John Richardson

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

With respect, you don't know what you are talking about

If you stab someone in the abdomen you will likely as not sever blood vessels and arteries which will cause the abdomen to fill with blood.

He didn't rip out just what he wanted in the case of Chapman her uterus complete with the fallopian tubes attached was removed with anatomical knowledge that is a recorded fact.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

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

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Just so you know, anatomical knowledge = "knowing where the bits are" and surgical skill means "trained in human surgery" and "skill" (without the surgical qualifier), just means not clumsy (ok, being a bit silly, means made clean cuts.)

From your statements, it seems you do not comprehend the difference, and an important one, between anatomical knowledge and surgical skill. For example, I've got an idea as to where the kidneys are (anatomical knowledge), but I've never removed one, nor have I been trained as to how one would (no surgical skill). But, I'm not a complete clutz, so I think I could still "give it a go", as they say (I could display "knife skill").

All the testimony really says is that the doctors thought that JtR must have known where the organs were (anatomical knowledge), and showed some knife skill, so not a clutz. Some opinions were he may have had surgical skill (but only at the Chapman inquest, and after that, crickets. Why? Who knows for sure eh? But probably because, well, you know, first case and all, nothing like what you've seen - maybe you just overstated your case and all).

But of course, maybe they were wrong? Right? It was just their opinion, it's not proven, it's unsafe (or does it fit your theory, making it rock solid safe stuff? I can never keep track, but I await your clarification).

Oh, I was going to include a photo too, but I couldn't find one as unrelated to the case as the ones you included and I thought that I would be doing a disservice as a result.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Just so you know, anatomical knowledge = "knowing where the bits are" and surgical skill means "trained in human surgery" and "skill" (without the surgical qualifier), just means not clumsy (ok, being a bit silly, means made clean cuts.)

From your statements, it seems you do not comprehend the difference, and an important one, between anatomical knowledge and surgical skill. For example, I've got an idea as to where the kidneys are (anatomical knowledge), but I've never removed one, nor have I been trained as to how one would (no surgical skill). But, I'm not a complete clutz, so I think I could still "give it a go", as they say (I could display "knife skill").

Whoever removed the uterus from Chapman had both anatomical knowledge and the surgical skill to be able to extract that organ

Coroner
The body has not been dissected, but the injuries have been made by someone who had considerable anatomical skill and knowledge. 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. For instance, no mere slaughterer of animals could have carried out these operations. It must have been someone accustomed to the post-mortem room.

All the testimony really says is that the doctors thought that JtR must have known where the organs were (anatomical knowledge), and showed some knife skill, so not a clutz. Some opinions were he may have had surgical skill (but only at the Chapman inquest, and after that, crickets. Why? Who knows for sure eh? But probably because, well, you know, first case and all, nothing like what you've seen - maybe you just overstated your case and all).

But of course, maybe they were wrong? Right? It was just their opinion, it's not proven, it's unsafe (or does it fit your theory, making it rock solid safe stuff? I can never keep track, but I await your clarification).

There is nothing to clarify the reports speak for themselves you have no argument your replies are full of conjecture and opinion

Oh, I was going to include a photo too, but I couldn't find one as unrelated to the case as the ones you included and I thought that I would be doing a disservice as a result. - Jeff

Well I was clearly making it easier for you to comprehend what I was including in the post and the photos but clearly, you still have your head buried in the sand on this topic.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Michael W Richards]

Just thought that Id throw in the fact that Annies is the ONLY murder where higher skill and anatomical knowledge levels were cited. It also started the police searching Medical Teaching Hospitals and the like for potential suspects. That search ended before Kates murder and was not continued after it. Its also the ONLY one in the series that had the surgeon in charge suggest that the killer methods and actions were done specifically to access and extract the organ he took intact. The uterus. Interesting when compared with Mary for example, where it would be ridiculous to suggest the cuts made on her were all made to secure her heart as the final objective. Cutting down to the bone on her thigh is just one example of her killers focus on a heart.....

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi Trevor,

You keep quoting the coroner in the Chapman case, who expressed his views about surgical skills prior to telling the world about his theory of the trade in human organs. The problem is that the coroner was promoting his own theory, and was not an expert in forensic medicine. Phillips, who was an expert, reported "The mode in which these portions were extracted showed some anatomical knowledge," and later, "The mode in which the knife had been used seemed to indicate great anatomical knowledge."

Only the coroner mentioned surgical skills in the post mortem room, the doctor - the one who knew what he was talking about - was careful to specify anatomical knowledge only.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well I was clearly making it easier for you to comprehend what I was including in the post and the photos but clearly, you still have your head buried in the sand on this topic.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Just thought I’d point out (again) that you might have noticed that yet again you stand entirely isolated when vociferously defending one of your theories. Have you ever considered that you might just be wrong on this Trevor. Are other people always wrong and you are always right? Is that how you view things? People on the outer fringes of a topic are usually there for a good reason.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Trevor,

Well I was clearly making it easier for you to comprehend what I was including in the post and the photos but clearly, you still have your head buried in the sand on this topic.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

1) P-K4 P-K4 2) N-KB3 N-QB3 3) B-B4 B-B4 ....

I've included some chess moves Trevor, like your photo, they have nothing to do with JtR, but I've included them to make it easier for you to comprehend the difference between anatomical knowledge and surgical skill.

But, I hear you say, that makes no sense?

Exactly, much like your inclusions of photos that illustrate a medical procedure and not a serial killer. They add nothing, despite your apparent glee over having them.

You keep presenting things that are, at best, only tangentially related to the case and claim you are presenting some sort of proof. And yet, when people suggest things like "If the Church Passage Couple were Eddowes and JtR, then they could have made it to the crime scene with enough time for the crime to occur", you go apoplectic with your screams of "but we do not know when they moved off...". Let's set aside your failure to understand that when someone says "If X...", they are acknowledging that we do not know, so are simply working from one of the possibilities, but focus on what sets you off with regards to other people's comments. You throw your toys out of the crib, to coin a phrase, when someone suggests something not proven, even if they provide links to information directly from the case itself. You provide some photos, not from the case, not from a serial murder case, and yet you do not admonish yourself with something like "But we do not know if those photos are anything like what JtR did"...

Sure, you're showing a photo of where various bits are. But why? We all know the kidneys and uterus are in the abdomen, or was that news to you and these photos are what finally provided you with that information? What do you think you've done? Proven that the organs are in the abdomen? We all know the internals are goopy and messy, do you think showing those photo somehow revealed that knowledge to everyone? All of us have that anatomical knowledge (notice, I didn't say surgical skill - because they are not the same thing - do you not know that yet despite all the years you've dabbled in the case?) What exactly do you think those photos are useful for? Because I can tell you, nothing. JtR, if (please look up the word if in case you're unfamiliar with what it means) he had anatomical knowledge would also know the bits are in the abdomen. Moreover, he's not actually killing woman to get their kidneys or uterii per se, he's killing them and mutilating them because of some personal reason of rage against women. Taking bits isn't about the specific bits, it's about taking something, so you're pretending that JtR must have been going specifically for uterii and/or kidneys is wrong headed, but you stick to it because you find it easier to rebut things if you can go on about that.

But you're rubutting something very very few people actually think - other than Baxter at the Chapman inquest, and note, his "uterus buyer idea" never comes up again, so it seems even he dropped that idea.

And in the Chapman case, the first of the missing organ cases, was probably committed with the most light available. The drop in the estimate of skill level could be due to
a) JtR could see better
b) JtR was getting more disturbed over time, and his actions become more frenzied
c) JtR had some trade of which knife work skills were a part. Note the Doctors that you love to quote when they say what suits you, also stated that in their opinion the knowledge and skill displayed in the Eddowes case could be gained by cutting up animals, like a slaughterer or butcher

I could list more possible lines to consider, but based upon your past behaviour I suspect you'll consider none of them even if the list is short, and given everyone else is well versed with the various options my listing possibilities really only has the potential of helping you understand the complexities of the case. However, I am well aware my attempt, like so many before me, will likely fail in that goal. But hope springs eternal.

I know that last medical opinion (option c, incase you stopped reading the list at a) doesn't tickle your fancy, so you'll reject this point, probably quite strongly, which is frankly quite amusing as you will often flip flop between demanding everyone accept Dr. Phillips' estimate of the ToD as gospel but when he says that the same knife was used to remove the uterus as the other cuts, he is now unreliable. I sometimes wonder if you are even aware of how self contradictory your presentations are? but I digress.

You really should take some time and learn how evidence and theory are connected, the underlying "logic" of how we go from observations to interpretation. You seem to be of the impression that one can just randomly sort out the evidence, pick some of it, build a story, and then look at the pile of evidence that doesn't fit the story and go "oh, that's all the wrong stuff". See, that's not how it works.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,



1) P-K4 P-K4 2) N-KB3 N-QB3 3) B-B4 B-B4 ....

I've included some chess moves Trevor, like your photo, they have nothing to do with JtR, but I've included them to make it easier for you to comprehend the difference between anatomical knowledge and surgical skill.

I know the difference but you don't know how to apply the two in these murders

But, I hear you say, that makes no sense?

Exactly, much like your inclusions of photos that illustrate a medical procedure and not a serial killer. They add nothing, despite your apparent glee over having them.

They show the locations of the organs in the abdomen and show the degree of difficulty involve in trying to remove them with a 6 inch bladed knife from a blood-filled abdomen in almost total darkness with no form of retraction to hold the abdomen open for the organs to be removed

You keep presenting things that are, at best, only tangentially related to the case and claim you are presenting some sort of proof. And yet, when people suggest things like "If the Church Passage Couple were Eddowes and JtR, then they could have made it to the crime scene with enough time for the crime to occur", you go apoplectic with your screams of "but we do not know when they moved off...". Let's set aside your failure to understand that when someone says "If X...", they are acknowledging that we do not know, so are simply working from one of the possibilities, but focus on what sets you off with regards to other people's comments. You throw your toys out of the crib, to coin a phrase, when someone suggests something not proven, even if they provide links to information directly from the case itself. You provide some photos, not from the case, not from a serial murder case, and yet you do not admonish yourself with something like "But we do not know if those photos are anything like what JtR did"...

I present what is called best evidence in criminal investigations

Sure, you're showing a photo of where various bits are. But why? We all know the kidneys and uterus are in the abdomen, or was that news to you and these photos are what finally provided you with that information? What do you think you've done? Proven that the organs are in the abdomen? We all know the internals are goopy and messy, do you think showing those photo somehow revealed that knowledge to everyone? All of us have that anatomical knowledge (notice, I didn't say surgical skill - because they are not the same thing - do you not know that yet despite all the years you've dabbled in the case?) What exactly do you think those photos are useful for? Because I can tell you, nothing. JtR, if (please look up the word if in case you're unfamiliar with what it means) he had anatomical knowledge would also know the bits are in the abdomen. Moreover, he's not actually killing woman to get their kidneys or uterii per se, he's killing them and mutilating them because of some personal reason of rage against women. Taking bits isn't about the specific bits, it's about taking something, so you're pretending that JtR must have been going specifically for uterii and/or kidneys is wrong headed, but you stick to it because you find it easier to rebut things if you can go on about that.

Well those are the organs he is alleged to have taken so whoever took them must have wanted them and that is shown by the removal of the same organs from Chapman and Eddowes i.e the uterus. I have said before certain organs were in much demand for teaching hospitals i.e the female reproductive organs

But you're rubutting something very very few people actually think - other than Baxter at the Chapman inquest, and note, his "uterus buyer idea" never comes up again, so it seems even he dropped that idea.

And in the Chapman case, the first of the missing organ cases, was probably committed with the most light available. The drop in the estimate of skill level could be due to
a) JtR could see better
b) JtR was getting more disturbed over time, and his actions become more frenzied
c) JtR had some trade of which knife work skills were a part. Note the Doctors that you love to quote when they say what suits you, also stated that in their opinion the knowledge and skill displayed in the Eddowes case could be gained by cutting up animals, like a slaughterer or butcher

But none of those apply if the TOD was much earlier, and if it was the same hand that killed Chapman and Eddowes why do we see two different methods of extraction of the uterus surely if he had removed the uterus and its appendages from Chapman in a professional way as decsribed why did he not remove the uterus from Eddowes in the same way?

I could list more possible lines to consider, but based upon your past behaviour I suspect you'll consider none of them even if the list is short, and given everyone else is well versed with the various options my listing possibilities really only has the potential of helping you understand the complexities of the case. However, I am well aware my attempt, like so many before me, will likely fail in that goal. But hope springs eternal.

I know that last medical opinion (option c, incase you stopped reading the list at a) doesn't tickle your fancy, so you'll reject this point, probably quite strongly, which is frankly quite amusing as you will often flip flop between demanding everyone accept Dr. Phillips' estimate of the ToD as gospel but when he says that the same knife was used to remove the uterus as the other cuts, he is now unreliable. I sometimes wonder if you are even aware of how self contradictory your presentations are? but I digress.

That cannot be established he was simply second-guessing there is no way specific cuts can be attributed to a specific knife unless it was one with a serrated edge then that can be shown. No doctor in this day an age would dream of trying to remove any internal organ with a 6 inch bladed instrument

Phillips in Chapman case

"It must have been a very sharp knife, probably with a thin, narrow blade, and at least six to eight inches in length, and perhaps longer.

Brown in Eddowes case

It must have been a sharp-pointed knife, and I should say at least 6 in. long"

The pic I posted shows the difficulty of working with such a long knife in the dark in a blood-filled abdomen with no retraction

You really should take some time and learn how evidence and theory are connected, the underlying "logic" of how we go from observations to interpretation. You seem to be of the impression that one can just randomly sort out the evidence, pick some of it, build a story, and then look at the pile of evidence that doesn't fit the story and go "oh, that's all the wrong stuff". See, that's not how it works.

- Jeff

And I really think you need to revisit the definition of evidence and how it is applied to criminal investigations because you seem to have no concept at all.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

But none of those apply if the TOD was much earlier, and if it was the same hand that killed Chapman and Eddowes why do we see two different methods of extraction of the uterus surely if he had removed the uterus and its appendages from Chapman in a professional way as decsribed why did he not remove the uterus from Eddowes in the same way

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And why did our organ thief incompetently remove the uterus but competently remove the more difficult kidney?

[Trevor Marriott]

And why did our organ thief incompetently remove the uterus but competently remove the more difficult kidney?

As I said in a previous post if two different persons removed the uteri from the two different mortuaries using two different methods that would explain the difference in extraction and would show that the person who removed Eddowes's uterus was perhaps not as competent as the person removing the same organ from Chapman, or it was a slip of the knife during the extraction.

Do you acknowledge that there was an illicit trade in organs for medical research in the LVP?
Do you acknowledge that part of this illicit trade involved mortuary attendants who worked with body dealers who provided organs to teaching hospitals?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

As I said in a previous post if two different persons removed the uteri from the two different mortuaries using two different methods that would explain the difference in extraction and would show that the person who removed Eddowes's uterus was perhaps not as competent as the person removing the same organ from Chapman, or it was a slip of the knife during the extraction.

Do you acknowledge that there was an illicit trade in organs for medical research in the LVP? Yes.
Do you acknowledge that part of this illicit trade involved mortuary attendants who worked with body dealers who provided organs to teaching hospitals? Yes.

Their existence has never really been disputed as far as I’m aware Trevor but you seem to think that existence is sufficient to draw a conclusion. Cannibalism existed but can we propose that peckish cannibals took the organs? All that you’ve done is to arrive at an opinion that the killer couldn’t have removed organs in the time available by cherrypicking evidence and by favouring your own instinct. Then you use the existence organ thieves to back up your claim despite a yawning chasm where evidence should exist.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor, you are simply skating past the point that I’ve been making for the last few posts.

If Eddowes kidney and uterus were both removed from the same mortuary (therefore by the same organ thief) how do you explain the way that he botched the easier to access uterus but did a good job of the harder to access kidney??

By you’re previous reasoning this should mean that there were two entirely separate organ thieves at the same mortuary. Is that you’re belief?

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, you are simply skating past the point that I’ve been making for the last few posts.

If Eddowes kidney and uterus were both removed from the same mortuary (therefore by the same organ thief) how do you explain the way that he botched the easier to access uterus but did a good job of the harder to access kidney??

By you’re previous reasoning this should mean that there were two entirely separate organ thieves at the same mortuary. Is that you’re belief?

I have answered your question in the previous post to which you are replying, and I am not skating, and I am not suggesting that there were two organ thieves at the same mortuary but now you have mentioned it, perhaps the mortuary attendant was offering a buy-one-get-one-free deal,

I could ask why if it were the same killer who had the medical knowledge to remove the uterus from Chapman intact, why wasn't he able to remove simply the uterus intact from Eddowes? Two different persons at two different mortuaries using two different methods to extract the uterus

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have answered your question in the previous post to which you are replying, and I am not skating, and I am not suggesting that there were two organ thieves at the same mortuary but now you have mentioned it, perhaps the mortuary attendant was offering a buy-one-get-one-free deal,

I could ask why if it were the same killer who had the medical knowledge to remove the uterus from Chapman intact, why wasn't he able to remove simply the uterus intact from Eddowes? Two different persons at two different mortuaries using two different methods to extract the uterus

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Unbelievably you’re still ignoring the point…

Im not talking about 2 different organ thieves at 2 different mortuaries I’m talking about 2 different organ thieves at the same mortuary!

You are making the point that two different methods points to two different people. I’ve said that surely then, using your own thinking, 2 different STANDARDS of extraction should imply two men too. And as the 2 different standards occurred on the same body at the same mortuary why aren’t you claiming 2 organ thieves at the same mortuary?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I could ask why if it were the same killer who had the medical knowledge to remove the uterus from Chapman intact, why wasn't he able to remove simply the uterus intact from Eddowes? Two different persons at two different mortuaries using two different methods to extract the uterus

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

If Harry Kane scores a penalty against Chelsea and then next week he misses one against Arsenal does that mean that there are two Harry Kane’s