The kidney removal of Catherine Eddowes.

[JeffHamm]

You are asking a question that is unanswerable and I should reverse the question by asking you to show that they were not involved in the taking of organs from the mortuaries - cuts both ways.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

I'm afraid it doesn't cut both ways. It is impossible to prove a negative, therefore asking me to prove they were not there is similar to asking me to prove there isn't a teapot floating amongst the asteroids, that is so small and distant it cannot be detected (Russel's Teapot). The burden of proof lies upon the one proposing a testable idea. You are proposing there were organ thieves, so show some sort of proof that they are present at the critical times.

I present the evidence that tells us Dr. Phillips was sent for due to his knowledge of the Chapman case, and that he was sent for that very night. So we know he was sent for, we know why he was sent for, and we know that the missing uterus in the Chapman case was suggested as a motive by the coroner in that case. It is clear that they would have examined Eddowes' injuries that night (that was the purpose for sending for Dr. Phillips after all), and it is impossible that they would not have examined her uterus given that was offered as a motive in the Chapman case.

It's not a complete set of evidence, obviously, but given the case is over 135 years old it's more complete than one might hope. It is certainly more complete and evidence based than going from "organ thieves exist - therefore there was one there who removed her uterus and kidney at some point prior to the post-mortem."

- Jeff

[Wickerman]

... I have often wondered if a pig slaughterer could have been the killer and if a pig also has a membrane around the kidney? Is this a common thing or unique to humans?

It's not peculiar to humans no, I was a butcher's apprentice back in the '70's, and we had to remove the sheep kidney from the membrane, and we were not allowed to use a knife incase we damaged the kidney. The membrane is a thick ball of hard fat.

[Patrick Differ]

I am in agreement with Jeff. Both Doctors Philips and Brown described the Intestines as having been pulled out. They used past tense (had) to describe the removal of the Intestines, Uterus, part of the vagina, stomach and bladder from Chapman and the removal of the Uterus and kidney from Eddowes. It is clear that in the case of Chapman that Dr Philips was describing what he saw at Hanbury Street. " Had been removed".
in the case of Eddowes, Dr Brown went into much more technical detail of the wounds, including describing the very same extraction of the intestines from the mesentery as Chapman. Brown also describes the wounds to the organs in the upper abdomen including liver and spleen, in addition to cuts in the Aorta next to the left kidney and removal of the kidney. The apron found on Goulston Street was Eddowes and it contained blood and guts and was likely used to transport the removed organs to the killers lair somewhere between Mitre Square and Goulston Street. ( Where was the killer for 1 hour ?)

If 2 different mortuary assistants were removing organs from Chapman and Eddowes respectively then both Philips and Brown, with all their collective years of experience, missed it?
To my knowledge the mortuary assistants did not perform organ removal but were there to weigh the organs and clean up the mess. It would be hard to believe that 2 different assistants with 2 different victims would risk their employment for a shilling.

it's ok to have theories. However in this case we are being asked to believe that the killer took the time to strangle, cut the throat after lowering the victim to the ground, cut open the abdomen, remove the intestines, stab a bunch of organs and then just leave. Then the intestines are shoved back in the body, a tarp and wagon are used to transport the body to a makeshift shed passing as a mortuary in the case of Chapman and some mortuary assistant removes the Uterus, part of the vagina and bladder and sells them on the organ market. All before Dr Philips has had the chance to perform a post mortem, and in his process gives false information on the victim, sending the Investigators into false trails looking for a mad surgeon.

Then by pure chance the same thing happens to Eddowes? Unless there was mortuary assistant collusion?

The mortuary assistant theory makes little sense in the overall picture that considers what the Doctors stated. What there post mortem records show is that the killer did not possess surgical skill. He worked with light in the case of Chapman but was not precise in removing the Uterus. In the case of Eddowes he worked in relative darkness but deployed the same method . Eddowes shows collateral damage to organs around the kidney and it's removal. It would have happened by feel by someone with knowledge of what a kidney was. The killer could have used the apron to move around the body parts to minimize injury to himself.

In my view the Postmortems paint an accurate picture of what happened. If we are to believe the witness Lawende the killer was also wearing a red handkerchief. So he had more than just the apron at his disposal.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So, as per Lloyd’s we get that the body was sent to the Golden Lane mortuary at 3am and that “…here Drs. Brown and Sequeira continued their investigation for a considerable time.” The Times call this investigation, that went on for a considerable time a: “…preliminary examination of the body.”

Then we have PC. Long’s report of November 6th where he said that, after finding the apron, he arrived at the station at 3.05/3.10. From there he and an inspector went to Goulston Street and then on to Leman Street station where the Inspector gave the apron to Dr. Phillips.
Clearly the police would have wanted to know asap whether the apron belonged to Catherine Eddowes for obvious reasons, so they wouldn’t have wanted to wait until the inquest at 2.30pm. Giving it to Dr. Phillips made sense because Dr. Brown had requested that he come and look at the corpse due to his seeing Chapman’s body and the mutilations and the extraction of the uterus.

Swanson’s, 6th November:

“The Surgeon, Dr. Brown, called by the City Police, and Dr. Phillips who had been called by the Metropolitan Police in the cases of Hanbury Street and Berner St. having made a post-mortem examination of the body reported that there were missing the left kidney and the uterus.”

So Phillips would have gone straight to the mortuary with the apron and then looked at the body as requested by Brown. How long were they there? A quick check online suggests that Mitre Square to Golden Lane is a walk of 28 minutes, so how long pushing a cart with a corpse on it? Let’s say that they arrived at the mortuary with the body between 3.30 and 3.45 and The Times said that this preliminary examination went on for some considerable time.

So let’s suggest that this examination was over by 5am (possibly later). So this would mean -


- Organ thieves had from say 5.30am until 2pm to get in and steal the organs.

- This meant operating during the hours of daylight.

- They would have been confronted with a body with an open abdomen.

- If they had inside help (as Trevor suggested) that insider would have know about the doctors probing the body.

- Even if they didn’t have inside help they couldn’t have risked the doctors being aware of the presence of her uterus.

- We also know, as Jeff has pointed out, that it would beggar belief if Phillips had checked the corpse but not seen that the uterus was still in place (as this was the organ missing from Chapman and his experience of that crime scene was the very reason for his presence)


Conclusion - There’s just no way that an organ thief who wasn’t unfeasibly stupid would have even considered for a second stealing organs under those conditions. Therefore the organs were certainly taken by the killer so obviously he must have had ample time and sufficient skill/knowledge.

[Trevor Marriott]

That's all speculation. For all we know they did quite a good examination at the scene, and given the crimes were now quite a sensation it's a bit more of a stretch to suggest they didn't rather than that they did. And they did document missing organs in their official documentation made during the post-mortems. Just because the first time they wrote something down in an official document is when he wrote the post-mortem report doesn't mean it is the first time he became aware of something. I mean really, we know they (Dr. Brown and Dr. Phillips) were there (just like we know the organ trade existed) so they could have noticed the missing organs (just like an organ thief could have stole the missing organs) even though we have no evidence of this (even though we have no evidence of this). The difference is, I can place Dr. Brown at the scene, quote inquest testimony that Dr. Phillips was sent for (i.e. come now) so that Dr. Brown could consult him given his experience with Annie Chapman. I can show he was sent for prior to Eddowes' body being removed from the crime scene, indicating they in all probabilit had their consultation that night, well before the post-mortem. And the rest follows.

But you cant prove that

Now, can you show me anything of similar relevance with regards to organ thieves? You can show they existed, just like I can show that both Dr. Brown and Dr. Phillips existed. But I can bring those two together, in the presence of Eddowes' body, with a good indication this was more or less in line with her body arriving at the mortuary. Can you produce anything of a similar nature with regards to organ thieves (meaning, I accept they existed - now show me what evidence you have that they were anywhere in the vicinity of Eddowes' body at a time when Dr. Brown was not).

- Jeff

- Jeff

You are asking a question that is unanswerable and I should reverse the question by asking you to show that they were not involved in the taking of organs from the mortuaries - cuts both ways.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

The doctors only did a cursory examination of the bodies at the crime scenes and to delve into a ripped open abdomen on the street in very bad light would not be a viable option and if that had have happened and they had found organs missing it would have been documented and formed part of their evidence at the inquest.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

That's all speculation. For all we know they did quite a good examination at the scene, and given the crimes were now quite a sensation it's a bit more of a stretch to suggest they didn't rather than that they did. And they did document missing organs in their official documentation made during the post-mortems. Just because the first time they wrote something down in an official document is when he wrote the post-mortem report doesn't mean it is the first time he became aware of something. I mean really, we know they (Dr. Brown and Dr. Phillips) were there (just like we know the organ trade existed) so they could have noticed the missing organs (just like an organ thief could have stole the missing organs) even though we have no evidence of this (even though we have no evidence of this). The difference is, I can place Dr. Brown at the scene, quote inquest testimony that Dr. Phillips was sent for (i.e. come now) so that Dr. Brown could consult him given his experience with Annie Chapman. I can show he was sent for prior to Eddowes' body being removed from the crime scene, indicating they in all probabilit had their consultation that night, well before the post-mortem. And the rest follows.

Now, can you show me anything of similar relevance with regards to organ thieves? You can show they existed, just like I can show that both Dr. Brown and Dr. Phillips existed. But I can bring those two together, in the presence of Eddowes' body, with a good indication this was more or less in line with her body arriving at the mortuary. Can you produce anything of a similar nature with regards to organ thieves (meaning, I accept they existed - now show me what evidence you have that they were anywhere in the vicinity of Eddowes' body at a time when Dr. Brown was not).

- Jeff

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

Hi Jeff,

There is some information in The Times dated 1 Nov and Lloyds Weekly dated 30 Sep which is interesting but frustrating in its ambiguity.

The Times states:
The body was removed as soon as possible to the mortuary in Golden-lane, where it was examined in the presence of Dr. Brown and Dr. Sequeira. Dr. Phillips, of Spital-square, the surgeon of the H Division of Metropolitan Police, arrived shortly afterwards, and assisted in the preliminary examination of the body.
It then has a description of the preliminary examination containing only Eddowes clothing and accoutrements. It is then noted that:
In the afternoon a post-mortem examination of the body was made

Lloyds noted:
The report quickly spread that the part of the body missing from Annie Chapman had also been removed in this case, but on inquiry we found that the rumour was unfounded.

This (Sunday) morning the lamps were burning brightly, but a curious little circumstance was mentioned by the wife of a caretaker living directly opposite the spot where the murdered woman was found. As she went home with her little girl on Friday night she noticed that the lamp in the north-west corner of the square was so dull that she could scarcely see her way. This must have thrown the pavement on which the body was found into comparative darkness, and may thus have in some way contributed to the selection of the spot by the murderer.

After a very careful examination of the body where it was found, it was at three o'clock removed to the City mortuary in Golden-lane, and here Drs. Brown and Sequeira continued their investigation for a considerable time.

At twenty minutes past five, when we left the mortuary, after the interview most kindly accorded by Dr. Gordon Brown, there was an expectation on the part of the police that Dr. Phillips, who gave the important evidence in connection with the case of Annie Chapman, would speedily arrive there.

It should be noted that there were a number of inaccuracies in the Lloyds report.

I also came across this excerpt from Phillip's report of the Eddowes autopsy:

I think the perpetrator of this act had sufficient time, or he would not have nicked the lower eyelids. It would take at least five minutes.

So what, in Phillip's opinion, took at least five minutes. He nominated that Chapman's mutilations would have taken him 15 minutes. "At least five minutes" seems too short for all Eddowes mutilations and extractions, but too long for just the nicking of the lower eyelids.

As I said, interesting but ambiguous.

Best regards, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

If JTR motive was to murder mutilate and harvest organs why do we not see evidence of the killer doing just that in the cases of Tabram, Mckenzie, Stride,Nicholls, and Coles now the old chestnut that keeps surfacing when I ask that question is that he was disturbed,I don't buy that.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Tabram - on a landing with the doors to several flats.
McKenzie - on an street
Nichols - on a street
Coles - in an archway in 1891
Stride - in a yard but by a partially open door and an open gate

No organs taken.

Chapman - in a backyard
Eddowes - in a dark, secluded square
Kelly - in her room

Organs taken.

[Jon Guy]

If JTR motive was to murder mutilate and harvest organs why do we not see evidence of the killer doing just that in the cases of Tabram, Mckenzie, Stride,Nicholls, and Coles now the old chestnut that keeps surfacing when I ask that question is that he was disturbed,I don't buy that.

Probabaly because Tabram, McKenzie and Coles were killed by a different killer to Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly.
It`s also pretty much nailed on that Stride`s killer was interrupted.

I may be wrong but I have seen no evidence to show any of the doctors accompanied any of the bodies to the mortuaries and noticed organs missing before the post mortem.

In which cases were there no Police guard at the mortuary ?

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor has pointed out, quite correctly, that organ harvesting before the post mortem did not take place with Nichols and Stride, because the fresh incisions would have been immediately obvious. This would have placed immediate suspicion on mortuary staff for the act itself, or complicity in it. In the cases of Chapman and Eddowes, there is no way that organ harvesters could be aware of exactly what excisions the police surgeons had already noted, and what they hadn't noticed, if anything. It was therefore equally unsafe to remove organs in those cases.

I disagree for all we know the organ thieves could have opened the abdomens even more than the killer did to remove the organs, how would anyone know the doctors doing the post mortem would have simply been presented with a ripped open abdomen

Also, as Herlock has pointed out, the surgeons and detectives were coming and going unannounced, so there was a massive risk of being caught in the act. This assumes that there was no constable on duty at any time. If the constable was there, but outside, he would know who was coming and going, and who might have left carrying a "parcel". Organ harvesting after the post mortem was therefore a much safer and less risky proposition.

If a mortuary attendant was involved and he himself removed the organs then he could have come and gone at will, bearing in mind the mortuary would have had other bodies anyone in company with a mortuary attendant and wearing a white coat would have been able to gain access

Organ harvesting was not an unknown act, and I am sure that the local experts would have been well aware of this problem, and the local experts were, of course, the police and the police surgeons. It should therefore have been made impossible for organ harvesting to take place before a post mortem. I consider it to be very relevant that not one police officer, nor any police surgeon has ever at any time indicated the possibility that the killer was not the one who removed the organs. I don't think that they were protecting themselves for an oversight on their part. They were actually looking for a killer who removed body parts.

Nothing is impossible in life or in the case death

Perhaps I should restate a line from the letter written to the police by an experienced butcher/slaughterer which I quoted earlier - "There has been nothing done yet to any of these poor women that an expert butcher could not do almost in the dark." He also wrote about how they could work far more quickly than the doctors believed possible.

And I have a statement from a master butcher who started off in an abattoir to the contrary

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

How do we know no organs were noted as missing at the crime scene? The doctor's could have noted their absence at the time, but it is the post-mortem where they officially record such things as they have the time to properly document all aspects of how it was done, and so of course it is to the post-mortem that they refer when giving testimony. The absence of statements to noting missing organs at the crime scenes makes for as strong an argument as the absence of evidence of an organ thief makes for your suggested alternative speculation.

- Jeff

The doctors only did a cursory examination of the bodies at the crime scenes and to delve into a ripped open abdomen on the street in very bad light would not be a viable option and if that had have happened and they had found organs missing it would have been documented and formed part of their evidence at the inquest.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Doctored Whatsit]

Trevor has pointed out, quite correctly, that organ harvesting before the post mortem did not take place with Nichols and Stride, because the fresh incisions would have been immediately obvious. This would have placed immediate suspicion on mortuary staff for the act itself, or complicity in it. In the cases of Chapman and Eddowes, there is no way that organ harvesters could be aware of exactly what excisions the police surgeons had already noted, and what they hadn't noticed, if anything. It was therefore equally unsafe to remove organs in those cases.

Also, as Herlock has pointed out, the surgeons and detectives were coming and going unannounced, so there was a massive risk of being caught in the act. This assumes that there was no constable on duty at any time. If the constable was there, but outside, he would know who was coming and going, and who might have left carrying a "parcel". Organ harvesting after the post mortem was therefore a much safer and less risky proposition.

Organ harvesting was not an unknown act, and I am sure that the local experts would have been well aware of this problem, and the local experts were, of course, the police and the police surgeons. It should therefore have been made impossible for organ harvesting to take place before a post mortem. I consider it to be very relevant that not one police officer, nor any police surgeon has ever at any time indicated the possibility that the killer was not the one who removed the organs. I don't think that they were protecting themselves for an oversight on their part. They were actually looking for a killer who removed body parts.

Perhaps I should restate a line from the letter written to the police by an experienced butcher/slaughterer which I quoted earlier - "There has been nothing done yet to any of these poor women that an expert butcher could not do almost in the dark." He also wrote about how they could work far more quickly than the doctors believed possible.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi George,

I've never found your tendencies to be annoying, even if we do find ourselves on opposite sides of the fence on many occasions. Personally, I find the most interesting discussions require one on each side, otherwise it's just two people going "yup, I agree", and patting each other on the back.

And yes, there are so many details we don't know, like how long was she unattended in the morgue prior to the post-mortem.

However, what I'm pointing out is that Dr. Phillips was sent for prior to her body being removed from the crime scene. Now, sure, maybe this is the only time in all of the crimes when a doctor was sent for he didn't come immediately, that's possible. I just find that sufficiently improbable that I don't consider it a valid argument without some evidence to back it up. His being at the post-mortem later isn't an indication he wasn't there when called the first time. In fact, I could put forth the argument that because he was at the post-mortem, there must have been enough of a reason to indicate his prior knowledge of the Chapman case was indeed useful.

Dr. Brown sent for Dr. Phillips because the Eddowes case showed a marked similarity with the Chapman case. Now, I accept that similarity could just have been because of the gross level abdominal mutilations. But given how rare that is, that is more than sufficient to call him in to get his opinion.

Dr. Brown tells us that Dr. Phillips was sent for prior to Eddowes being removed from the crime scene. We don't have any indication that Dr. Phillips came to Mitre Square, so I'm suggesting they met at the morgue but I could be wrong, and they could have met at the crime scene. In either case, with Dr. Phillips present to examine the body in order to get his opinion with regards to related to Annie Chapman, it is stretching a very long bow to suggest that they did not check Eddowes' uterus. Remember, at the Chapman inquest, the coroner suggested that the uterus was the reason for the crime, so whether they examined the body at the crime scene, or at the morgue that night, I think the idea they did not check her uterus is pushing the proverbial uphill. It just doesn't make sense.

And given that Dr. Brown sent for Dr. Phillips prior to Eddowes' body being moved from the mortuary, I'm suggesting that they did this examination long before the official post-mortem. Dr. Brown is not doing his post-mortem at this point, he's seeking information from a colleague who has already had experience with a very similar case. It's two professionals interacting, getting preliminary information, and not a post-mortem.

As such, the time the body was unattended until the post-mortem doesn't matter so much; they inspected the body long before the post-mortem (is what I'm arguing the testimony indicates).

I suppose one could suggest that Dr. Phillips arrives after Dr. Brown and Eddowes' body have arrived at the morgue. And in the interval between her body's arrival, and Dr. Phillips arrival, the body was left unattended and the organ thief slips in and makes off with her uterus and kidney.

But now it's starting to feel like it is up to me to prove a negative, that an organ thief didn't do that. I freely admit I can't prove Dr. Phillips and Dr. Brown examined the body that night upon its arrival at the morgue. But I can point to the testimony that strongly implies that is what happened. And if they examined it that night, upon arrival at the morgue, or shortly thereafter, I think the onus of responsibility is on the proponents for an organ thief to present some evidence of that thief presence at the morgue at that time.

Because, if Dr. Brown and Dr. Phillips examined the body that night, upon or shortly after arrival at the morgue, then it is simply untenable that they did not examine her uterus (or where it should be at least). So while this wasn't the official post-mortem, where Dr. Brown records his findings, Dr. Phillips is there to get his opinion, probably with regards to relatedness between the cases, and absolutely that would involve examining the most sensational aspect of Dr. Phillips' case, the missing uterus. And if it was there during this examination, there isn't a snowball's chance in hades it being missing during the post-mortem wouldn't get a mention. Now, I have no idea if they checked her kidney's and noted that one was missing, as there's no reason for them to have done so given that neither of Annie's kidneys' were taken, but we have absolutely every reason to be confident they checked the uterus.

Now, is it possible the body arrives at the morgue, Dr. Phillips has not yet arrived, Dr. Brown leaves it unattended, and an organ thief whips out the uterus and kidney, and only then do Dr. Phillips and Dr. Brown do their consultation? Of course, it's possible. As you know, I think anything that doesn't defy the laws of physics is possible, so possible is pretty much meaningless to me. Is there any evidence at all that makes that scenerio probable? In my mind, no. I just can't see it.

Do I think what I'm suggesting above is probable? Yes, because the testimony we have tells that Dr. Phillips was sent for prior to Eddowes being moved from the crime scene. And in every other situation where a doctor is sent for, they respond immediately. And his presence was requested to consult on the case, where his involved a missing uterus (which was suggested as a possible motive), so there is no chance they would not have examined the body for that purpose. To argue otherwise requires presenting actual information, such as testimony, that counters what I've presented.

We have so little information to work with, so yes, I know, maybe it didn't go the way it looks like it did, but that isn't proof of an organ thief, it's just the nature of a case from over 130 years ago.

As I say, I'm not claiming I know for sure all of the above must have happened. What I'm pointing out is that the limited information we have indicates the above is far more likely to be close to what happened than an organ thief. And with JtR, being close is as good as we can hope for in my view.

As for modern medical opinion, I've seen a range of them with regards to Eddowes sufficiently wide that one can always find an opinion to suit. Even at the time, Dr. Sequira thought JtR only required 3 minutes, while Dr. Brown thought a minimum of 5. Based upon the simulations I've done, neither is problematic even under the most taxing interpretations of other constraining testimony, but obviously simulations are not proof of what happened, but they do demonstrate that there is nothing inherently contradictory in the testimony as given.

Hmmm, my tendency to ramble on and on is probably far more annoying then your tendency to present alternatives. At least you can do so in under 1000s words! ha ha!

- Jeff

If JTR motive was to murder mutilate and harvest organs why do we not see evidence of the killer doing just that in the cases of Tabram, Mckenzie, Stride,Nicholls, and Coles now the old chestnut that keeps surfacing when I ask that question is that he was disturbed,I don't buy that.

I may be wrong but I have seen no evidence to show any of the doctors accompanied any of the bodies to the mortuaries and noticed organs missing before the post mortem.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

I was referring to the crime scenes where no organs were found missing at the crime scenes or at the mortuaries before the post-mortems

www.trevormarriott.com

Hi Trevor,

How do we know no organs were noted as missing at the crime scene? The doctor's could have noted their absence at the time, but it is the post-mortem where they officially record such things as they have the time to properly document all aspects of how it was done, and so of course it is to the post-mortem that they refer when giving testimony. The absence of statements to noting missing organs at the crime scenes makes for as strong an argument as the absence of evidence of an organ thief makes for your suggested alternative speculation.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

But it is documented, at the inquest it is reported that her uterus and kidney were missing.

And if they noticed that the uterus and kidney were present, which they would have given Dr. Phillips was called in because of his familiarity with the Chapman case, but later both were found to be missing as per your organ thief, that would have been documented.

- Jeff

I was referring to the crime scenes where no organs were found missing at the crime scenes or at the mortuaries before the post-mortems

https://www.trevormarriott.com