The kidney removal of Catherine Eddowes.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I think that your second question can be answered. According to your timeline in a different thread, Watkins didn't see a body in Mitre Square at about 1:30, but then found the body at about 1:44. So that would mean that the maximum time the killer had would be about 14 minutes. Since the times are approximations, you could add a couple of minutes to that, but then to account for the killer entering the Square after Watkins left and leaving before he returned, you'd subtract a couple of minutes, so you still end up with about 14 minutes for the maximum amount of time that the killer had.

Hi Lewis,

I certainly think that we can get pretty close. In the past I made the mistake of allowing for added time at one passing without considering that it would have been the same at the other. Although we can’t be certain of the accuracy of Lawende’s time. At the end of the day though we know that the killer took organs so he certainly had time to do what he did; no matter how difficult. The doctors at the time had no doubts on the matter.

[Lewis C]

Questions that you have avoided around 20 times.

1. Do you have a time, arrived at by a consensus of medical experts, as to the minimum time that the killer would have required?

2. Do you know the maximum time that the killer had available to him in Mitre Square.

3. Do you know the level of medical/anatomical knowledge and knife skills that the killer had?


The only honest answer to all 3 of these questions is ‘no.’

Anyone that doesn’t say ‘no’ isn’t being honest.


Therefore it’s a 100% proven fact that no one can legitimately claim that the killer couldn’t have had time. Anyone that claims to the contrary isn’t being honest.

Hi Herlock,

I think that your second question can be answered. According to your timeline in a different thread, Watkins didn't see a body in Mitre Square at about 1:30, but then found the body at about 1:44. So that would mean that the maximum time the killer had would be about 14 minutes. Since the times are approximations, you could add a couple of minutes to that, but then to account for the killer entering the Square after Watkins left and leaving before he returned, you'd subtract a couple of minutes, so you still end up with about 14 minutes for the maximum amount of time that the killer had.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Let’s have a few proper quotes from Professor Hurren’s article shall we…as opposed to Trevor’s imaginary version of what she said.

“Once then the number of medical students increased six-fold during the Victorian period, there was an urgent need for more dead bodies to dissect.”

So the requirement at the time was for bodies to dissect.

“The East-End became then a body-broking business by the 1880s, and typically most dealers worked from three types of premises that feature along Dorset Street.”

So there was a body-broking business. No mention of organs.

. “Body dealers also on a regular basis purchased the dead at the back doors of doss, brothels and lodging houses, making a quick profit for the owner.”

So they purchased bodies.

“It was also the case that limbs which had to be amputated following operative surgery entered the chain of dissection supply. Body parts were in fact highly profitable transactions.”

She is clearly talking about amputated limbs when she talks of body parts. As I said numerous times but you kept ignoring.

“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.”

Well waddya know Trevor? Who does Professor Hurren think removed the organs……the killer.

Give it up Trevor.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just to show you and others on here the problems the killer would have encountered in removing the organs at the crime scene they say one pic is worth a thousand words so i am going to post 2 pics taken by myself at the post mortem of a deceased female,

The second pic shows an open abdomen held open by retractors and the uterus and the fallopian tubes are highlighted in white. The killer would have not have had the benefit of retractors to hold the abdomen open, the next problem the killer would have encountered is being able to locate and then take hold of the organs, which would be slippery and wet with blood, and in the case of Chapman be able to remove the uterus and the fallopian tubes still attached undamaged in almost total darkness,

The first pic shows a kidney encased in the renal fat that surrounds it, and shows again the degree of difficulty in first being able to locate the kidney as it is located to the rear of the abdominal cavity in almost total darkness

These pics in my opinion, show conclusively that the killer did not remove the organs from these victims at the crime scenes

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Clueless.

Check the dictionary. Difficult and Impossible aren’t synonymous.

Questions that you have avoided around 20 times.

1. Do you have a time, arrived at by a consensus of medical experts, as to the minimum time that the killer would have required?

2. Do you know the maximum time that the killer had available to him in Mitre Square.

3. Do you know the level of medical/anatomical knowledge and knife skills that the killer had?


The only honest answer to all 3 of these questions is ‘no.’

Anyone that doesn’t say ‘no’ isn’t being honest.


Therefore it’s a 100% proven fact that no one can legitimately claim that the killer couldn’t have had time. Anyone that claims to the contrary isn’t being honest.

We can all see which side you take. You have emerged from this point with zero credit Trevor. You won’t find a single person to back you up on this particular point because you couldn’t be more obviously wrong and I really can’t see it being down to misunderstanding. It’s very obviously deliberate. You should attempt to try to at least recapture some credibility by accepting this obvious point.

[Herlock Sholmes]

When are you going to read and digest and stop asking questions and making false statements that have been answered many times in posts by me. I posted this only yesterday, which you readily accepted as coming from Prof Hurren and clearly shows how organs were stolen from mortuaries by "organ thieves" as you refer to them and shows they were real and not invented by me as you suggest

"The dealing in bodies and body parts involved a complex supply chain starting with undertakers, mortuary attendants, infirmary porters, and nurses who would all alert a body dealer of a death and then they would be paid by the body dealer for that information, or in the case of a mortuary attendant allowing access to a mortuary to simply remove body parts from a dead body, as body parts were more lucrative acquisitions than a whole body"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You can’t read. It’s as simple as that.

When Professor Hurren talks about ‘body parts’ she’s talking about amputated limb and not internal organs. She says so in her piece. So yes, you have invented the concept of organ thieves to manufacture a theory.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Whitechapel had a death rate of 50 per 1000 or 3 times the rate of anyplace else in London. That means medical schools were likely already getting cadavers from whitechapel in mass. Many could not afford a burial. To think there was an additional market for organs of no value seems very far fetched. The only people removing organs by 1888 were surgeons. Again i would ask why would an organ thief take a kidney when he could have more easily taken the pancreas or spleen. Makes little sense to me.

Me neither Patrick. There are so many points against this theory.

[Doctored Whatsit]

JtR never attempted to make a neat post mortem type incision, and ease the abdomen apart with retractors. The police surgeons make it quite clear that he cut open the abdomen in the manner of someone accustomed to removing the innards with one sweep of the knife. He then roughly hurled the intestines to one side, out of the way etc. There is no evidence that he was after one specific item, as he seems to have ripped the body open, in the manner of a butcher/slaughterer and then taken a trophy organ.

Comparing this behaviour with the neatness and precision of a police surgeon at a post mortem is like comparing night with day.

[Trevor Marriott]

Your theory has been disproven Trevor. The only desperation is you inventing organ thieves. The theory is a joke. And a dead joke. Give up Trevor.

Just to show you and others on here the problems the killer would have encountered in removing the organs at the crime scene they say one pic is worth a thousand words so i am going to post 2 pics taken by myself at the post mortem of a deceased female,

The second pic shows an open abdomen held open by retractors and the uterus and the fallopian tubes are highlighted in white. The killer would have not have had the benefit of retractors to hold the abdomen open, the next problem the killer would have encountered is being able to locate and then take hold of the organs, which would be slippery and wet with blood, and in the case of Chapman be able to remove the uterus and the fallopian tubes still attached undamaged in almost total darkness,

The first pic shows a kidney encased in the renal fat that surrounds it, and shows again the degree of difficulty in first being able to locate the kidney as it is located to the rear of the abdominal cavity in almost total darkness

These pics in my opinion, show conclusively that the killer did not remove the organs from these victims at the crime scenes

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FrankO]

Agree Frank. I dont believe any killer just starts mutilating women without thinking about it first. There is usually a starting point im guessing. Tabram looks like a probe to me. Whether a sailor already stabbed her in the heart or not and he came upon her is impossible to tell.

Indeed, Patrick. I'm convinced that, whoever he was, he was trying to act out his morbid fantasy when he killed & mutilated Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly and I think Kelly looked the closest to this fantasy. My idea is that the Ripper went out with murder & mutilation on his mind the nights he killed these four poor women. Tabram may have been a probe, although I think that if she was killed by the Ripper, it was more likely a spur-of-the-moment murder, meaning that he wasn't prepared for it. She did or said something and he lost it.

Nichols and Stride were interruptions. Nichols may have been an issue with cold feet. Hard to tell but the escalations were done, in my opinion, for more than just lust. This killer was also trying to prove something. If it was someone like Jacob Levy, for ecample, it would be that he was still a Master of his trade as a butcher. But just a guess.

I'm not so sure about Stride, but, yes, she may have been an interrupted Ripper murder. My view of the Ripper is that his main driving force was rage against women while at the same time curiousity for their bodies, meaning that he wasn't out to prove anything and didn't have a public in mind when he did 'his thing'. But that's just how I see it.

[Trevor Marriott]

Whitechapel had a death rate of 50 per 1000 or 3 times the rate of anyplace else in London. That means medical schools were likely already getting cadavers from whitechapel in mass. Many could not afford a burial. To think there was an additional market for organs of no value seems very far fetched. The only people removing organs by 1888 were surgeons. Again i would ask why would an organ thief take a kidney when he could have more easily taken the pancreas or spleen. Makes little sense to me.

Perhaps there was no demand for the other organs you mentioned

This an extract penned by Prof Hurren who has conducted an extensive study into Victorian Body dealers and their activities and has published several books on the topic

"The dealing in bodies and body parts involved a complex supply chain starting with undertakers, mortuary attendants, infirmary porters, and nurses who would all alert a body dealer of a death and then they would be paid by the body dealer for that information, or in the case of a mortuary attendant allowing access to a mortuary to simply remove body parts from a dead body, as body parts were more lucrative acquisitions than a whole body"

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Patrick Differ]

No we don’t. We know that there were BODY DEALERS WHO DEALT IN CORPSES.

There is no evidence of ORGAN THIEVES (people who took internal organs FROM bodies and sold them on). Please stop pretending that they are the same thing when they clearly aren’t. BODY DEALERS were real whilst it looks like ORGAN THIEVES are something that you invented to prop up a theory.

Whitechapel had a death rate of 50 per 1000 or 3 times the rate of anyplace else in London. That means medical schools were likely already getting cadavers from whitechapel in mass. Many could not afford a burial. To think there was an additional market for organs of no value seems very far fetched. The only people removing organs by 1888 were surgeons. Again i would ask why would an organ thief take a kidney when he could have more easily taken the pancreas or spleen. Makes little sense to me.

[Trevor Marriott]

No we don’t. We know that there were BODY DEALERS WHO DEALT IN CORPSES.

There is no evidence of ORGAN THIEVES (people who took internal organs FROM bodies and sold them on). Please stop pretending that they are the same thing when they clearly aren’t. BODY DEALERS were real whilst it looks like ORGAN THIEVES are something that you invented to prop up a theory.

When are you going to read and digest and stop asking questions and making false statements that have been answered many times in posts by me. I posted this only yesterday, which you readily accepted as coming from Prof Hurren and clearly shows how organs were stolen from mortuaries by "organ thieves" as you refer to them and shows they were real and not invented by me as you suggest

"The dealing in bodies and body parts involved a complex supply chain starting with undertakers, mortuary attendants, infirmary porters, and nurses who would all alert a body dealer of a death and then they would be paid by the body dealer for that information, or in the case of a mortuary attendant allowing access to a mortuary to simply remove body parts from a dead body, as body parts were more lucrative acquisitions than a whole body"

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

The thing is that we don’t know why the killer took organs. I have no medical knowledge but could it be as simple as the uterus might have been the easiest to remove? I don’t know. We can’t really apply reason to the actions of a serial killer though because we can’t know what was going on in the warped mind of someone capable of doing what he did. Just like we can’t assume that he would stick to a certain technique or method. And if Trevor can ask - why the two techniques? (I’m unsure if this is proven btw or merely the unconfirmed opinion of one person - I’d certainly be interested to hear Paul’s (Kjab3112) opinion on that if he’s looking in) Then I can ask why did they only take two organs? They were doing this for money after all. Why not take more when they had the opportunity. It makes no sense.

To have any reasonable doubt that the killer took organs we would need to be totally certain of two things (probably three in fact)

1. We would have to know conclusively the minimum amount of time required to do what he did - no one can state this.
2. We would need to know conclusively the maximum time that he would have had available to him - no one can state this.
3. We would need to know the level of medical/anatomic knowledge and skill of the killer - no one can state this.

So it’s just not possible to legitimately state that the killer couldn’t have had time to do what he did. Therefore we have no reason to look for an alternative explanation. I’m saying nothing controversial or complex or debatable here. It’s simply reason that no unbiased person could object to.

And as an addition we have no evidence anywhere that there were people who took organs from corpses in mortuaries. I’ll accept their existence if evidence is forthcoming…but it’s not so far. So how can anyone simply magic this phenomena into existence as Trevor appears to be trying to do. Professor Hurren is perfectly clear in her article. She talks about body dealers only. People who traded in cadavers. She also specifically mentions that they would take amputated limbs too. Absolutely no mention of removing organs in mortuaries. Trevor’s suggestion that they just saw an opened corpse and took two organs is just laughable.

So Trevor has zero reason for assuming that the killer couldn’t have taken organs (the facts speak for themselves) and zero evidence that anyone ever took internal organs from mortuaries (as opposed to whole bodies).

The killer took the organs. No doubt at all.

[Lewis C]

If the killer was taking organs why when he had a complete uterus from Chapman why try to take the same organ from Eddowes it makes no sense

Hi Trevor,

My question is, why wouldn't he? Can't you think of numerous examples in your life of people who already own one of something wanting to own a second of that item? And maybe in his mind, it wasn't two of the same thing anyway. He already had Chapman's uterus, but he didn't have that of Eddowes. And maybe he didn't have Chapman's anymore, maybe because it had been decomposing for three weeks and he didn't want it anymore, or because he had to discard it soon after he took it for fear of being caught.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But we know there were organ thieves who removed organs and bodies to sell to the teaching hospitals these removals involved corrupt mortuary attendants in a previous post you have already accepted that bodies and body parts were the subject of tampering with at mortuaries

and can you remove the quote you keep putting at the end of your posts, because I have never made such a quote it is unwarranted and misleading?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No we don’t. We know that there were BODY DEALERS WHO DEALT IN CORPSES.

There is no evidence of ORGAN THIEVES (people who took internal organs FROM bodies and sold them on). Please stop pretending that they are the same thing when they clearly aren’t. BODY DEALERS were real whilst it looks like ORGAN THIEVES are something that you invented to prop up a theory.