The kidney removal of Catherine Eddowes.

[GBinOz]

Hi Trevor,

Although I have never rejected totally the possibility of organs being removed at the mortuary, I can't help noticing that despite this offence being well-documented, not one police officer, nor one of the many police surgeons involved have mentioned this possibility. I am forced to assume that they have considered it to be impossible in these cases, presumably on the basis that maybe because of police presence the bodies could not have been tampered with, or perhaps the doctor was aware at the scene of the crime that the evisceration had been made. That was quite likely in the Eddowes case.

I admit that the reason no-one involved thought as you do is not known, but no-one did.

Hi Doc,

There was this exchange between Baxter and Phillips at the Chapman inquest:

[Coroner] Was the whole of the body there? - No; the absent portions being from the abdomen.
[Coroner] Are those portions such as would require anatomical knowledge to extract? - I think the mode in which they were extracted did show some anatomical knowledge.
[Coroner] You do not think they could have been lost accidentally in the transit of the body to the mortuary? - I was not present at the transit.

And this:

Sergeant Baugham [Badham], 31 H, stated that he conveyed the body of the deceased to the mortuary on the ambulance.
[Coroner] Are you sure that you took every portion of the body away with you? - Yes.

Looking at the autopsy reports, there are "Body in situ" notes and "Post Mortem" notes:

https://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-victimwounds.html

The above version contains some differences for MJK from this version:

https://www.casebook.org/official_documents/pm-kelly.html

It can be seen that the organs were not noted as missing until the Post Mortem.

Cheers, George

[The Rookie Detective]

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.

Unless the Ripper was also the Torso killer and had been potentially cutting up bodies for over a decade.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Definitely not a surgeon, agreed. However, even some doctors involved in the case at the time didn't believe it was the work of a slaughterman. Indeed, there's not even any consistency in the way that the victims' abdomens were cut open... Chapman, for example, had three differently-sized asymmetric "panels" of flesh cut from her abdomen, with a bias to one side. This hugely inefficient evisceration has all the hallmarks of improvisation, rather than the assured work of an experienced hand.

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.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

Although I have never rejected totally the possibility of organs being removed at the mortuary, I can't help noticing that despite this offence being well-documented, not one police officer, nor one of the many police surgeons involved have mentioned this possibility. I am forced to assume that they have considered it to be impossible in these cases, presumably on the basis that maybe because of police presence the bodies could not have been tampered with, or perhaps the doctor was aware at the scene of the crime that the evisceration had been made. That was quite likely in the Eddowes case.

I admit that the reason no-one involved thought as you do is not known, but no-one did.

Well they would have known of the activities of body dealers and how they were allowed to acquire bodies and body parts legally and illegally but could not admit that the bodies had been tampered with before the post-mortems so it was easier to assume the killer removed the organs.

There is a lot of evidence to show that mortuary attendants were complicit in allowing organs to be taken from dead people

There was no evidence from the crime scenes save for Kelly that the organs had been removed

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

It was the swift evisceration that slaughtermen practised and not the neat organ removal of a surgeon.

Definitely not a surgeon, agreed. However, even some doctors involved in the case at the time didn't believe it was the work of a slaughterman. Indeed, there's not even any consistency in the way that the victims' abdomens were cut open... Chapman, for example, had three differently-sized asymmetric "panels" of flesh cut from her abdomen, with a bias to one side. This hugely inefficient evisceration has all the hallmarks of improvisation, rather than the assured work of an experienced hand.