The kidney removal of Catherine Eddowes.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Whitechapel had a death rate of 50 per 1000 or 3 times the rate of anyplace else in London. That means medical schools were likely already getting cadavers from whitechapel in mass. Many could not afford a burial. To think there was an additional market for organs of no value seems very far fetched. The only people removing organs by 1888 were surgeons. Again i would ask why would an organ thief take a kidney when he could have more easily taken the pancreas or spleen. Makes little sense to me.

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

[Doctored Whatsit]

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.

[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.

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

[FrankO]

Agree Frank. I dont believe any killer just starts mutilating women without thinking about it first. There is usually a starting point im guessing. Tabram looks like a probe to me. Whether a sailor already stabbed her in the heart or not and he came upon her is impossible to tell.

Indeed, Patrick. I'm convinced that, whoever he was, he was trying to act out his morbid fantasy when he killed & mutilated Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly and I think Kelly looked the closest to this fantasy. My idea is that the Ripper went out with murder & mutilation on his mind the nights he killed these four poor women. Tabram may have been a probe, although I think that if she was killed by the Ripper, it was more likely a spur-of-the-moment murder, meaning that he wasn't prepared for it. She did or said something and he lost it.

Nichols and Stride were interruptions. Nichols may have been an issue with cold feet. Hard to tell but the escalations were done, in my opinion, for more than just lust. This killer was also trying to prove something. If it was someone like Jacob Levy, for ecample, it would be that he was still a Master of his trade as a butcher. But just a guess.

I'm not so sure about Stride, but, yes, she may have been an interrupted Ripper murder. My view of the Ripper is that his main driving force was rage against women while at the same time curiousity for their bodies, meaning that he wasn't out to prove anything and didn't have a public in mind when he did 'his thing'. But that's just how I see it.

[Trevor Marriott]

Whitechapel had a death rate of 50 per 1000 or 3 times the rate of anyplace else in London. That means medical schools were likely already getting cadavers from whitechapel in mass. Many could not afford a burial. To think there was an additional market for organs of no value seems very far fetched. The only people removing organs by 1888 were surgeons. Again i would ask why would an organ thief take a kidney when he could have more easily taken the pancreas or spleen. Makes little sense to me.

Perhaps there was no demand for the other organs you mentioned

This an extract penned by Prof Hurren who has conducted an extensive study into Victorian Body dealers and their activities and has published several books on the topic

"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

[Patrick Differ]

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.

Whitechapel had a death rate of 50 per 1000 or 3 times the rate of anyplace else in London. That means medical schools were likely already getting cadavers from whitechapel in mass. Many could not afford a burial. To think there was an additional market for organs of no value seems very far fetched. The only people removing organs by 1888 were surgeons. Again i would ask why would an organ thief take a kidney when he could have more easily taken the pancreas or spleen. Makes little sense to me.

[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.