The kidney removal of Catherine Eddowes.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I want to float a piece of speculation but I want to stress that this is all that it is. I’m not trying to claim that this what happened but there’s nothing wrong with speculation as long as it’s acknowledged as such from the start. And as none of us know exactly what occurred and at what time etc the situation is ripe for such speculation. Mine requires three things for consideration - 1) that the couple seen by the three men were unconnected to the murder, 2) that Constables weren’t always 100% diligent in their duties (especially at night in winter) and may have occasionally cut a corner or two (literally in fact in this scenario) and 3) that Bullseye lamps weren’t very bright. I’ll stand correcting but I seem to recall Neil Bell making this point previously.

So might the couple have been someone else? Why not? Eddowes and her killer clearly couldn’t have been the only couple on the streets at that time but, more importantly, she was released from Bishopsgate Station at around 1.00. From the station to Mitre Square is a walk of around 10 minutes I believe. Yes she could have gone in a different direction before changing her mind. Yes she might have sheltered from rain before arriving but these are both a matter of speculation too. So I think it’s entirely valid to ask - if she arrived at Mitre Square at around 1.10, why would she have been chatting 20-25 minutes later. Surely she wouldn’t have arrived at Mitre Square and then stood around in the hope of a client? So I’d suggest that it’s at least a possibility that the couple weren’t Catherine and her killer. Back to the scenario.


Catherine runs into her killer at around 1.10 and by 1.15 she is lying dead in the corner of Mitre Square. The killer begins ‘work’ but around 1.30 he hears PC Watkins footsteps as he approaches from Mitre Street. The killer goes into Church Passage and stands near to Duke Street waiting. His thinking is that if the body is discovered the Constable will blow his whistle which would be his signal to flee the scene before other officers arrive.

Watkins walks along the left side of the square until he’s near to Kearley and Tong. Instead of walking the entire perimeter of the square he directs his lamp toward the corner. He sees no one standing but misses the body lying in shadow. He turns and leaves; the killer hears this. Realising that it will be a fair few minutes before he reappears he goes back and continues for another 10 minutes or so before fleeing the scene.

Watkins arrives back at 1.44 but this time he moves closer to the corner and sees the body. The killer has had 25 minutes with his victim.


Remember - speculation only - but a possibility.

[Geddy2112]

I saw this posted on Facebook earlier today. Identity removed to protect the innocent

[Doctored Whatsit]

But no examinations were done while the bodies were at the crime scenes, where any organs were found missing, and there is no evidence to show that the organs were found missing before the post-mortem, so you cannot dismiss the suggestion that the organs were taken at the mortuary before the post-mortems.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

First, they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948

With regard to the examination of the body at the crime scene, you weren't there, your experts weren't there, Brown was an expert and he was there.

Brown made a very detailed report on the condition of the body, and the mutilations at the crime scene, and although he could not possibly have been as thorough as at a post mortem, we know that he was entirely satisfied that the excisions took place at the murder site. We cannot know what evidence he found there to justify his conclusion, only that there was enough evidence for him to be quite positive about it. He didn't consider it to be a possibility, he considered it to be a fact.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Trevor.

We get nowhere by tearing lumps out of each other on here. I disagree with your theory but it’s your opinion and I’m not challenging or doubting your right to hold it. To be honest, the main thing that I have is that I don’t understand your level of confidence but that’s down to you of course. Perhaps we can both try to step back from being on the battlefield all the time? Life is too short and none of us knows everything.

[Patrick Differ]

But you and others seem to disregard what the modern-day experts have said about the degree of difficulty involved in first being able to locate the organs and then remove them in almost total darkness, from a blood-filled abdomen, and you want to readily accept what the Victorian Doctors say without question. I think you will accept that the study of everything connected to these murders from a medical perspective has progressed by leaps and bounds, and modern-day doctors who are experts in these particular issues are more knowledgeable than the doctors were in 1888 and should not be totally ignored as you and others seem to want to do

And I note that prosector rules out a butcher/slaughterman

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

First, they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948

I think these Victorian Doctors were conflicted as up until that point, none of them, had seen murders like this. Im not sure they saw many throats cut in the manner they were.

For me I have no doubt this killer was responsible for Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly. MO and Signatures are basically the same. You can debate Stride but it is unlikely in my mind that 2 killers were out cutting throats on the same night one hour apart and a quarter mile away.

Organs look different when the blood is drained from the body. But if a person was already used to removing organs from either an animal or human, then it is likely they had the knowledge of removal and the method.

Eddowes is described as having knife injuries to her liver and pancreas. In addition she had a 2 ft section of intestine removed at the scene. So ask why those organs and why the left kidney? In fact because the Left Kidney sits behind those organs. Anatomical knowledge? At some level no doubt.

To my knowledge the only organ removal being done in autopsies was by trained surgeons. The case in all Ripper victims autopsied. There was no shortage of cadavers for the London Medical Teaching community. The poor were readily available. I dont personally buy organ thieves touching any Ripper victim. In retrospect, if organ thievery occured and the thieves caught, it would have only aided the Ripper and threw attention to Body Snatching and the Medical community. But by 1888 that issue was pretty much regulated out.

If this killer had already successfully removed the Uterus of Chapman than it stands to reason he could have easily adapted and removed the Uterus again on another victim. The left kidney appears to be targeted by the killer as evidence on organs that sit in front of it show. A person who has removed organs that were in a condition where blood has been drained and by profession had knowledge and experience of handling organs , would have no problem with the removal. I believe that to be the case here.

It strikes me that the Lusk kidney and letter are not easily dismissed. Not when one considers the Apron and GSG as additional events of that night.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But you and others seem to disregard what the modern-day experts have said about the degree of difficulty involved in first being able to locate the organs and then remove them in almost total darkness, from a blood-filled abdomen, and you want to readily accept what the Victorian Doctors say without question. I think you will accept that the study of everything connected to these murders from a medical perspective has progressed by leaps and bounds, and modern-day doctors who are experts in these particular issues are more knowledgeable than the doctors were in 1888 and should not be totally ignored as you and others seem to want to do

And I note that prosector rules out a butcher/slaughterman

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

First, they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948

I seem to recall Trevor you favouring Dr Phillips’ ToD estimation whilst disregarding the mountain of modern at experts telling us that his estimation was unreliable?

You also appear to accept what Prosector said about butchers and slaughtermen and yet you disregard him when he says that the killer could have taken organs in Mitre Square?

[Herlock Sholmes]

But no examinations were done while the bodies were at the crime scenes, where any organs were found missing, and there is no evidence to show that the organs were found missing before the post-mortem, so you cannot dismiss the suggestion that the organs were taken at the mortuary before the post-mortems.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

First, they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948

The problem is threefold Trevor.

Firstly, we have no evidence whatsoever that anyone ever illegally took internal organs from corpses in mortuaries anywhere. We certainly have evidence of body dealers (as per Professor Hurren) These people dealt in cadavers which they sold on for dissection at hospitals. This is well documented. Professor Hurren also mentioned that they would also take amputated limbs if they were available. What she absolutely didn’t say anywhere in her article was that they ever went inside a corpse to remove organs. So surely you can accept that if someone proposes a theory which suggests the existence of something previously unknown or documented that is a case of taking a leap of faith. How can we accept that organ thieves existed, as you claim, without any documented evidence for them. We can’t just assume or infer something into existence.

Secondly, your point about us having no evidence that the doctors finding missing organs whilst in the mortuary before the Post Mortem. I agree and have never claimed otherwise. What I’ve said is that a) we know that the doctors were there for 2+ hours after the body arrived, and b) we know that they were waiting for the arrival of Dr Phillips, whose presence was requested by Dr Brown specifically to make comparisons to Annie Chapman. So in that 2+ they would undoubtedly have made ann examination of the body as you can hardly claim that they simply stood around doing nothing. But this is my point - no proposed ‘organ thief’ could have known what those doctors had or hadn’t seen. So, by taking organs before the Post Mortem, they ran the huge (and totally needless) risk of the doctors discovering a missing organ (the uterus for example) after noting its presence earlier, thus alerting the authorities to the theft. Why would they have done this? If they wanted a uterus and a kidney specifically (which, in itself, appears far fetched) they could have waited until the PM was over, gone into the mortuary when there was no chance of police or doctors being around, opened the cheap coffin, cut the stitches, took the organs, closed the coffin and left. Even then though they risked someone opening the coffin for whatever reason and seeing the stitches cut. It makes absolutely no sense.

Thirdly, if they were stealing organs for profit then why would they only bother taking two? More organs would have meant more money. Simply making do with two makes no sense.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, Trevor, that is why I said that Dr Brown was satisfied that the killer could have done the deed as claimed.

Inquest: Would you expect to find much blood on the person who inflicted the wounds?

Dr Brown: No I should not. etc... etc...

Dr Brown considered the murder, excisions and mutilations, and was satisfied that they were all done at Mitre Square.

For information purposes,0nly I have posted several images of Mitre Square and Church Passage created by a lovely lady by the name of Jane Coram. The second image shows the view from the square looking up the passage from the Square, as another poster pointed out, because of the lamp shining in the police officer's eyes he would have not been able to have seen the killer, in the opposite corner of the square, that being said the killer would have seen and heard the officer approaching and make good his escape.

The first image shows the murder location and although there is a gas lamp shown on the corner of the square at the Mitre Street entrance a gas lamp only emitted a downward beam of light so the light shown on the image is not a true reflection of the light on the night of the murder

[Trevor Marriott]

But you and others seem to disregard what the modern-day experts have said about the degree of difficulty involved in first being able to locate the organs and then remove them in almost total darkness, from a blood-filled abdomen, and you want to readily accept what the Victorian Doctors say without question. I think you will accept that the study of everything connected to these murders from a medical perspective has progressed by leaps and bounds, and modern-day doctors who are experts in these particular issues are more knowledgeable than the doctors were in 1888 and should not be totally ignored as you and others seem to want to do

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

First, they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948

And I note that prosector rules out a butcher/slaughterman So that the dents a hole in that theory somewhat

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, Trevor, that is why I said that Dr Brown was satisfied that the killer could have done the deed as claimed.

Inquest: Would you expect to find much blood on the person who inflicted the wounds?

Dr Brown: No I should not. etc... etc...

Dr Brown considered the murder, excisions and mutilations, and was satisfied that they were all done at Mitre Square.

But no examinations were done while the bodies were at the crime scenes, where any organs were found missing, and there is no evidence to show that the organs were found missing before the post-mortem, so you cannot dismiss the suggestion that the organs were taken at the mortuary before the post-mortems.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

First, they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948

[Trevor Marriott]

And as we don’t know who the killer was and therefore his level of knowledge or skill how can it be claimed that the killer couldn’t have done it. If he had that level of skill and knowledge then he obviously could have done it.

But you and others seem to disregard what the modern-day experts have said about the degree of difficulty involved in first being able to locate the organs and then remove them in almost total darkness, from a blood-filled abdomen, and you want to readily accept what the Victorian Doctors say without question. I think you will accept that the study of everything connected to these murders from a medical perspective has progressed by leaps and bounds, and modern-day doctors who are experts in these particular issues are more knowledgeable than the doctors were in 1888 and should not be totally ignored as you and others seem to want to do

And I note that prosector rules out a butcher/slaughterman

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

First, they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948

[Doctored Whatsit]

It's not all about the light available to the killer; it's whether the killer had the anatomical knowledge to first locate the organs in the darkest part of the square in a blood-filled abdomen and then have the knowledge as to how to remove them and to remove them in the time he had available to him from what was described as the darkest part of the square.,and to remove a kidney which is probably one of the most difficult organs to locate and remove

You have to remember in today's world of anatomy, when performing surgical procedures, the doctors wear surgical gloves so that they can take hold of slippery organs these had not been invented in 1888 so another problem the killer would have encountered had been seeking to remove organs

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes, Trevor, that is why I said that Dr Brown was satisfied that the killer could have done the deed as claimed.

Inquest: Would you expect to find much blood on the person who inflicted the wounds?

Dr Brown: No I should not. etc... etc...

Dr Brown considered the murder, excisions and mutilations, and was satisfied that they were all done at Mitre Square.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And as we don’t know who the killer was and therefore his level of knowledge or skill how can it be claimed that the killer couldn’t have done it. If he had that level of skill and knowledge then he obviously could have done it.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi George,

I agree that Sequeira was the least qualified doctor involved, but he was present at the post mortem, and therefore did see what had been done by the killer. Also, of course, Dr Brown was very experienced and highly regarded, and he seemed to have been perfectly satisfied that the killer had sufficient light, and did the deed as claimed.

It's not all about the light available to the killer; it's whether the killer had the anatomical knowledge to first locate the organs in the darkest part of the square in a blood-filled abdomen and then have the knowledge as to how to remove them and to remove them in the time he had available to him from what was described as the darkest part of the square.,and to remove a kidney which is probably one of the most difficult organs to locate and remove

You have to remember in today's world of anatomy, when performing surgical procedures, the doctors wear surgical gloves so that they can take hold of slippery organs these had not been invented in 1888 so another problem the killer would have encountered had been seeking to remove organs

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Doctored Whatsit]

Prosector:

"Of all the doctors involved, the one I respect least is Dr Sequeira. He had only been qualified for two years with the lowest practicing qualification possible (LSA - although he later got the MRCS), he was not a police surgeon (and therefore had little or no autopsy experience and, as far as I know, he only turned up to confirm death and was not present at the autopsy so how would he have known how much skill had been displayed?) Phillips was by far the most experienced doctor involved in the Ripper cases (and I include Bond in that) and Brown was the next. They both thought that JTR had both anatomical knowledge and some degree of surgical skill."

With "little or no autopsy experience", what faith can be had in his opinion as to what level of light was "suffient"?

Note: Prosector later admitted that he was mistaken about Sequeira's attendance at the autopsy.

Hi George,

I agree that Sequeira was the least qualified doctor involved, but he was present at the post mortem, and therefore did see what had been done by the killer. Also, of course, Dr Brown was very experienced and highly regarded, and he seemed to have been perfectly satisfied that the killer had sufficient light, and did the deed as claimed.