Mitre Square: Take Two?

[Lewis C]

And another point to be considered with regard to the organ removal is if the killer's motive was to murder and take organs, why did he stab her abdomen and therefore likely to damage the organs he was allegedly seeking.

Why do you assume that he wanted pristine organs? Have you had the OUIJA board out again?

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.

[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?

[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

[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

[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.

[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

[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