can't have it both ways, when your evidence is no closer to "proof" than the evidence against it, then your evidence is as unsafe as you claim the counter evidence is. If you could take your blinkers off, and recognize that, then you might realise that you are just offering an alternative line of speculation to be considered. In that sense, sure, I can see how your theory "works", but your theory also only "works" if almost all of the reports we have are actually not just wrong, but entirely wrong in the polar opposite direction of what actually happened. And that is not realistic, hence, your theory is not realistic given the information we have. If you can supply information that could only exist if you are correct, like a direct link to illegal organ trade and someone who worked at the Chapman mortuary and another person who worked at the Eddowes' mortuary, both of whom had the training in surgical procedures that you say they had to have had to remove the organs, and who can be shown to have been at those mortuaries before the autopsies, then you would start having some evidence for your idea. Until you can show something of that sort of evidence, you've only got an overly complicated idea for which most of the record presents information that goes against it.

      You can repeat ad infinitum that Kelly's heart was not missing, but that does not mean there aren't multiple sources of information that point in the direction that it was. As such, you cannot prove her heart was found, making it unsafe to say it was. I'm not saying it definitely was taken away, because I wasn't there, the information is incomplete, but rather I am saying the majority of information points to it being missing, so that is a safer bet than it being present. New information, depending upon what it is, could very well change my view. I'm not confident in saying you are open to the same.

      - Jeff
      But the information and the facts surrounding these murders are not conclusive and in some case totally unsafe to rely on, and I think that as I have been assessing evidence in criminal cases for over 40 years I think that my assessment and evaluation of the facts and the evidence are invaluable in trying to unravel what really happened in these murders, maybe you and others should re-evaluate the facts and the evidence because it seems we are worlds apart in our assessments and evaluation of the evidence but I appreciate you have your opinion.

      As to Kelly's heart being missing, I have to side with Inspect Reid who was head of Whitechapel CID and visited the crime scene and attended the post-mortems, against an ambiguous statement made by the doctor and no further corroboration from any other official connected to the murders to corroborate that the organ was taken away by the killer. If the killer did not remove the organs from Chapman and Eddowes then that add further weight to the killer of Kelly not taking away her heart

      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
        Trevor,

        You obviously didnt read the quote, or misread it. He specifically mentions that the intestines were still attached and before he buttoned up her dress to send her off for the autopsy he says.."some portions had been excised". Meaning cut out. The fact that he didnt find those portions at the scene means the killer took them, or someone happened by and took them. The main point here is that he saw at the scene that some portions were cut out.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

          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
          Hi Jeff,

          I agree with your conclusion in your final sentence, and I find your speculative idea to be quite persuasive. Another head-scratcher is why the clerk to the guardians would order the highly unusual (according to Phillips) stripping and washing of the body before the arrival of the Doctor, and then the nurse(s) blame Chandler for that instruction when AFAIK Chandler had departed some hours before the nurses arrived.

          Best regards, George
          The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.

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

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

            Trevor,

            You obviously didnt read the quote, or misread it. He specifically mentions that the intestines were still attached and before he buttoned up her dress to send her off for the autopsy he says.."some portions had been excised". Meaning cut out. The fact that he didnt find those portions at the scene means the killer took them, or someone happened by and took them. The main point here is that he saw at the scene that some portions were cut out.
            There are differences in the reports from the Telegraph, Times, Evening Standard and the Morning Advertiser, as follows:

            [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.

            The whole of the body was not present, the absent portions being from the abdomen. The mode in which these portions were extracted showed some anatomical knowledge. He did not think these portions were lost in the transit of the body.

            You do not think that those parts could have been lost 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. The parts were excised from the body without doubt, but they might have been lost.

            Was the whole of the body there? - No; portions had been taken from the abdomen, and I think that the mode in which the walls of the stomach had been abstracted showed some anatomical knowledge.
            Might not some portions of the body have been lost in transit? - No; they had been excised from the body without a doubt.


            The questions raised about whether the parts were lost, and Phillip's uncertainty about whether they could have been lost, indicates to me that Phillips was unsure whether the missing organs were in the body when it left #29. If he were certain that they had been excised and removed at #29, would he have been entertaining questions about their being lost in transit?
            Last edited by GBinOz; 07-17-2023, 02:03 PM.
            The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.

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

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

              Trevor,

              You obviously didnt read the quote, or misread it. He specifically mentions that the intestines were still attached and before he buttoned up her dress to send her off for the autopsy he says.."some portions had been excised". Meaning cut out. The fact that he didnt find those portions at the scene means the killer took them, or someone happened by and took them. The main point here is that he saw at the scene that some portions were cut out.
              You are interpreting it wrongly follow the report where the corner asks could the organ have dropped out in transit, That would have been the time for the doctor to say if the doctor has found it missing at the crime scene he would have replied to the coroner that it was found missing at the crime scene, besides a uterus with the fallopian tubes attached could not fall out of a body.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                Sarcasm is the lowest form of with

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                I’m only following your thinking Trevor. Your saying that 2 different methods means 2 different men. So 2 different standards of work should mean 2 different men. And as at the Eddowes murder we find a kidney skilfully removed and a uterus botched then surely you would conclude that one man removed the kidney whilst another removed the uterus?
                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

                  But the information and the facts surrounding these murders are not conclusive and in some case totally unsafe to rely on, and I think that as I have been assessing evidence in criminal cases for over 40 years I think that my assessment and evaluation of the facts and the evidence are invaluable in trying to unravel what really happened in these murders,


                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                  This is your problem Trevor as I’ve mentioned - “I’m an ex-copper so my opinion is worth more than everyone else’s,” then you proceed to come up with some half-baked theory that leaves everyone else picking their jaws up off the floor because they are just baseless speculation. The killer took the organs. There’s no evidence against that and there’s certainly no evidence for your body part stealers. Just saying “they exist,” isn’t remotely good enough. Puma’s exist but it doesn’t mean that they took the organs (and pumas would have had a rock solid motive for doing it!)


                  Regards

                  Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

                  Comment


                  • Hi Trevor,

                    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                    But the information and the facts surrounding these murders are not conclusive and in some case totally unsafe to rely on, and I think that as I have been assessing evidence in criminal cases for over 40 years I think that my assessment and evaluation of the facts and the evidence are invaluable in trying to unravel what really happened in these murders, maybe you and others should re-evaluate the facts and the evidence because it seems we are worlds apart in our assessments and evaluation of the evidence but I appreciate you have your opinion.
                    Thank you. And I actually do appreciate your opinion, but not the aqusations of blinkeredness and so forth.

                    I also agree with you on the point that the evidence is not conclusive in this case, it's over 130 years old, much is missing, the detailed notes are lost, we cannot re-interview people for clarification, and methods were less refined than they are today. My point, though, is that assessment, which we agree upon, applies to all theories, including your own. Theories are only as good as the data, and the data we have is wanting. And as such, there is certainly nothing "blinkered" about someone who doesn't agree with a particular idea.
                    As to Kelly's heart being missing, I have to side with Inspect Reid who was head of Whitechapel CID and visited the crime scene and attended the post-mortems, against an ambiguous statement made by the doctor and no further corroboration from any other official connected to the murders to corroborate that the organ was taken away by the killer. If the killer did not remove the organs from Chapman and Eddowes then that add further weight to the killer of Kelly not taking away her heart

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                    Given your belief in organ thieves, I can see how Reid would be viewed as further confirmation. However, given I do not buy the organ thieves, I see Reid as the lone dissenting view, made many years after the fact, while there are numerous indications that Kelly's heart was indeed missing, including the fact it was not listed on an official police report of the organs found at the crime scene made at the time. While you are free to prefer Reid, you cannot fairly accuse anyone of being "blinkered" if they weight evidence made at the time specifically to document the organs in the room as more trustworthy than memoir statements made years later. You may disagree with how I weight those pieces of evidence, and weight them as you see fit, but to interpret our differences in weighting as reflecting me being "blinkered" is simply to put yourself in the position of appearing to be the one who is unable to comprehend a different point of view.

                    Our views differ, which is hardly surprising in this case - put two Ripperologists in the same room and three views will emerge. Neither of us can put forth a case that is unassailable, it's not possible because the information doesn't exist to do so.

                    There is nothing wrong with admitting that a case or idea has weak points, where it could be attacked, or at least being pointed out where the case might be lacking evidential support. Again, we know the evidence is insufficient to present a case that doesn't have that problem. I try to point out where I'm speculating, or where I might be making a call that I recognize could be on shaky ground. I have at times even reconsidered things I thought were pretty rock solid because someone pointed out that a reading of the evidence might not be as clear cut as I originally thought.

                    It is, however, an impediment to discussion to rail against anyone who questions your theory, to throw about accusations of blinkeredness, or to cry "unsafe" with regards to other ideas but to then present something that is unsafe by the same criterion and insist everyone accept it as the one and only truth.

                    You've got an idea, it deviates from most peoples. That by itself doesn't mean it is wrong. People have questioned your idea, pointing out where they find it to be in need of more evidence, or support. You should view those comments as helpful "new set of eyes" as they spot the bits that you need to focus on, they provide the questions that need to be answered by evidence (what to research next). And you have to be open to the possibility that if you do research into something that the answer could turn out against you. It is better to reject a wrong idea when evidence shows it to be an error, than to continue to pursue something simply because we "like it, it is mine." I've done research for over 30 years now, and I've had many theoretical ideas that I've pursued that I, or someone else, have demonstrated to be wrong. As a result, that put me on to other lines of thinking that, so far, have survived testing. I have no doubt that aspects of those ideas will be wrong, and one day those errors removed. By a continuous process of testing, removing errors in our thinking, refining our explanations, and so on, we get closer to the truth, but never get all the way there.

                    - Jeff





                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                      There are differences in the reports from the Telegraph, Times, Evening Standard and the Morning Advertiser, as follows:

                      [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.

                      The whole of the body was not present, the absent portions being from the abdomen. The mode in which these portions were extracted showed some anatomical knowledge. He did not think these portions were lost in the transit of the body.

                      You do not think that those parts could have been lost 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. The parts were excised from the body without doubt, but they might have been lost.

                      Was the whole of the body there? - No; portions had been taken from the abdomen, and I think that the mode in which the walls of the stomach had been abstracted showed some anatomical knowledge.
                      Might not some portions of the body have been lost in transit? - No; they had been excised from the body without a doubt.


                      The questions raised about whether the parts were lost, and Phillip's uncertainty about whether they could have been lost, indicates to me that Phillips was unsure whether the missing organs were in the body when it left #29. If he were certain that they had been excised and removed at #29, would he have been entertaining questions about their being lost in transit?
                      Hi George,

                      That version, I see what you mean. The "they might have been lost" bit could indicate some doubt if the uterus were actually taken by JtR, or if it might have been overlooked at the scene and subsequently lost in transport (or when loading up the body, etc).

                      However, he still clearly states that "they (the missing portions) had been excised from the body without a doubt" indicating indicating that the uterus had been cut out at the crime scene. It is that detail which seems most important to the question as to who cut out Annie's uterus. Dr. Phillips' statement points to him noting that it had been cut out of the body when he examined it at the scene. And given we know he noted some heat underneath the intestines, we know he examined the abdomen at the scene and so had every opportunity to note that the uterus had been cut out.

                      It is probably worth collecting all of the different versions of the transcripts covering this exchange. We know that there are some wording differences between the various transcripts, so if we can put them all together we might be able to work out the information from the noise.

                      - Jeff
                      Last edited by JeffHamm; 07-17-2023, 07:11 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        I’m only following your thinking Trevor. Your saying that 2 different methods means 2 different men. So 2 different standards of work should mean 2 different men. And as at the Eddowes murder we find a kidney skilfully removed and a uterus botched then surely you would conclude that one man removed the kidney whilst another removed the uterus?
                        We know the kidney from Edowes was removed intact there is no evidence to the contrary, what we don't know is how the removal of the uterus from her incurred damage we could come up with several reasons but we would only be second guessing.

                        You are still missing the point if it was the same killer and that killer was able to remove the uterus and the fallopian tubes attached from Eddowes then why wasn't he able to remove the uterus from Eddowes in the same way, this shows that the person who removed the organs from Eddowes was not the same person who removed the organ from Chapman,

                        And I again ask the question if he was harvesting organs why would he take the uterus from Eddowes when he had a perfect specimen of the same organs from Chapman it makes no sense.




                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                          We know the kidney from Edowes was removed intact there is no evidence to the contrary, what we don't know is how the removal of the uterus from her incurred damage we could come up with several reasons but we would only be second guessing.

                          You are still missing the point if it was the same killer and that killer was able to remove the uterus and the fallopian tubes attached from Eddowes then why wasn't he able to remove the uterus from Eddowes in the same way, this shows that the person who removed the organs from Eddowes was not the same person who removed the organ from Chapman,

                          And I again ask the question if he was harvesting organs why would he take the uterus from Eddowes when he had a perfect specimen of the same organs from Chapman it makes no sense.

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                          ”Mr. Crawford: I understand that you found certain portions of the body removed? - Yes. The uterus was cut away with the exception of a small portion, and the left kidney was also cut out​.”

                          So, from the Eddowes murder. Two parts missing. The kidney ok, the uterus with a piece missing.

                          Why did the same organ thief do a good job on the kidney but not on the uterus? By your reasoning you should be suggesting 2 different organ thieves.

                          ​​​​​​……

                          “And I again ask the question if he was harvesting organs why would he take the uterus from Eddowes when he had a perfect specimen of the same organs from Chapman it makes no sense.”

                          ‘Harvesting’ is your word not mine. I think that we can assume that he wasn’t trying to build a woman and so he wasn’t looking for one of each organ. Just a trophy. Kidney, uterus, so what? A non-point.



                          Regards

                          Sir Herlock Sholmes.

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

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                            Hi George,

                            That version, I see what you mean. The "they might have been lost" bit could indicate some doubt if the uterus were actually taken by JtR, or if it might have been overlooked at the scene and subsequently lost in transport (or when loading up the body, etc).

                            However, he still clearly states that "they (the missing portions) had been excised from the body without a doubt" indicating indicating that the uterus had been cut out at the crime scene. It is that detail which seems most important to the question as to who cut out Annie's uterus. Dr. Phillips' statement points to him noting that it had been cut out of the body when he examined it at the scene. And given we know he noted some heat underneath the intestines, we know he examined the abdomen at the scene and so had every opportunity to note that the uterus had been cut out.

                            There is no evidence to suggest he was referring to the uterus you are making it up, there is no evidence that he examined the body at the crime scene and found the uterus missing, you are misinterpreting the evidence. He says portions were excised which I take to refer to the intestines.

                            If it had been established that the uterus was found missing at the crime scene there would have been no need for the coroner to ask the question "Could it have fallen out in transit"

                            What he also says is that when he went to the mortuary to carry out the post mortem the body had been stripped and was lying on the table


                            It is probably worth collecting all of the different versions of the transcripts covering this exchange. We know that there are some wording differences between the various transcripts, so if we can put them all together we might be able to work out the information from the noise. - Jeff


                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                              Why did the same organ thief do a good job on the kidney but not on the uterus? By your reasoning, you should be suggesting 2 different organ thieves.


                              Thats the whole point the organs were removed by two different persons at two different mortuaries using two different methods, whats so hard for you to comprehend those simple facts?



                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                                Hi George,

                                That version, I see what you mean. The "they might have been lost" bit could indicate some doubt if the uterus were actually taken by JtR, or if it might have been overlooked at the scene and subsequently lost in transport (or when loading up the body, etc).

                                However, he still clearly states that "they (the missing portions) had been excised from the body without a doubt" indicating indicating that the uterus had been cut out at the crime scene. It is that detail which seems most important to the question as to who cut out Annie's uterus. Dr. Phillips' statement points to him noting that it had been cut out of the body when he examined it at the scene. And given we know he noted some heat underneath the intestines, we know he examined the abdomen at the scene and so had every opportunity to note that the uterus had been cut out.

                                It is probably worth collecting all of the different versions of the transcripts covering this exchange. We know that there are some wording differences between the various transcripts, so if we can put them all together we might be able to work out the information from the noise.

                                - Jeff
                                Hi Jeff,

                                I did in fact spend some hours wading through reports to come up with those four. Some of the publications failed to even report on the information we are after and others duplicated all of parts of the reports that I posted. Of course, Murphy's Law dictates that I will have missed one, the one containing the definitive clues that we seek.

                                I see the coroner's questions as having two parts:

                                1. Were there body parts missing? The answer from Phillips is yes, without doubt there were body parts excised. I don't think this is a reference to the intestines as they were still attached.

                                2. Could those parts have been lost? Phillips saw the body at the crime scene and at the autopsy. They certainly were not lost when the autopsy began. The timeline shows that Phillips spent only about 10 minutes with the body at #29. I wonder if that included replacing the intestines and fastening the clothing. I would have expected that he would have, at a glance, seen that the uterus was missing, but I have not the qualifications of the experience to make that judgement. Logically, if Phillips noticed that the uterus was missing at the crime scene the qualification of "they might have been lost" would not have been an addition to "they (the missing portions) had been excised from the body without a doubt".

                                Best regards, George
                                The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.

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

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X