The kidney removal of Catherine Eddowes.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The Time Conundrum is a focal point of this mystery. If some of the popular suspects with no butchering or dissection room experience are to retain their positions on the suspect list, then an alternative theory, such as that presented by Trevor, is required. If the killer(s) took the organs, then the suspects without said skills need to be eliminated.


JMO.

But my point is that no one can give an exact time. Estimates are estimates. The organs were missing….therefore the killer took them. Trevor’s fantasy can and should be ignored George. The case has enough crackpot theories without the total being added to.

[FrankO]

If some of the popular suspects with no butchering or dissection room experience are to retain their positions on the suspect list, then an alternative theory, such as that presented by Trevor, is required. If the killer(s) took the organs, then the suspects without said skills need to be eliminated.

I agree, George. I tend to believe that, whoever killed and mutilated these poor women, he had experience with the knife, at least as a butcher and possibly as someone with some medical operating training. So, I don't think we require Trevor's theory, also because of the fact that the Ripper did not only get his victims's skirts out of the way to get access to the area of his prime interest, he also cut them open and got the intestines out of the way. Out of the way for what? Exactly, out of the way to cut out one or more organs. Also, there's the taken away piece of belly wall to consider. Why would organ thieves be interested in that? And why didn't they take belly wall in the other cases if it was of value? Would be much easier to cut & take away than a uterus, let alone a kidney.

Cheers,
Frank

[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

It was a quote from her and I resent your suggestion that I made it up, again signs of desperation by you and in a previous post you accepted it

I didn’t suggest that the quote wasn’t from her, as anyone could see. I pointed out that when she talked of body parts she was talking about amputated limbs and NOT internal organs. I even gave you the full quote. Despite giving you this obvious information you continue to post as if body parts equate to internal organs. So I’ll say it again - WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF PEOPLE STEALING INTERNAL ORGANS FROM MORTUARIES; PEOPLE THAT YOU HAVE CALLED ‘ORGAN THIEVES.’ YOU CLAIMED TO HAVE EVIDENCE BUT HAVE ‘REFUSED’ TO PROVIDE IT. ITS THEREFORE REASONABLE FOR EVERYONE TO ASSUME THAT SUCH EVIDENCE DIESNT EXIST.


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

and body parts

Correct, whenever they were available in cases of amputated limbs. No organs though because they were already in the body. Because that’s where internal organs are Trevor. Internal means inside. So the phrase means organs inside the body. As opposed to external body parts. Like amputated limbs. Like arms, legs, hands etc. which are on the outside of the body. Unlike kidneys and uteri which are on the inside….hence the phrase internal organs. Clear?

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

Body broking business involves organs as well.

No it doesn’t because when a person takes a body the organs come as part of the deal. We have no evidence whatsoever of anyone stealing internal organs from a mortuary but leaving the corpse. That’s why if one body dealer had said to another “hold on, we’ve forgotten the internal organs,” his colleague would have said “no, they are inside the corpse.” Then he might add “what? Are you telling me that internal organs are actually inside the body? As opposed to arms and legs which are on the outside?” “Yes.” “Well….you learn something new every day.”

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

Thats your take on what she says and your take is biased. I Doubt an amputated limb could be described as an organ

She doesn’t describe an amputated limb as an organ Trevor. YOU ARE THE ONE DOING THAT!!!

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

She can only give an opinon based on what she read, she has no formal medical experience this is proven by the statement you refer to whereby she states the organs were removed undamaged, which is true in the case of Chapman but not true in the case of Eddowes

And you have no ‘formal medical experience’ and yet, to read your posts, you seem to believe that your medical opinion carries weight.


www.trevormarriott.co.uk[/B]

How many people can you name out of the thousands the medically-trained people who have looked into this case over the years who will stand up and say - ‘in my opinion it is absolutely impossible that the ripper could have removed organs in Hanbury Street and Mitre Square?’

[FrankO]

The placing of the still attached intestines on the shoulder is a medical procedure rather than a butchering technique, the latter being a complete removal. The "one sweep of the knife" was a description in the Chapman case, and does resemble a butchering technique. With Eddowes, the incision was made around the navel and the descending colon was removed and placed next to the body to enable access to the kidney. The uterus was removed without even a nick to the bladder, a demanding task even in a modern theatre.

IMO the Chapman evisceration resembled the technique of a butcher, but in Eddowes case there was some initial frenzy followed by dissection technique. The removal of Kelly's heart from the pericardium via the abdominal cavity was also a dissection room technique.

Hi George,

What are you saying or trying to say here? It's a bit confusing, because if the placing of the intestines, the incision around the navel and the removal of the heart are medical procedures (and I don't doubt they were), then aren't Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly connected? Yet, in the second part you seem to be suggesting that Chapman was eviscerated by a butcher rather than someone with knowledge of medical procedures, while Eddowes and Kelly were eviscerated by someone with such knowledge.

Cheers,
Frank

[Trevor Marriott]

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

Just for your info and the info of others here, I have posted 2 more photos, the first highlights the problem the killer would have had with trying to use a long bladed knife inside a blood filled abdomen in almost total darkness, The second shows a uterus with the fallopian tubes as with the Chapman murder where the uterus was rmoved intact with the fallopian tubes still attached

[Fiver]

So why do we not see any attempt to remove organs from Stride,Tabram, McKenzie and Coles....

Tabram - the Ripper hadn't worked up to that level of mutilation yet.
Stride - lack of time to snatch organs or she wasn't a Ripper victim.
McKenzie - the thrill was gone or the killer's health was failing or she wasn't a Ripper victim.
Coles - clearly not a Ripper victim

...I will tell you why, because the abdomens of these victims were not opened up sufficiently for the body dealers to remove organs.

So your hypothetical organ thieves were too poor to afford a knife? They could only steal organs if someone else had opened up the body cavity?

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi Doc,

The placing of the still attached intestines on the shoulder is a medical procedure rather than a butchering technique, the latter being a complete removal. The "one sweep of the knife" was a description in the Chapman case, and does resemble a butchering technique. With Eddowes, the incision was made around the navel and the descending colon was removed and placed next to the body to enable access to the kidney. The uterus was removed without even a nick to the bladder, a demanding task even in a modern theatre.

IMO the Chapman evisceration resembled the technique of a butcher, but in Eddowes case there was some initial frenzy followed by dissection technique. The removal of Kelly's heart from the pericardium via the abdominal cavity was also a dissection room technique.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

I understand your observations, but Brown was content to say just that Eddowes' killer was someone who knew where to find the kidney, and Bond saw no evidence of specific knowledge or skill in the mutilation of Kelly. We cannot tell whether JtR "placed" the intestines, or pulled them out and pushed them out of his way. I am inclined to think that the neat uterus removal may have been pot luck. So we are all just expressing opinions. I am generally going with the police surgeons at the time, you are considering other opinions in addition - no problem!

[GBinOz]

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.

With all due respect my friend, your logical progression does not conform to scientific principles. You pose your questions, answer them yourself and ascribe a 100% outcome based entirely on your opinions.

To ascribe some alternatives:

1. My research suggests a minimum time required of 15 minutes. Phillips (who was there and was the most experience police surgeon of his time) quoted this time in the Chapman case, and there was more done to Eddowes than to Chapman. Bond's "expert" came up with a time of 5 minutes, but it was not stipulated whether he was talking about just the organ extractions or the whole procedure, or under what conditions he conducted his experiment. Was it conducted in a theatre with full lighting? Bear in mind that he still managed to nick the bladder. The experiment would have been conducted on a cadaver so the blood in the abdominal cavity would not have been comparable.

2. There is no need to involve Lawende and friends to deduce a time available of 14 minutes, +/- 2 minutes. Police beat time was considered more reliable that that of casual observers. Of course, this excludes the possibility of Watkins skiving.

3. The killer(s) exhibited both butchering and dissection room knowledge and experience, the latter more so in the case of Eddowes (and Kelly). This is obvious from the injuries and techniques recorded at the autopsies. To say that the killer(s) had time to visit these injuries upon their victims because that is what happened is a logical fallacy.

The Time Conundrum is a focal point of this mystery. If some of the popular suspects with no butchering or dissection room experience are to retain their positions on the suspect list, then an alternative theory, such as that presented by Trevor, is required. If the killer(s) took the organs, then the suspects without said skills need to be eliminated.

JMO.

[GBinOz]

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.

Hi Doc,

The placing of the still attached intestines on the shoulder is a medical procedure rather than a butchering technique, the latter being a complete removal. The "one sweep of the knife" was a description in the Chapman case, and does resemble a butchering technique. With Eddowes, the incision was made around the navel and the descending colon was removed and placed next to the body to enable access to the kidney. The uterus was removed without even a nick to the bladder, a demanding task even in a modern theatre.

IMO the Chapman evisceration resembled the technique of a butcher, but in Eddowes case there was some initial frenzy followed by dissection technique. The removal of Kelly's heart from the pericardium via the abdominal cavity was also a dissection room technique.

Cheers, George

[Trevor Marriott]

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

It was a quote from her and I resent your suggestion that I made it up, again signs of desperation by you and in a previous post you accepted it

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

and body parts

So there was a body-broking business. No mention of organs.
Body broking business involves organs as well

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

Thats your take on what she says and your take is biased. I Doubt an amputated limb could be described as an organ

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

She can only give an opinon based on what she read, she has no formal medical experience this is proven by the statement you refer to whereby she states the organs were removed undamaged, which is true in the case of Chapman but not true in the case of Eddowes

Give it up Trevor.

Give it up Herlock

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[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.