Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The kidney removal of Catherine Eddowes.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post
    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.
    Kind regards, Sam Flynn

    "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post

      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

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post

        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.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post

          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.
          "Great minds, don't think alike"

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post

            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:



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



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

            Cheers, George


            Opposing opinions doesn't mean opposing sides, in my view, it means attacking the problem from both ends. - Wickerman​

            ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

              Hi George

              We must also not forget the degree of difficulty for a killer in having first to locate the organs in almost total darkness, and then be able to grip slippery wet bloodied organs to remove them in double quick time.

              Another pointer to the killer not removing the organs is that Chapman and Eddowes bodies were taken to two different mortuaries and we see two different methods of extraction of the uterus from both victims.

              It is well-documented that there was an illegal acquisition of bodies and body parts from mortuaries.

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
              Hi Trevor,

              I found the medical experts in your video to be quite persuasive. A medical professional in my family agreed with their opinions regarding difficulty and time, particularly for Eddowes, and thought that the two uterus extractions were done by different people.

              Cheers, George
              Last edited by GBinOz; Today, 01:00 PM.
              Opposing opinions doesn't mean opposing sides, in my view, it means attacking the problem from both ends. - Wickerman​

              ​Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff Hamm

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by The Rookie Detective View Post

                Unless the Ripper was also the Torso killer and had been potentially cutting up bodies for over a decade.
                hi rookie
                thats actually a very good point. ive leaned toward they were tje same man for a while now, but i never considered the rippers skill to remove organs quickly in the dark may because he might also be the torsoman. need to contemplate more.
                "Is all that we see or seem
                but a dream within a dream?"

                -Edgar Allan Poe


                "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                -Frederick G. Abberline

                Comment

                Working...
                X