Mitre Square: Take Two?

[Tom_Wescott]

On this point you're are in conflict with Wynne Baxter when he stated at the Stride inquest "There had been no skilful mutilation as in the cases of Nichols and Chapman, and no unskilful injuries as in the case in Mitre-square - possibly the work of an imitator;".

He judged that there were basic differences beyond just different methods. And he was there at the time. Trevor makes points worthy of the listening.

I've always felt there was a bit of territorialism over the Ripper when it came to Eddowes. The City Police to a man were convinced she was a Ripper victim whereas every other guy on the Met side was keen to dismiss her as a copycat while fully accepting the unmutilated Stride into the canonical fold. I've always wondered at that and what else it might be symptomatic of. Skip forward to the present era and nobody except Lynn Cates and Simon Wood dismiss Eddowes as a Ripper victim but roughly 30% (don't quote me on that) want to give Stride the boot. Personally, I think the odds are strong both Stride and Eddowes are Ripper victims, but it might be good to keep in mind that a) Contemporary opinion tipped in favor of striking Eddowes not Stride, and b) Had Eddowes been killed on the Met side of the boundary, not a one of the contemporary naysayers are likely to have been naysaying.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Lewis C]

The organs were removed at the mortuary before the post-mortem was carried out and probably taken in haste.

There is no way that the killer took those organs, and I said in a previous post,if the killer had been looking to acquire organs then why did he mutilate the abdomen which may have damaged the organs?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes, you said that in a previous post, and Herlock and I both responded to that. Instead of just repeating what we've already responded to, would you care to respond to at least one of our responses? Responding to both would be even better.

[GBinOz]

Then Baxter is stating that there was no skill or great technique involved. So if that was the case why would we expect consistency of method as if the killer was a surgeon concerned for his patients life?

There is no question of concern for the patient's life, as the "patient's" death was premediated. Baxter was of the opinion that the surgical expertise in the Eddowes case was inferior to that in the Chapman case. An opinion with which I disagree. However, I cannot discount out of hand Trevor's theory that the organ removal was prior to the post mortem.

[GBinOz]

So are you suggesting that Insp Reid who was directly involved in the murders is wrong? I think you need to read the article again that's will show you he was correct about many aspects of the murder of Kelly see below.

Set out below is part of that interview, which solely relates to Reid discussing the Mary Kelly Murder in which as can be seen, Reid does not refer to any other murder.

“This was a case in which a pretty, fair-haired, blue-eyed, youthful girl was murdered. She rented a room in a house in Dorset-street, or which she paid 4s 6d a week rent. The room was badly furnished for the reason that her class of people always pawn or sell anything decent they ever get into their places. The curtains to the windows were torn and one of the panes of glass was broken.
Kelly was in arrears with her rent and one morning a man known as ‘The Indian’, who was in the employment of the landlord of the house, went round about eight o’clock to see the woman about the money. Receiving no answer to his knock at the door, he peered through the window, and through the torn curtain saw the horrible sight of the woman lying on her bed hacked to pieces and pieces of her flesh placed upon the table.
I ought to tell you that the stories of portions of the body having been taken away by the murderer were all untrue. In every instance the body was complete. The mania of the murderer was exclusively for horrible mutilation. The landlord was brought round to the house by his man, and the sight of the poor mutilated woman turned his brain.
The suggestion having been made that in the eyes of a murdered person a reflection of the murderer might be retained, we had the eyes of Kelly photographed and the photographs magnified, but the effort was fruitless. We tried every possible means of tracing if the woman had been seen with a man, but without avail. An example of the difficulty we had may be found in that women came forward who swore that they saw Kelly standing at the corner of the court at eight o’clock of the morning her body was found, but the evidence of the doctors proved this to be an impossibility. By that hour the woman had been dead not less than four hours.”


Dr Bond never stated the heart was never found and his report is ambiguous

It should also be noted that a pail containing body parts was removed from Millers Court and taken to the home of Dr Phillips

The photographer who had been called in to photograph the room and the body removed his camera from the premises at half-past four, and 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.”

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Great post Trevor, in the face of your detractors, amongst whom I do not place myself. Whilst I may not agree with all of your opinions, the Maxwell statements in particular, I find that the evidence cannot be contrived to refute your theories.

[Herlock Sholmes]

On this point you're are in conflict with Wynne Baxter when he stated at the Stride inquest "There had been no skilful mutilation as in the cases of Nichols and Chapman, and no unskilful injuries as in the case in Mitre-square - possibly the work of an imitator;".

He judged that there were basic differences beyond just different methods. And he was there at the time. Trevor makes points worthy of the listening.

Then Baxter is stating that there was no skill or great technique involved. So if that was the case why would we expect consistency of method as if the killer was a surgeon concerned for his patients life?

[Trevor Marriott]

Nonsense. If someone has medical or anatomical knowledge it doesn’t make them a genius if they know more than one method. Every surgeon would be able to tell you different ways of doing things.

Such weak points Trevor. Let it go.

So are you suggesting that Insp Reid who was directly involved in the murders is wrong? I think you need to read the article again that's will show you he was correct about many aspects of the murder of Kelly see below.

Set out below is part of that interview, which solely relates to Reid discussing the Mary Kelly Murder in which as can be seen, Reid does not refer to any other murder.

“This was a case in which a pretty, fair-haired, blue-eyed, youthful girl was murdered. She rented a room in a house in Dorset-street, or which she paid 4s 6d a week rent. The room was badly furnished for the reason that her class of people always pawn or sell anything decent they ever get into their places. The curtains to the windows were torn and one of the panes of glass was broken.
Kelly was in arrears with her rent and one morning a man known as ‘The Indian’, who was in the employment of the landlord of the house, went round about eight o’clock to see the woman about the money. Receiving no answer to his knock at the door, he peered through the window, and through the torn curtain saw the horrible sight of the woman lying on her bed hacked to pieces and pieces of her flesh placed upon the table.
I ought to tell you that the stories of portions of the body having been taken away by the murderer were all untrue. In every instance the body was complete. The mania of the murderer was exclusively for horrible mutilation. The landlord was brought round to the house by his man, and the sight of the poor mutilated woman turned his brain.
The suggestion having been made that in the eyes of a murdered person a reflection of the murderer might be retained, we had the eyes of Kelly photographed and the photographs magnified, but the effort was fruitless. We tried every possible means of tracing if the woman had been seen with a man, but without avail. An example of the difficulty we had may be found in that women came forward who swore that they saw Kelly standing at the corner of the court at eight o’clock of the morning her body was found, but the evidence of the doctors proved this to be an impossibility. By that hour the woman had been dead not less than four hours.”


Dr Bond never stated the heart was never found and his report is ambiguous

It should also be noted that a pail containing body parts was removed from Millers Court and taken to the home of Dr Phillips

The photographer who had been called in to photograph the room and the body removed his camera from the premises at half-past four, and 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.”

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GBinOz]

Nonsense. If someone has medical or anatomical knowledge it doesn’t make them a genius if they know more than one method. Every surgeon would be able to tell you different ways of doing things.

On this point you're are in conflict with Wynne Baxter when he stated at the Stride inquest "There had been no skilful mutilation as in the cases of Nichols and Chapman, and no unskilful injuries as in the case in Mitre-square - possibly the work of an imitator;".

He judged that there were basic differences beyond just different methods. And he was there at the time. Trevor makes points worthy of the listening.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Insp Reid in a press interview after his retirement, stated that no organs were removed from Mary Kelly by her killer and the body intact,

Dr Bond listed the organs that were found in the room. Uterus, kidneys, liver, spleen, lungs and intestines; none of which were listed as ‘absent.’ He goes into gory detail to describe what the killer had done and then, at the end, in the very final sentence about body parts he said: “The Pericardium was open below & the Heart absent.” So the man had listed everything in detail but he forgets to tell us where the heart was placed. Why would Dr Bond mention that it was ‘absent’ but not mention that it was found somewhere in the room?

Because it wasn’t. It was missing. The killer took it away.

As far as the other victim Chapman was concerned, who was found to be missing organs at the post-mortem stage, it should be noted that Chapman and Eddowes bodies were taken to two different mortuaries, and the uteri were removed by using two different methods of extraction.

Now, either we have a killer with an anatomical knowledge second to none or as I suggest, the organs were removed at the mortuary before the post mortems and sold to teaching hospitals, making everyone believe the killer had taken them

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Nonsense. If someone has medical or anatomical knowledge it doesn’t make them a genius if they know more than one method. Every surgeon would be able to tell you different ways of doing things.

Such weak points Trevor. Let it go.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, wasn't it Insp. Reid, who after his retirement, stated that there were no organs removed from any of the victims? Was his memory just that bad or was he telling the truth as he remembered it? I tend to agree w/ Reid....JMO

Insp Reid in a press interview after his retirement, stated that no organs were removed from Mary Kelly by her killer and the body intact,

As far as the other victim Chapman was concerned, who was found to be missing organs at the post-mortem stage, it should be noted that Chapman and Eddowes bodies were taken to two different mortuaries, and the uteri were removed by using two different methods of extraction.

Now, either we have a killer with an anatomical knowledge second to none or as I suggest, the organs were removed at the mortuary before the post mortems and sold to teaching hospitals, making everyone believe the killer had taken them

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Duran duren]

The organs were removed at the mortuary before the post-mortem was carried out and probably taken in haste.

There is no way that the killer took those organs, and I said in a previous post,if the killer had been looking to acquire organs then why did he mutilate the abdomen which may have damaged the organs?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor, wasn't it Insp. Reid, who after his retirement, stated that there were no organs removed from any of the victims? Was his memory just that bad or was he telling the truth as he remembered it? I tend to agree w/ Reid....JMO

[Tom_Wescott]

I'd be cautious about accusing a witness of lying without good reason. Mind you, this is coming from a guy who literally wrote a book (The Bank Holiday Murders) for which the premise was that a witness (Pearly Poll) lied through her teeth. But I backed it up with a mountain of evidence. It's a case of asking ourselves 'What would they have to gain?' by lying and 'What would they have to lose?' by not lying. I'd say it's more likely for a cop to lie than a witness. For instance, in Buck's Row, there's good reason to believe at least a couple of the coppers told white lies of the CYA variety. But these lies didn't impact the case. I suspect some politicking in the case of John Pizer as Leather Apron, but again that was on the side of police. The police planted fake news in the press to meet their own ends, but that was to aid the investigation, not to harm it. And I do believe two if not three witnesses were lying to protect the killer. So, there was plenty of lying going around. But accusing any witness of lying without good reason - especially if it's just an expedient way of helping a theory along - is the same or worse as just writing something off as 'coincidence'.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Sunny Delight]

I think when we consider alternatives like witnesses lying or Policemen lying about their beat we need to try and discern what we can about their character and any possible motive to lie. Of course with these people who are long gone we have no one to ask what kind of person they were. We can't speak with them personally or pick up local gossip or those who they went to school with in order to try and build a more complete picture.

For instance what do we know about the Policemen of that night. What was their Police record like? Did anyone mention them in their memoirs? How did they appear at the Inquest? Does it tell us anything? Are there any local newspaper reports about these men? Witness wise what kind of motive would they have for lying? Were they unemployed perhaps and desperate, needing a few bob? Did they have a clean record? Were they seemingly family men?

We must always hold the possibility of mistruths, lies or diversion. We must always hold the possibility of less than diligent Police work or laziness or complacency. But they can never really be proven.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Lewis,

Yes it’s baffling. A straightforward point. Trevor appears to think that you can dismiss the suggestion that the killer might have had longer on the grounds that the mere possibility exists that the couple waited around before entering Mitre Square. That would be like me saying that Cross couldn’t have been the ripper because he might not have had a knife on him at the time.

We have this:

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. Both these organs were absent, and have not been found.

So for Trevor - Why would organ thieves, not operating out in the open in poor lighting, have taken a uterus with a piece missing. Was there a call for incomplete uteri?

The organs were removed at the mortuary before the post-mortem was carried out and probably taken in haste.

There is no way that the killer took those organs, and I said in a previous post,if the killer had been looking to acquire organs then why did he mutilate the abdomen which may have damaged the organs?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Tom_Wescott]

I recall Dr. Brown said that it would have taken 'at least five minutes' to inflict all the injuries. That means he thought it possible to have been accomplished by one person in five minutes but may have taken longer. I've always found that difficult to believe. Not impossible to believe, but difficult. But let's put five minutes on the table. You also have to allow time for the couple to have entered the square and moved to the corner. There would also be preamble. The Ripper would need time (not a lot, but some) to render her unconscious and put her on her back. Now you're at 7 to 8 minutes. The Ripper also needed time to cut off the apron (which I think happened towards the beginning to facilitate the raising of her skirts). He emptied her pockets and rifled and did a variety of things the doctors would not have taken into account. We're at about 8-9 minutes here.

Did Dr. Phillips ever offer an estimate of how long he thinks it would have taken? I don't believe he did, though he was in on the examination. I would love to have his answer as he did not work for the City Police.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

That's one question I have, and I have more. Could he have removed the organs without stabbing the abdomen? Might he have known how to stab the abdomen without damaging the organs? If his stabbing the abdomen damaged the organs, might that also be an argument that he must have been the one who removed them? Would the hypothetical people that might have wanted to take the organs later be OK with taking damaged organs? I'd think they'd be more likely to care about the condition of the organs than the killer.

I agree with you that the point that you've made 3 or 4 times is a simple one. I don't see how anyone in this forum could fail to understand it, unless they aren't carefully reading what you're saying.

Hi Lewis,

Yes it’s baffling. A straightforward point. Trevor appears to think that you can dismiss the suggestion that the killer might have had longer on the grounds that the mere possibility exists that the couple waited around before entering Mitre Square. That would be like me saying that Cross couldn’t have been the ripper because he might not have had a knife on him at the time.

We have this:

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. Both these organs were absent, and have not been found.

So for Trevor - Why would organ thieves, not operating out in the open in poor lighting, have taken a uterus with a piece missing. Was there a call for incomplete uteri?