Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes
View Post
I’ve just re-read the much mentioned Professor Hurren’s article which appears to be the inspiration behind Trevor’s theory. So a brief (ish) summing up for those that haven’t read it (which appears to include Trevor)
At the start of her piece Professor Hurren points out the link that the victims had to Dorset Street which she sees as important and that it indicates that there was something about Dorset Street itself that was important to the ripper. Then she asks how the ripper managed to blend in with the surroundings. She concludes that the killer had the resources to maintain a disguise, or to be hidden by someone or earned money in such a way that it provided him with a cover story. She then describes the area and the methods of those who were forced into prostitution.
She then discusses the Medical Act (1858) and the extension of that Act in 1885. These set into law the anatomical training that doctors, surgeons, midwives etc had to undertake in order to enter their professions. This naturally involved dissection which led to the rise to a network of body dealers to supply the required number of cadavers. She then mentioned the Anatomy Act which stated that those who died in poverty in Poor Law institutions, and whose families couldn’t afford a funeral, had to repay their debt to society on the dissecting table. The network of body dealers was forced to expand in time though due to better diets, better sanitation and improvements in the treatment of disease etc. Body dealers bought bodies found dead in the street after they were taken to a nearby pub where the deal was made. They purchased bodies at the back doors of doss houses, brothels, night refuges, infirmaries and even convents (including women that died during failed abortions.) By 1888 the dissection records at St Bart’s record a body deal every night in the East End. They would eventually be buried in large public graves. The Professor suggests that if the ripper had medical knowledge then this environment would have provided cover for him.
According to Prof H, the body dealing business relied on a complex human supply chain and cash payments. She gives an example that an undertaker might have someone at the local mortuary or a dead house connected to a workhouse in his pay. Or a Porter or a nurse. For a payment these would inform him when there was a body. It’s also the case that amputated limbs were sold. Records were kept at the hospitals to satisfy a coroner, should there be an inquiry, that no foul play had occurred. It was legal to supply a body for dissection but it was illegal to personally profit from the sale.
She also says that body dealers were often sympathetic figures in the East End and so if the ripper was using the body dealing business as a cover he’d have had to have communicated sympathetically with people, just as he might have with his victims. Unfortunately she then states the body dealers often dressed in black and carried medical bags which she says were descriptions provided by some witnesses!
She then points out the likeliness that the killer had medical knowledge but her next point isn’t a good one:
“Yet crime historiography seldom discusses the possibility that a woman made the first initial approach, not a man. This would explain a lack of circumspection in all the cases.”
The “lack of circumspection” can surely be better explained by sheer financial desperation. It’s a little worrying that Professor Hurren doesn’t seem to get this obvious point. What she then suggests is that the killer might have had a female accomplice making the initial approach. She suggests Mary Jane Kelly although for some reason she calls her Mary Ann Kelly. She then calls her: “the fifth iconic victim.” Surely she meant ‘canonical’?
The professor then brings up the 1915 comment from a novice at a convent recalling an older nun saying: “If it had not been for the Kelly woman none of the murders would have happened”. Following on from this she makes her suggestion that Mary Kelly might have been connected to the body dealing trade. She even suggests that the barrows kept by McCarthy might have been used.
I’m not going to bother discussing the last few paragraphs of this because everyone will get the gist.
She does mention: "Trafficking in bodies and body parts to teach human anatomy to medical students was the norm in the East End of London in 1888" butreading through her article it appears that when she talks of body parts she’s talking about amputated limbs.
Female reproductive organs were highly sought after by teaching hospitals
Through all of this she talks about ‘body dealers’ and not the ‘organ thieves’ that Trevor describes. Nowhere in this particular article does she talk about people stealing organs from bodies in mortuaries; or anywhere else for that matter. Maybe she does in other articles?
Surely a body dealer has to employ someone I never use the term body thieves if corrupt mortuary attendants who were clearly involved in this body/body parts operation as we know they were
Question - I have to ask Trevor, is there any documented evidence anywhere of people specifically getting into mortuaries and removing organs and not the body as a whole?
She highlights the fact that mortuary staff were involved and as no one was ever prosecuted to my knowledge that question is unanswerable
It’s also noticeable that Professor Hurren says:
“Forensic evidence suggests that the murderer grabbed the women, cut their throats, and then eased the dying victim onto the street. In this way, they attracted as little attention as possible to the crime. It is noteworthy that fluids drained away fast, generally behind the victim’s head. They may have been attacked from the front but the body was then placed back carefully on the ground or bed. Blood thus gushed out of the body from the neck area but did not spill onto the torso. The murderer was then free to dissect the corpse cleanly : a valued anatomical skill in an era when preservation techniques were crude. Each torso was also opened from the neck to the navel. In a frenzied but highly skilled attack the womb was cut open above the upper vagina area. This exposed the pectoral muscles. The organs were taken out undamaged, including the womb itself.“
So even the person that Trevor uses as the basis for his theory believes that the killer took organs.
At the start of her piece Professor Hurren points out the link that the victims had to Dorset Street which she sees as important and that it indicates that there was something about Dorset Street itself that was important to the ripper. Then she asks how the ripper managed to blend in with the surroundings. She concludes that the killer had the resources to maintain a disguise, or to be hidden by someone or earned money in such a way that it provided him with a cover story. She then describes the area and the methods of those who were forced into prostitution.
She then discusses the Medical Act (1858) and the extension of that Act in 1885. These set into law the anatomical training that doctors, surgeons, midwives etc had to undertake in order to enter their professions. This naturally involved dissection which led to the rise to a network of body dealers to supply the required number of cadavers. She then mentioned the Anatomy Act which stated that those who died in poverty in Poor Law institutions, and whose families couldn’t afford a funeral, had to repay their debt to society on the dissecting table. The network of body dealers was forced to expand in time though due to better diets, better sanitation and improvements in the treatment of disease etc. Body dealers bought bodies found dead in the street after they were taken to a nearby pub where the deal was made. They purchased bodies at the back doors of doss houses, brothels, night refuges, infirmaries and even convents (including women that died during failed abortions.) By 1888 the dissection records at St Bart’s record a body deal every night in the East End. They would eventually be buried in large public graves. The Professor suggests that if the ripper had medical knowledge then this environment would have provided cover for him.
According to Prof H, the body dealing business relied on a complex human supply chain and cash payments. She gives an example that an undertaker might have someone at the local mortuary or a dead house connected to a workhouse in his pay. Or a Porter or a nurse. For a payment these would inform him when there was a body. It’s also the case that amputated limbs were sold. Records were kept at the hospitals to satisfy a coroner, should there be an inquiry, that no foul play had occurred. It was legal to supply a body for dissection but it was illegal to personally profit from the sale.
She also says that body dealers were often sympathetic figures in the East End and so if the ripper was using the body dealing business as a cover he’d have had to have communicated sympathetically with people, just as he might have with his victims. Unfortunately she then states the body dealers often dressed in black and carried medical bags which she says were descriptions provided by some witnesses!
She then points out the likeliness that the killer had medical knowledge but her next point isn’t a good one:
“Yet crime historiography seldom discusses the possibility that a woman made the first initial approach, not a man. This would explain a lack of circumspection in all the cases.”
The “lack of circumspection” can surely be better explained by sheer financial desperation. It’s a little worrying that Professor Hurren doesn’t seem to get this obvious point. What she then suggests is that the killer might have had a female accomplice making the initial approach. She suggests Mary Jane Kelly although for some reason she calls her Mary Ann Kelly. She then calls her: “the fifth iconic victim.” Surely she meant ‘canonical’?
The professor then brings up the 1915 comment from a novice at a convent recalling an older nun saying: “If it had not been for the Kelly woman none of the murders would have happened”. Following on from this she makes her suggestion that Mary Kelly might have been connected to the body dealing trade. She even suggests that the barrows kept by McCarthy might have been used.
I’m not going to bother discussing the last few paragraphs of this because everyone will get the gist.
She does mention: "Trafficking in bodies and body parts to teach human anatomy to medical students was the norm in the East End of London in 1888" butreading through her article it appears that when she talks of body parts she’s talking about amputated limbs.
Female reproductive organs were highly sought after by teaching hospitals
Through all of this she talks about ‘body dealers’ and not the ‘organ thieves’ that Trevor describes. Nowhere in this particular article does she talk about people stealing organs from bodies in mortuaries; or anywhere else for that matter. Maybe she does in other articles?
Surely a body dealer has to employ someone I never use the term body thieves if corrupt mortuary attendants who were clearly involved in this body/body parts operation as we know they were
Question - I have to ask Trevor, is there any documented evidence anywhere of people specifically getting into mortuaries and removing organs and not the body as a whole?
She highlights the fact that mortuary staff were involved and as no one was ever prosecuted to my knowledge that question is unanswerable
It’s also noticeable that Professor Hurren says:
“Forensic evidence suggests that the murderer grabbed the women, cut their throats, and then eased the dying victim onto the street. In this way, they attracted as little attention as possible to the crime. It is noteworthy that fluids drained away fast, generally behind the victim’s head. They may have been attacked from the front but the body was then placed back carefully on the ground or bed. Blood thus gushed out of the body from the neck area but did not spill onto the torso. The murderer was then free to dissect the corpse cleanly : a valued anatomical skill in an era when preservation techniques were crude. Each torso was also opened from the neck to the navel. In a frenzied but highly skilled attack the womb was cut open above the upper vagina area. This exposed the pectoral muscles. The organs were taken out undamaged, including the womb itself.“
So even the person that Trevor uses as the basis for his theory believes that the killer took organs.
She has not done enough research into the Whitechapel murders because, as you know, that was not the case with Eddowes her uterus was damaged in its removal
Trevor is doing what he’s very enthusiastic to accuse everyone else of - he’s relying on clearly unsafe material. This is a clear example of journalistic embellishment but I’ll make a prediction Wick. Trevor won’t challenge you on the substance of your analysis (because he can’t). He’s already replied with a kind of “whatever” answer so he will now try his damnedest to ignore this point or move the subject on. If history repeats itself though (and it will) if this discussion comes up in 6 months or a years time he’ll be quoting the same article again.
Leave a comment: