John Richardson

[JeffHamm]

Why would the coroner ask that question if the doctor has said in his testimony that he found the uterus missing at the crime scene its not rocket science.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

-

I'm curious Trevor. Your questions appear to be simply re-stating the question I had responded to. It's like, you ask, I answer, then you simply ask again as if you didn't comprehend that responding to the answer? For example, excised means cut out, the intestines were cut at one end and placed over the shoulders (in Eddowes' case, one portion was cut and left beside the body, so in that case one portion was excised). You can believe he's referring to the intestines all you want, but given that does not correspond to what he said, why you would believe that is your own business. I'm not making anything up, I'm pointing out that we know the uterus was missing, we know it was excised, we know that Dr. Phillips did not want to present those details to the public (he argues with Baxter about it, and later agrees to present a full description; etc), so it follows that what Dr. Phillips is alluding to is the excised organ, the uterus. And so, that means, he had to have been aware it was excised at the crime scene (see how this works, how evidence leads to inferences? We don't make up new definitions for words just so we can hold on to our erroneous beliefs, we follow the trail of evidence to the inference). And if he was aware of it being excised, how could that be? Because we know he reports on detecting residual heat under the intestines that were still in the body (see, not excised), so we know he got a good close up look to the open abdominal cavity, at which point he must have noticed the uterus had been cut (excised) from its normal location.

You really should invest in a dictionary. It might help you to understand the evidence. That is an important first step before moving on to the riskier bit of suggesting an interpretation.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Just to make you aware and dampen your excitement Dr Hebbert was Dr Bond's assistant he attended the initial post-mortem and prepared notes. It is also believed that he prepared Dr Bonds report to Andersons in which there is no mention of the missing heart. Following the initial post mortem as is documented he took no further involvement. But we do know that the police went back to Milllers Court following the post mortem and Dr Hebbert was not present what they were looking for or what they found is not specifically known.

So the article you refer to is hearsay from Hebbert in relation to the missing heart

I also refer to part of an article in the Morning Adverstiser dated Nov 10th "shortly afterwards a detective officer carried from the house a pail with which he left in a four-wheel cab. The pail was covered with a newspaper, and it was stated that it contained portions of the woman’s body. It was taken to the house of Dr Phillips, 2 Spital Square.” So did the pail contain body parts, and why did they go to the home of Dr Phillips and not with the body to the mortuary? Was it later that Dr Phillips found the missing heart, or was it found during a later search of the room?

There is also mention in several newspaper articles of the day that no organs were found to be missing, also we have no other officials connected to this murder who can categorically state that the heart was taken away from direct involvement.

The key to answering his has to be Insp Reid he was head of Whitechapel; CID he attended the crime scene and post-mortem he would have been in charge of the whole investigation and would have been responsible for reporting direct to senior officers, Swanson by this time had returned to Scotland Yard. So I fail to see why you and others are questioning his statement to the press in which he says no organs were taken. I find it hypocritical when researchers are willing to accept without question the Marginalia, The Magnaghten Memo and all the other ramblings from officials who were not directly involved.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Thank you Trevor for bringing Reid to our attention. Surprising you haven't done so before - oh wait, you have, and his information appears many years later, and he wasn't a doctor, and there are all the news paper reports that also say that there was a portion missing, and some that say the heart. But as we both know the newspapers can be a bit dodgy, but this comes from a doctor (not a police officer), and appears in a well respected medical/legal text. It's going to be, oh what's the word, researched and sound and double checked. The authors are not writing for public interest, but for professionals.

I will consider such such a source over Reid's interview any day. You can rely on whatever you chose, but theories are only as good as the sources they are based on; garbage in garbage out.

- Jeff

[Michael W Richards]

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?

I believe what is being said is that there were indeed parts that were cut completely out at the crime scene, he is clear that before he buttons the dress he notes that "portions had been excised". As to whether those parts were lost or taken by whomever cut them out of Annie at the crime scene, he couldnt say for sure. But isnt the fact that some things were recognized as being cut out from the body before the transfer indicative that they were not cut out in the mortuary? Is it also logical to assume if the items were cut completely out it was because the killer wanted them, and was the thief. He didnt cut everything free, the intestines were still attached, so if something was cut free at the crime scene surely that indicates the killer did so?

[GBinOz]

Hi Jeff,

Delving through some news reports I came across these (I have not allowed Murphy to have the last word ):

Daily Telegraph Sep 20:
Dr. Phillips: Very well. I will give you the results of my post-mortem examination. Witness then detailed the terrible wounds which had been inflicted upon the woman, and described the parts of the body which the perpetrator of the murder had carried away with him.

Irish Times Sep 20:
Dr Phillips (resuming) gave evidence regarding the removal of portions of the body.

It was evident, continued the witness, that these absent portions, together with the incision in the large intestine, were the result of the same excising power. Thus I consider the weapon was from five to six inches long, and the appearance of the cuts confirm in me the opinion that the instrument, like the one which divided the structures of the neck, must have been of a very sharp character. The mode of removal of the abdominal wall indicated a certain anatomical knowledge, but the excision of certain viscera conveyed to my mind a greater anatomical knowledge. It is only an inference, but I think I ought to mention it, that the early removal of the intestines in the yard was necessary to enable the operator to effect other excisions.

The Coroner - How long did it take to inflict all those injuries?

Dr Phillips - I could not have performed the removal in under a quarter of an hour.

In reply to two other questions Dr Phillips said that had he to excise the portions in a deliberate way as a surgeon, it would have taken him an hour to remove them.

Daily News Sep 20:
Dr. Phillips then gave details respecting the injuries to the body, stating among other things that important portions of the anatomy were missing when the deceased was found.


These were contained in Phillip's reluctant testimony ordered by the coroner and seem to clarify Phillip's opinion as to when, and by whom, the organs were removed. There is an interesting summary by Baxter, which is a little long to paste here, but it expresses the opinion that the motive of the murder was to gather organs for sale to the blackmarket. It is titled "Horror on Horror's Head - the link is:

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/evening_news/18880927.html

Best regards, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Reid would have been privy to the medical reports

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And the doctor wouldn’t…..keep ‘em coming Trevor

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thank you Trevor for bringing Reid to our attention. Surprising you haven't done so before - oh wait, you have, and his information appears many years later, and he wasn't a doctor, and there are all the news paper reports that also say that there was a portion missing, and some that say the heart. But as we both know the newspapers can be a bit dodgy, but this comes from a doctor (not a police officer), and appears in a well respected medical/legal text. It's going to be, oh what's the word, researched and sound and double checked. The authors are not writing for public interest, but for professionals.

I will consider such such a source over Reid's interview any day. You can rely on whatever you chose, but theories are only as good as the sources they are based on; garbage in garbage out.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Thank you Trevor for bringing Reid to our attention. Surprising you haven't done so before - oh wait, you have, and his information appears many years later, and he wasn't a doctor, and there are all the news paper reports that also say that there was a portion missing, and some that say the heart. But as we both know the newspapers can be a bit dodgy, but this comes from a doctor (not a police officer), and appears in a well respected medical/legal text. It's going to be, oh what's the word, researched and sound and double checked. The authors are not writing for public interest, but for professionals.

I will consider such such a source over Reid's interview any day. You can rely on whatever you chose, but theories are only as good as the sources they are based on; garbage in garbage out.

- Jeff

It's no theory the facts I quoted are genuine and what Hebbert wrote in the book is hearsay because of his brief involvement in the post-mortem process and no involvement thereafter. Reids article cannot be dismissed without a good reason and there is no good reason to dismiss it. His comments and observations on the Kelly murder in that article are spot on and certainly not as some suggest that of a retired police officer with a failing memory. As I said before if you are going to accept the ramblings of Swanson, Magnaghten and Anderson then why can't you accept the evidence from a senior police officer who was directly involved in the case? Is it because accepting the heart was not taken away by the killer strengthens my theory that the killer did not remove the organs from the other victims at the crime scenes?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

And the doctor wouldn’t…..keep ‘em coming Trevor

The doctor would have to pass the medical reports to the senior investigating officer who at that time was Reid because Swanson had returned to Scotland Yard and was no longer directly involved in overseeing the murders as he had been.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

It's no theory the facts I quoted are genuine and what Hebbert wrote in the book is hearsay because of his brief involvement in the post-mortem process and no involvement thereafter. Reids article cannot be dismissed without a good reason and there is no good reason to dismiss it. His comments and observations on the Kelly murder in that article are spot on and certainly not as some suggest that of a retired police officer with a failing memory. As I said before if you are going to accept the ramblings of Swanson, Magnaghten and Anderson then why can't you accept the evidence from a senior police officer who was directly involved in the case? Is it because accepting the heart was not taken away by the killer strengthens my theory that the killer did not remove the organs from the other victims at the crime scenes?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

I don't recall where I've mentioned Swanson, Magnaghten, or Andersen in these conversations? Are you ok?

I agree, Reids article, nor any other piece of evidence, should be dismissed without good reason. As you may be aware from many of my previous posts, but in case you didn't understand them either, I tend to be rather loath to dismiss any evidence. That might be a habit you should consider adopting. I find your eagerness to toss the majority of evidence into the shredder based upon it contradicting your story to be curious as a technique, but one which my experience as a researcher in general has been shown to be of little investigative use.

As such, I compare Reids statements, made during an interview many years later, based upon recall, and which reads like he's "playing for the crowd", to be a less reliable source of information than a book, written by medical professionals on the topic of legal/medical issues, by someone directly involved in the medical aspects of the case to simply be a far more reliable source of information. In short, Reids statement pales in comparison in terms of its reliability as a source, so it's information content is not considered as informative. Now, I understand that in your approach, Reids statements fit your theory, so Reids statements are useful to you, while the remains that you put in the shredder reflect the statements that are not useful to you.

Personally, I'm interested in seeing where the evidence leads, which tends to be a collection of various explanations due to the limitations of the information we have, rather than starting with the theory and using that to separate the evidence into the "I need this" and the "I ignore this" pile, of which for your theory the latter is far larger than the former. I find it odd that you don't see that as a warning sign, but then, we have different ideas about how evidence and interpretation works.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

Delving through some news reports I came across these (I have not allowed Murphy to have the last word ):

Daily Telegraph Sep 20:
Dr. Phillips: Very well. I will give you the results of my post-mortem examination. Witness then detailed the terrible wounds which had been inflicted upon the woman, and described the parts of the body which the perpetrator of the murder had carried away with him.

Irish Times Sep 20:
Dr Phillips (resuming) gave evidence regarding the removal of portions of the body.

It was evident, continued the witness, that these absent portions, together with the incision in the large intestine, were the result of the same excising power. Thus I consider the weapon was from five to six inches long, and the appearance of the cuts confirm in me the opinion that the instrument, like the one which divided the structures of the neck, must have been of a very sharp character. The mode of removal of the abdominal wall indicated a certain anatomical knowledge, but the excision of certain viscera conveyed to my mind a greater anatomical knowledge. It is only an inference, but I think I ought to mention it, that the early removal of the intestines in the yard was necessary to enable the operator to effect other excisions.

The Coroner - How long did it take to inflict all those injuries?

Dr Phillips - I could not have performed the removal in under a quarter of an hour.

In reply to two other questions Dr Phillips said that had he to excise the portions in a deliberate way as a surgeon, it would have taken him an hour to remove them.

Daily News Sep 20:
Dr. Phillips then gave details respecting the injuries to the body, stating among other things that important portions of the anatomy were missing when the deceased was found.


These were contained in Phillip's reluctant testimony ordered by the coroner and seem to clarify Phillip's opinion as to when, and by whom, the organs were removed. There is an interesting summary by Baxter, which is a little long to paste here, but it expresses the opinion that the motive of the murder was to gather organs for sale to the blackmarket. It is titled "Horror on Horror's Head - the link is:

https://www.casebook.org/press_reports/evening_news/18880927.html

Best regards, George

Hi George,

I can always rely on you to bring the pertinent information to the fore and refocus things. Much obliged.

Yah, Baxter's "uterus buyer" idea, which caused quite a stir, I believe was followed up by the police and eventually put to rest. I think eventually it was traced to an American Doctor, a year prior I think, and was not quite what Baxter had heard (rumours distorted what he was doing and seeking - in the end it was a dead end). I'm not 100% that was the case, but I recall it was discussed a few years ago, and it would not surprise me if I'm just recalling some of what was said and, like most things, the whole issue was never entirely settled.

And as you point out, Dr. Phillips medical opinion was that the cuts made to remove the uterus were by the same knife as used in the other injuries. Yet another pointer to the interpretation that it was indeed JtR who took the uterus. Also, it is interesting how his use of various forms of "excises" comes after mentioning the intestines - which he just describes via "removal" (they were removed from their position after all, but not excised from the body).

Personally, I do take the estimates of how long the crime would require in Annie's case with a grain of salt. The Doctors were dealing with something they had never experienced before, and I suspect they just couldn't imagine such extensive injuries being committed as quickly as they could be. We see in the case of Eddowes, where there couldn't have been 15 minutes (PC Watkins patrol was 14 minutes after all), but her injuries are as extensive and more - while there's more evidence of haste, there was also less light, and so forth. I think, as they gained more experience over time with JtR's crimes, Dr. Phillips would probably revise his estimate for Annie's murder downwards. Obviously, I can't ask him to verify that, but it seems likely to me.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

I can always rely on you to bring the pertinent information to the fore and refocus things. Much obliged.

Yah, Baxter's "uterus buyer" idea, which caused quite a stir, I believe was followed up by the police and eventually put to rest. I think eventually it was traced to an American Doctor, a year prior I think, and was not quite what Baxter had heard (rumours distorted what he was doing and seeking - in the end it was a dead end). I'm not 100% that was the case, but I recall it was discussed a few years ago, and it would not surprise me if I'm just recalling some of what was said and, like most things, the whole issue was never entirely settled.

And as you point out, Dr. Phillips medical opinion was that the cuts made to remove the uterus were by the same knife as used in the other injuries. Yet another pointer to the interpretation that it was indeed JtR who took the uterus. Also, it is interesting how his use of various forms of "excises" comes after mentioning the intestines - which he just describes via "removal" (they were removed from their position after all, but not excised from the body).

Personally, I do take the estimates of how long the crime would require in Annie's case with a grain of salt. The Doctors were dealing with something they had never experienced before, and I suspect they just couldn't imagine such extensive injuries being committed as quickly as they could be. We see in the case of Eddowes, where there couldn't have been 15 minutes (PC Watkins patrol was 14 minutes after all), but her injuries are as extensive and more - while there's more evidence of haste, there was also less light, and so forth. I think, as they gained more experience over time with JtR's crimes, Dr. Phillips would probably revise his estimate for Annie's murder downwards. Obviously, I can't ask him to verify that, but it seems likely to me.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

Thank you for your kind words.

I have some reluctance to view medical advice as needing to fit in with traditional timings. My daughter is a university trained nurse with theatre experience and a post graduate degree in midwifery. When I related the circumstances of the Chapman injuries, without mentioning Phillip's time estimate, she said that a "slash and grab" would take from 10-15 minutes minimum. Her opinion was that the Eddowes abdominal injuries (I didn't mention the facial injuries) could not be perpetrated in 9 minutes (or even 15 minutes). I note that in Trevor's video, between 14 min and 24 min, various medical experts draw a similar conclusion, as did Prosecutor, a surgeon that used to contribute to this forum.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpQqMtVVkzY&t=1011s&ab_channel=dickcopy

What alternatives are available to address these apparent contradictions?

1. Set the traditional times as unassailable by suggesting that the expert medical advice is in error due to the cases being outside the proponent's practical experience.

2. Consider the possibility that the organs were removed by persons unknown after the body had been removed to the morgue, as proposed by Trevor.

3. Consider the possibility that the organs were removed by the murderer, but before the timeframe set out in option 1, and then moved to the crime scene, as proposed by Dave.

I don't know the answer, but I try to keep my mind open to all possibilities.

Best regards, George

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

Thank you for your kind words.

I have some reluctance to view medical advice as needing to fit in with traditional timings. My daughter is a university trained nurse with theatre experience and a post graduate degree in midwifery. When I related the circumstances of the Chapman injuries, without mentioning Phillip's time estimate, she said that a "slash and grab" would take from 10-15 minutes minimum. Her opinion was that the Eddowes abdominal injuries (I didn't mention the facial injuries) could not be perpetrated in 9 minutes (or even 15 minutes). I note that in Trevor's video, between 14 min and 24 min, various medical experts draw a similar conclusion, as did Prosecutor, a surgeon that used to contribute to this forum.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpQqMtVVkzY&t=1011s&ab_channel=dickcopy

What alternatives are available to address these apparent contradictions?

1. Set the traditional times as unassailable by suggesting that the expert medical advice is in error due to the cases being outside the proponent's practical experience.

2. Consider the possibility that the organs were removed by persons unknown after the body had been removed to the morgue, as proposed by Trevor.

3. Consider the possibility that the organs were removed by the murderer, but before the timeframe set out in option 1, and then moved to the crime scene, as proposed by Dave.

I don't know the answer, but I try to keep my mind open to all possibilities.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

In the Eddowes case I guess it would depend upon whether or not one thinks that PC Watskin was unaware of of how long his beat took on that particular round. If we believe his testimony, that his patrol was 14 minutes, during which the body appears, then clearly JtR can require no more than 14 minutes - that's an upper limit. And we have PC Harvey who patrolled Church Passage a few minutes earlier, shaving that down to a window of around 12ish minutes. The simulations I've put together show that the testimony, as given, actually does work.

That to me suggests, with no disrespect intended to your daughter, that her estimate is probably on the too long side. Of course, if one starts from the position that her estimate is the correct one, then we end up with PC Watkins and PC Harvey being the ones whose estimates are wrong, but in the other direction, and that Lawende et al did not see Eddowes and JtR (or that Watkins was way off on his patrol estimate). But given that PC Watkins and Harveys testimony result in a highly plausible recreation, which does not reveal anything that suggests one or the other is wrong in their estimates of time and/or where they were, I see no reason to doubt their testimony. I can't just say "well, they may have gotten it wrong", because "may have" is always possible. What I cannot do is "show they have gotten it wrong", which should be possible because it wouldn't be possible to create a simulation that fits their statements. But it was trivial to do so.

I suggest that estimating the duration of the crimes probably requires specialist medical knowledge and training, meaning someone who has amassed experience in forensic medical issues, specifically with horrific crimes involving mutilation of the body and so forth. I certainly do not have any of that, but I would not be surprised if criminals like this do things a lot faster than we tend to believe. I think Dr. Phillips, for example, similar to your daughter, having training in proper medical procedures, are both looking at the injuries (or the description of them), and benchmarking that to their experience, which would of course be a slow and careful procedure. Indeed, Dr. Phillips himself mentions that point as well in the Chapman case - if he were to do it in a careful way etc, it would take him upwards of an hour, or something like that. Now if we think about that, if Dr. Phillips is thinking that if he were to do it "properly", then we're talking about an hour, so to him 15 minutes is working "really fast". Anything less than that is going to feel so far away from what will appear like the amount of time required that it would probably seem like an unreasonably fast estimate.

There are some interviews with forensic pathologists, though, who when given the Eddowes case, have suggested that JtR could, in their opinion, complete the entire set of mutilations in as little as 3, or even 2, minutes! (Note, Dr. Sequeria at the time estimated JtR required only 3 minutes). That is shocking to me, and even if those estimates are at the extreme end, so could be viewed as on the short side, it does suggest that 5-6 minutes (double those), would not be unreasonable.

There's no way to "know", of course, and medical opinions are still just opinions, two different experts will come to two different conclusions because in the end the medical expert has to form an answer (opinion) without being able to resort to an objective calculation. (Estimating ToD, of course, is one thing where such equations exist, but the output of those equations have an associated error range of +-3 hours, so while the output is objectively calculated, I suppose one could view the error of the estimate as indicating that even then it's an opinion - somewhere in this time window).

All of the information we have rules out the body being moved from elsewhere (the blood flow, and where it clots around the neck, etc, shows her throat was cut where she lay - and so forth. Also, trying to carry a disemboweled body will results in a trail of blood from the wounds, and the police found nothing of the sort. Mind you, there was rain, so that isn't the strongest argument.

The only medical people that we know of who were at the mortuary before the autopsy were the two nurses. So, those are the only two possible candidates we might have with regards to the "organ thieves". The problem for that idea is that it contradicts almost every statement by Dr. Phillips. He states the same knife was used for the uterus extraction as the other injuries, he talks of noting at the crime scene that some bits were excised, which in the context those statements are made indicate he had noted the uterus had been cut out, and so forth.

I appreciate you are keeping an open mind, which is always a good thing. I do not insist that the description of events I'm putting forth (for either the Eddowes or Chapman case) are "proven", they are not. My stance is that based upon what we know, the current best hypothesis is A) Chapman killed around 5:25 and her uterus taken by JtR and B) Eddowes killed during the 6 to 9 minute window (something like that) between the end of the rain (indexed by Lawende et al moving on) with the attack/mutilations probably ending at the time of PC Harvey's patrol (that's probably when JtR leaves the scene). Note, I use Lawende et al to indicate when the rain stops, that doesn't mean that the Church Passage Couple has to be Eddowes and JtR, although at the moment I think that's slightly better than other guesses, but that's just because other ideas place Eddowes in locations for which we have less and less information.

In other words, I keep hoping that at some point new information will be found, and if that new information starts to swing things in a different direction, I would be more than happy to revisit the above. But so far, the two alternatives you've listed do not, in my view, constitute explanations that outperform the idea that JtR killed, mutilated, took organs, and did so in much less time than we might think he needed.

- Jeff

[Doctored Whatsit]

On the question of the time it would take to disembowel a corpse, may I direct attention to two relevant reports -

Firstly Phillips in The Lancet, "Obviously the work was that of an expert - of one, at least, who had such knowledge of anatomical or pathological examinations as to be able to secure the pelvic organs with one sweep of a knife." It is the expertise of one who can remove the innards "with one sweep of a knife" that he is stressing. That could be someone like a butcher/slaughterer. In fact he told Conan Doyle that JtR cut like a butcher.

Then we have a letter sent to the police by R. Hull, an experienced butcher, who described how doctors do not understand how quickly a skilled butcher/slaughterer can work, and that only about one third of the anticipated time was required. Also that an experienced butcher would be ambi-dexterous, removing the doubts as to JtR being right or left handed. He could himself kill and dress four or five sheep in an hour. Presumably, simply removing innards with one sweep of a knife was the work of a few seconds. He also wrote that a butcher/slaughterer would kill and disembowel with very little blood on his hands and person.

We could add the fact that a butcher would be likely to carry chalk on his person, to write meat prices on a board in the shop, and therefore could have written the GSG.

If JtR was a butcher/slaughterer then the time aspect is not an issue, nor is the ability to remove body parts at the murder site. Phillips did seem to believe that the murder weapon was also used to remove the organs - there is nothing in the paperwork to suggest a different knife was used to remove organs which might be expected if a second person did this at the mortuary.

[Trevor Marriott]

On the question of the time it would take to disembowel a corpse, may I direct attention to two relevant reports -

Firstly Phillips in The Lancet, "Obviously the work was that of an expert - of one, at least, who had such knowledge of anatomical or pathological examinations as to be able to secure the pelvic organs with one sweep of a knife." It is the expertise of one who can remove the innards "with one sweep of a knife" that he is stressing. That could be someone like a butcher/slaughterer. In fact he told Conan Doyle that JtR cut like a butcher.

Unfortunately, there are conflicts with the reports some say whoever removed the organs was skilled others say the opposite, You have to remember these alleged removals are alleged to have taken place in almost total darkness from a blood filled abdomen that would cause difficulty in whoever removed them skilled or unskilled, and there are not many different ways to remove these organs, and the use of a long-bladed knife would have also been a hindrance to the killer, a knife with a blade of 6 ins was mentioned would be to big to use for these removals.

If JtR was a butcher/slaughterer then the time aspect is not an issue, nor is the ability to remove body parts at the murder site. Phillips did seem to believe that the murder weapon was also used to remove the organs - there is nothing in the paperwork to suggest a different knife was used to remove organs which might be expected if a second person did this at the mortuary.

But would a butcher have the anatomical knowledge to first be able to locate the organs in a human body and to be able to remove them using that same anatomical knowledge, I very much doubt it otherwise he would not be a butcher but a surgeon

I have posted some pics taken in a modern-day post mortem room at an autopsy I attended for the purpose of proving or disproving the organs removal theory which have been posted before these highlight the degree of difficulty which the killer would have to have contended with in the case of Chapman and Eddowes this first pic shows the uterus with the fallopian tubes attached in its location in the abdomen as was removed intact from Chapman.

The second image shows the difficulty in using a long-bladed knife in trying to work in a confined space to attempt to remove organs

The third image shows the difficulty in locating and being able to grip the kidney enabling that organ to be able to remove it intact as it it encased in renal fat and therefore not readily grippable.

You and others must also bear in mind that with these types of organs removals are concerned doctors need to use other instruments to hold the abdomen open to be able to gain access to the organs and see and feel what they are doing . How was the killer able to do that at the crime scenes?

I think these are convincing enough to cast a major doubt as to what happened to the organs

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi Trevor,

Removing organs with "one sweep of a knife" as specified by Phillips, is what a butcher/slaughterer did, and not a surgeon. He routinely used a long bladed knife to disembowel and totally empty a carcass, including kidney removal. He was not remotely interested in doing a neat job as would a surgeon. He just pulled out and cast aside anything that got in his way, like intestines. For the purposes of evisceration, as done by a butcher/slaughterer, there is not significant difference between say a sheep and a human. JtR just ripped out whatever he wished, and was absolutely not carrying out his task with the precision of a surgeon.

I would reject the "blood filled abdomen" aspect, as the victims bled to death before the eviscerations. If a smaller knife was used for some of the organ removal as you suggest, Phillips didn't notice this.