The kidney removal of Catherine Eddowes.

[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.

[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.

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well, if the organs were taken from the mortuary, then surely whoever took them was a thief because that person dishonetly appropriated the organs on behalf of the main body dealer who would then sell them on.

So, your logic is - if the organs were stolen from the mortuary then organ thieves, stealing from mortuaries, must have existed.

Absolutely unbelievable!

Two different methods of extraction if as you suggest the same killer murdered Chapman and Eddowes I have to ask what single person would have that knowledge to perform those different extractions, certainly not a butcher or slaughterman? and those two different methods point to 2 different persons from 2 different mortuaries

And also, following on with your ‘logic’ a person committing a murder in Glasgow using the same or similar method as someone committing murder on The Isle of Wight means that this was the same killer.

Could a person have used different methods on two different occasions. Absolutely. Your point is extremely weak.

You are also forgetting that female reproductive organs were highly sought after, and not all bodies that entered a mortuary were the subject of post-mortems, so opportunities for organ thefts were limited.

Absolute waffle. Body dealers took bodies found in the street, bodies that died in doss houses, bodies that died during failed abortions, bodies that they bought from corrupt undertakers, bodies that they bought from corrupt mortuary attendants. Let’s estimate that 50% of these bodies were women…..then 50% of these bodies would have had female reproductive organs.

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

Absolutely staggering! For crying out loud Trevor how can you make such poor points. This guy wasn’t a stamp collector. What evidence do you have for him trying to collect one of each organs? Did he take a lung? Did he take a liver?

Your replies are showing signs of a desperate attempt to disprove my theory

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

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.

[FrankO]

The abdominal cut inflicted post mortem to the woman found in Pinchin Street should also be considered.

I see her as part of a different string of murders, RD. With all its litttle mysteries of its own, at best, I see the placement of her body at the edge of 'Ripper territory' as an attempt on the part of the killer to piggyback on his name.

[Trevor Marriott]

You should have got a job working with Alistair Campbell or Peter Mendelson, Trevor. The amount of ‘spin’ that you are putting on your posts on this subject is a danger to Vertigo sufferers.


So now you have invented ‘organ thieves acting on behalf of body dealers.’


Where to start?

There is no evidence, as far as we know, that ‘organ thieves’ existed. I would have no issue with accepting their existence if documented proof was forthcoming. Body dealers certainly existed but you are trying to suggest a kind of hierarchy where ‘organ thieves’ worked for ‘body dealers.’ There were body dealers, and that’s all, as far as we know. You can’t just assume something into existence because it suits your theory.

You keep conflating ‘body parts’ for ‘internal organs’ Trevor. In her article, Professor Hurren talks about bodies and specifically ‘amputated limbs.’ Her ‘body parts’ are amputated limbs. She never mentions anyone stealing organs from corpses. Again, I’d be quite happy to accept the existence of such people should proof be provided.

You appear to ignore the fact that bodies contain organs. Body dealers took the whole body. Why steal a couple of biscuits when you can take the whole tin?

What you are suggesting is that body dealers (people who dealt in whole bodies) turned up at the mortuary (presumably for a body or two) saw the opened abdomens and decided to treat them like a Woolworth’s Pick and Mix - “Mmm let me see, I’ll just take a kidney and a uterus…I don’t want to be too greedy and take more.” You could at least make an effort to stay within the bounds of reason Trevor.

According to your suggestion these ‘organ thieves’ wouldn’t have had a very profitable business if they only took organs from corpses with their abdomens opened. I’m guessing that Chapman and Eddowes were probably the first seen at those mortuaries with such injuries. And of course, they couldn’t have stolen organs post PM because, according to you, they wouldn’t have been able to cut those pesky stitches would they? So your ‘organ thieves’ had to wait for an eviscerated corpse before they could make any money?

And how lucky that people who normally just picked up a corpse and plonked it on a cart to take it to a nearby hospital had the anatomical knowledge to be able to remove a kidney and a uterus?

And two different methods proves nothing Trevor. We see serial killers doing things differently at different murders; this isn’t unusual. Technical consistency isn’t a prerequisite of a madman eviscerating a corpse. Also, if two different people used the same method would that indicate that there weren’t two but one?

Well, if the organs were taken from the mortuary, then surely whoever took them was a thief because that person dishonetly appropriated the organs on behalf of the main body dealer who would then sell them on.

Two different methods of extraction if as you suggest the same killer murdered Chapman and Eddowes I have to ask what single person would have that knowledge to perform those different extractions, certainly not a butcher or slaughterman? and those two different methods point to 2 different persons from 2 different mortuaries

You are also forgetting that female reproductive organs were highly sought after, and not all bodies that entered a mortuary were the subject of post-mortems, so opportunities for organ thefts were limited.

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

Your replies are showing signs of a desperate attempt to disprove my theory

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FrankO]

Now, how did I know you were going to reply with that answer?

I have no idea, Trevor. You think in mysterious ways?

So who were the Ripper victims?

I don't pretend to know, but I think Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly at least. The rest is anyone’s guess.

And what circumstances do you think were different?

Stride’s case is the only one in which the circumstances were clearly different for us to know in that she was killed much earlier during the night, when there were many possible witnesses up & about. She was attacked in such a way that she ended up on her left side, and her attacker only cut her throat and left.

In the other cases we can only guess; we only know that, if they were Ripper victims, then the circumstances – either internal or external – were such that he did things differently and (much) less severe. He either lost interest in opening up the whole of the abdomen or he felt he had to leave before he could do what he came for. Again, if they were Ripper victims.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is no suggestion that organ thieves acting on behalf of body dealers entered mortuaries and were opening up corpses, in the cases of Chapman and Eddowes the abdomens were already opened by the killer and that is why no organs were taken from any of the other victims beacuse none of their abdomens had been opened up to the extent of Chapman and Eddowes, and I will remind you again that a modern day gynecolgist has reviewed the post mortem reports and has stated that the uteri from Chapman adn Eddowes were removed using two differnt methods of extraction. That indicates to me 2 different persons and from 2 different mortuaries

You make it sound like these persons acting on behalf of the body dealers crept into mortuaries and simply took the organs,as has been documented but you are forgetting corrupt mortuary attendants who Prof Hurren clearly alludes to and Prof Hurren states body parts were in greater demand than bodies, and I would also suggest female reproductive organs fetched a high price and mucg sought after

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You should have got a job working with Alistair Campbell or Peter Mendelson, Trevor. The amount of ‘spin’ that you are putting on your posts on this subject is a danger to Vertigo sufferers.


So now you have invented ‘organ thieves acting on behalf of body dealers.’


Where to start?

There is no evidence, as far as we know, that ‘organ thieves’ existed. I would have no issue with accepting their existence if documented proof was forthcoming. Body dealers certainly existed but you are trying to suggest a kind of hierarchy where ‘organ thieves’ worked for ‘body dealers.’ There were body dealers, and that’s all, as far as we know. You can’t just assume something into existence because it suits your theory.

You keep conflating ‘body parts’ for ‘internal organs’ Trevor. In her article, Professor Hurren talks about bodies and specifically ‘amputated limbs.’ Her ‘body parts’ are amputated limbs. She never mentions anyone stealing organs from corpses. Again, I’d be quite happy to accept the existence of such people should proof be provided.

You appear to ignore the fact that bodies contain organs. Body dealers took the whole body. Why steal a couple of biscuits when you can take the whole tin?

What you are suggesting is that body dealers (people who dealt in whole bodies) turned up at the mortuary (presumably for a body or two) saw the opened abdomens and decided to treat them like a Woolworth’s Pick and Mix - “Mmm let me see, I’ll just take a kidney and a uterus…I don’t want to be too greedy and take more.” You could at least make an effort to stay within the bounds of reason Trevor.

According to your suggestion these ‘organ thieves’ wouldn’t have had a very profitable business if they only took organs from corpses with their abdomens opened. I’m guessing that Chapman and Eddowes were probably the first seen at those mortuaries with such injuries. And of course, they couldn’t have stolen organs post PM because, according to you, they wouldn’t have been able to cut those pesky stitches would they? So your ‘organ thieves’ had to wait for an eviscerated corpse before they could make any money?

And how lucky that people who normally just picked up a corpse and plonked it on a cart to take it to a nearby hospital had the anatomical knowledge to be able to remove a kidney and a uterus?

And two different methods proves nothing Trevor. We see serial killers doing things differently at different murders; this isn’t unusual. Technical consistency isn’t a prerequisite of a madman eviscerating a corpse. Also, if two different people used the same method would that indicate that there weren’t two but one?

[Geddy2112]

Who the hell knows is the likely answer.

Well surely if they are missing after the murder and before the post mortem like Trevor suggests then the post mortem report will include the fact some organs are missing. Like I've said previously only a few of the Whitechapel murders had missing organs so whoever these organ thieves were they were not very good at their jobs so to speak..

[The Rookie Detective]

Indeed, Mike. Jack the Ripper cut Nichols's body open from the breastbone to the pubes, leaving her intestines protruding. He opened Chapman between the breastbone to the pubes, cutting three pieces of belly wall away, two of which he put by the shoulders, then he pulled out her intestines and lay them at her shoulders as well. He cut Eddowes's abdomen open from the sternum to the pubes, pulled out her intestines and lay them at her shoulders, cut off a piece of colon and lay it beside her body.

The question shouldn't be "Why would he have cut out any organs and taken them away with him?" but "Why wouldn't he have cut out any organs and taken them away with him?". Jack the Ripper was clearly interested in the female body and especially in what was under their skirts. We know that, because why else would he have risked his very neck to get their skirts out of the way & cut their bellies open? And he clearly wanted to get access to something below the intestines, because why else would he have wanted to pull them out and get them out of the way?

The only known 'organ thief' was Jack the Ripper.

The abdominal cut inflicted post mortem to the woman found in Pinchin Street should also be considered.

[Trevor Marriott]

I’m unsure where it’s from but I have no problem accepting that it might have come from Professor Hurren because, as we can see, it mentions only the dealing in bodies and body parts - which is what she mentions in her article. Whole bodies and amputated limbs.

Absolutely nothing about organ thieves entering mortuaries, opening up corpses and removing internal organs.

There is no suggestion that organ thieves acting on behalf of body dealers entered mortuaries and were opening up corpses, in the cases of Chapman and Eddowes the abdomens were already opened by the killer and that is why no organs were taken from any of the other victims beacuse none of their abdomens had been opened up to the extent of Chapman and Eddowes, and I will remind you again that a modern day gynecolgist has reviewed the post mortem reports and has stated that the uteri from Chapman adn Eddowes were removed using two differnt methods of extraction. That indicates to me 2 different persons and from 2 different mortuaries

You make it sound like these persons acting on behalf of the body dealers crept into mortuaries and simply took the organs,as has been documented but you are forgetting corrupt mortuary attendants who Prof Hurren clearly alludes to and Prof Hurren states body parts were in greater demand than bodies, and I would also suggest female reproductive organs fetched a high price and mucg sought after

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Patrick Differ]

So I'll ask again. How many victims did the organ thieves steal organs from between 1880 and 1900?

Who the hell knows is the likely answer. I personally dont see organ thievery because the bodies being supplied had more value intact. There would be no incentive and coroners were recovering cost from intact bodies. Kidneys had no value by this period. The medical community was familiar with a variety of kidney diseases like Brights disease in Eddowes and the Lusk kidney.

Would an assistant risk messing with the anatomy of a Ripper victim? Wouldnt they in this case have to remove the already removed 2 ft long intestine and rest of the other intestine. Then retract the pancreas and stomach to extract the left kidney?

Why the left kidney? Why not the pancreas or spleen which would have been easier?

The question i have is why the left kidney? One answer is that it is easier than the right to extract. But there had to be another reason for his trophy. The Bible often uses the kidney as a metaphor for moral character and conscience.

I agree the kidney, compared to other organs, it is an unusual pick for a trophy. Dont know what the incidence of Brights disease was but the Lusk kidney throws another twist to Eddowes.

The value for coroners was full body not parts.

[Geddy2112]

So I'll ask again. How many victims did the organ thieves steal organs from between 1880 and 1900?