The kidney removal of Catherine Eddowes.
Collapse
X
-
The fact remains that the Uterus was removed and there is no way to know what was used to handle the organs. In Eddowes case there was the Apron. Would there be much blood if the victims were bled out? Also, without photographs of the victims the only evidence would be the post mortem narratives. Still..it appears the requirements were a very sharp knife and possibily some anatomical knowledge. I dont believe there were 2 different mortuary assistants stealing organs with no value. It's an interesting theory.
-
Would the task be made easier with 2 culprits?
A couple perhaps?
One to overpower and subdue; the other to cut and eviscerate?
The man to hold the bladder, while the woman gets to the uterus with her knife?
Were the police only looking for solitary culprits?
Nobody would suspect a couple would they?
Even though there was a couple standing on the corner of the board school in the Stride murder and a couple allegedly seen talking to MJK not long before she was murdered.
What if "Jack the Ripper' were a couple of psychopaths?
That would explain how so much was done so fast and in relative darkness.
Many hands make light work and all that Jazz
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by GBinOz View PostHi Trevor,
My understanding is that in the case of Eddowes the bladder, which would be in front of the uterus and obscure the uterus in your photos, was intact and undamaged making the task more difficult than your photos may indicate.
Cheers, George
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
Unless the killer was a blind man of course.
Then the darkness would make no difference and his sense of touch enhanced.
If a blind man can win Strictly Come Dancing; then the Ripper may indeed have been blind.
I mean, who would suspect a blind man sitting on the street pavement with his concertina?
Never say never
Leave a comment:
-
Hi Trevor,
My understanding is that in the case of Eddowes the bladder, which would be in front of the uterus and obscure the uterus in your photos, was intact and undamaged making the task more difficult than your photos may indicate.
Cheers, George
Leave a comment:
-
There is no evidence whatsoever , that anyone other than the killer himself, removed any organs from any victim other than at the crime scene.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by The Rookie Detective View PostThat put me off my plum jam on toast.
Leave a comment:
-
WARNING GRAPHIC IMAGES IN THIS POST
All the medical people I have spoken to all say the same, first you have to know the location of the uterus and then another problem is being able to grip it to be able to remove it in the dark from a blood-filled abdomen without the aid of a retractor to hold the abdomen open
I should also mention that in the case of Chapman the fallopian tubes with the uterus attached were completely removed
But did the killer lift the intestines out, or did they recoil out of the abdomen following the abdomen being opened in the case of Chapman, we see no such activity with Eddowes.
As I have said before two different methods of extraction from two different mortuaries
To make it easier for those who still believe the killer removed the organs at the crime scenes I have posted below some images that highlight the degree of difficulty in that theory
Pic 1 shows the Uterus with fallopian tubes attached
Pic 2 Show the uterus
Pic 3 shows the uterus complete with fallopian tubes after removal
Leave a comment:
-
Hi Trevor,
I, too, have not rejected your theory as I find it creative and plausible. But I have doubts. Clearly, the killer at both crime scenes lifted out the intestines and put them over the victim's shoulder. So - at the very least - he could do that on that spot. As a non-medical expert, my question is that once the victim was basically eviscerated, how difficult would it have been to get at the uterus or kidney?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post
I think that it is very likely that the poor light must have affected the eviscerations. Also, the experience of the first attempt might have suggested a slightly different approach the next time. A slaughterman would be experienced at cutting up animals, but not humans, so he would be learning.
Leave a comment:
-
Butchers, especially Kosher Butchers, were trained to gut animals on their backs with the exception of Cattle. Kosher butchers were also trained to minimize mistakes in cutting. In other words they were better trained. Still..once the intestines were removed the Uterus and left Kidney would have been exposed. It appears the Doctors, true to their profession, used medical terminology that may have swayed the facts.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by The Rookie Detective View Post
Unless the Ripper was also the Torso killer and had been potentially cutting up bodies for over a decade.
thats actually a very good point. ive leaned toward they were tje same man for a while now, but i never considered the rippers skill to remove organs quickly in the dark may because he might also be the torsoman. need to contemplate more.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
Hi George
We must also not forget the degree of difficulty for a killer in having first to locate the organs in almost total darkness, and then be able to grip slippery wet bloodied organs to remove them in double quick time.
Another pointer to the killer not removing the organs is that Chapman and Eddowes bodies were taken to two different mortuaries and we see two different methods of extraction of the uterus from both victims.
It is well-documented that there was an illegal acquisition of bodies and body parts from mortuaries.
I found the medical experts in your video to be quite persuasive. A medical professional in my family agreed with their opinions regarding difficulty and time, particularly for Eddowes, and thought that the two uterus extractions were done by different people.
Cheers, GeorgeLast edited by GBinOz; 01-20-2025, 01:00 PM.
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: