The kidney removal of Catherine Eddowes.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

You are by now accustomed to my annoying tendency to be on the fence, verging on opposition to commonly adopted opinions. While I agree that at the inquest it is reported that her uterus and kidney were missing, my reservation is the amount of time that Eddowes body lay untended in the morgue prior to the post mortem. The security chain in the Chapman case is tenuous at best, but we don't know how secure was the body of Eddowes from the time of transportation to the morgue to the time of post mortem. The terrible ifs accumulate.

The hard to escape fact is that it was not a function of the on site assessment to determine the state of the organs in the body, unless it was externally discernible, as if the case of Kelly. That was the function of the post mortem.

While I lean towards an opinion that the organs were removed by Jack due to the preparatory procedures, I cannot discard the modern expert medical opinions that it was not possible in the circumstances and in the time available.

Where would this forum be without such conundrums.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

I've never found your tendencies to be annoying, even if we do find ourselves on opposite sides of the fence on many occasions. Personally, I find the most interesting discussions require one on each side, otherwise it's just two people going "yup, I agree", and patting each other on the back.

And yes, there are so many details we don't know, like how long was she unattended in the morgue prior to the post-mortem.

However, what I'm pointing out is that Dr. Phillips was sent for prior to her body being removed from the crime scene. Now, sure, maybe this is the only time in all of the crimes when a doctor was sent for he didn't come immediately, that's possible. I just find that sufficiently improbable that I don't consider it a valid argument without some evidence to back it up. His being at the post-mortem later isn't an indication he wasn't there when called the first time. In fact, I could put forth the argument that because he was at the post-mortem, there must have been enough of a reason to indicate his prior knowledge of the Chapman case was indeed useful.

Dr. Brown sent for Dr. Phillips because the Eddowes case showed a marked similarity with the Chapman case. Now, I accept that similarity could just have been because of the gross level abdominal mutilations. But given how rare that is, that is more than sufficient to call him in to get his opinion.

Dr. Brown tells us that Dr. Phillips was sent for prior to Eddowes being removed from the crime scene. We don't have any indication that Dr. Phillips came to Mitre Square, so I'm suggesting they met at the morgue but I could be wrong, and they could have met at the crime scene. In either case, with Dr. Phillips present to examine the body in order to get his opinion with regards to related to Annie Chapman, it is stretching a very long bow to suggest that they did not check Eddowes' uterus. Remember, at the Chapman inquest, the coroner suggested that the uterus was the reason for the crime, so whether they examined the body at the crime scene, or at the morgue that night, I think the idea they did not check her uterus is pushing the proverbial uphill. It just doesn't make sense.

And given that Dr. Brown sent for Dr. Phillips prior to Eddowes' body being moved from the mortuary, I'm suggesting that they did this examination long before the official post-mortem. Dr. Brown is not doing his post-mortem at this point, he's seeking information from a colleague who has already had experience with a very similar case. It's two professionals interacting, getting preliminary information, and not a post-mortem.

As such, the time the body was unattended until the post-mortem doesn't matter so much; they inspected the body long before the post-mortem (is what I'm arguing the testimony indicates).

I suppose one could suggest that Dr. Phillips arrives after Dr. Brown and Eddowes' body have arrived at the morgue. And in the interval between her body's arrival, and Dr. Phillips arrival, the body was left unattended and the organ thief slips in and makes off with her uterus and kidney.

But now it's starting to feel like it is up to me to prove a negative, that an organ thief didn't do that. I freely admit I can't prove Dr. Phillips and Dr. Brown examined the body that night upon its arrival at the morgue. But I can point to the testimony that strongly implies that is what happened. And if they examined it that night, upon arrival at the morgue, or shortly thereafter, I think the onus of responsibility is on the proponents for an organ thief to present some evidence of that thief presence at the morgue at that time.

Because, if Dr. Brown and Dr. Phillips examined the body that night, upon or shortly after arrival at the morgue, then it is simply untenable that they did not examine her uterus (or where it should be at least). So while this wasn't the official post-mortem, where Dr. Brown records his findings, Dr. Phillips is there to get his opinion, probably with regards to relatedness between the cases, and absolutely that would involve examining the most sensational aspect of Dr. Phillips' case, the missing uterus. And if it was there during this examination, there isn't a snowball's chance in hades it being missing during the post-mortem wouldn't get a mention. Now, I have no idea if they checked her kidney's and noted that one was missing, as there's no reason for them to have done so given that neither of Annie's kidneys' were taken, but we have absolutely every reason to be confident they checked the uterus.

Now, is it possible the body arrives at the morgue, Dr. Phillips has not yet arrived, Dr. Brown leaves it unattended, and an organ thief whips out the uterus and kidney, and only then do Dr. Phillips and Dr. Brown do their consultation? Of course, it's possible. As you know, I think anything that doesn't defy the laws of physics is possible, so possible is pretty much meaningless to me. Is there any evidence at all that makes that scenerio probable? In my mind, no. I just can't see it.

Do I think what I'm suggesting above is probable? Yes, because the testimony we have tells that Dr. Phillips was sent for prior to Eddowes being moved from the crime scene. And in every other situation where a doctor is sent for, they respond immediately. And his presence was requested to consult on the case, where his involved a missing uterus (which was suggested as a possible motive), so there is no chance they would not have examined the body for that purpose. To argue otherwise requires presenting actual information, such as testimony, that counters what I've presented.

We have so little information to work with, so yes, I know, maybe it didn't go the way it looks like it did, but that isn't proof of an organ thief, it's just the nature of a case from over 130 years ago.

As I say, I'm not claiming I know for sure all of the above must have happened. What I'm pointing out is that the limited information we have indicates the above is far more likely to be close to what happened than an organ thief. And with JtR, being close is as good as we can hope for in my view.

As for modern medical opinion, I've seen a range of them with regards to Eddowes sufficiently wide that one can always find an opinion to suit. Even at the time, Dr. Sequira thought JtR only required 3 minutes, while Dr. Brown thought a minimum of 5. Based upon the simulations I've done, neither is problematic even under the most taxing interpretations of other constraining testimony, but obviously simulations are not proof of what happened, but they do demonstrate that there is nothing inherently contradictory in the testimony as given.

Hmmm, my tendency to ramble on and on is probably far more annoying then your tendency to present alternatives. At least you can do so in under 1000s words! ha ha!

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

But it is documented, at the inquest it is reported that her uterus and kidney were missing.

And if they noticed that the uterus and kidney were present, which they would have given Dr. Phillips was called in because of his familiarity with the Chapman case, but later both were found to be missing as per your organ thief, that would have been documented.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

You are by now accustomed to my annoying tendency to be on the fence, verging on opposition to commonly adopted opinions. While I agree that at the inquest it is reported that her uterus and kidney were missing, my reservation is the amount of time that Eddowes body lay untended in the morgue prior to the post mortem. The security chain in the Chapman case is tenuous at best, but we don't know how secure was the body of Eddowes from the time of transportation to the morgue to the time of post mortem. The terrible ifs accumulate.

The hard to escape fact is that it was not a function of the on site assessment to determine the state of the organs in the body, unless it was externally discernible, as if the case of Kelly. That was the function of the post mortem.

While I lean towards an opinion that the organs were removed by Jack due to the preparatory procedures, I cannot discard the modern expert medical opinions that it was not possible in the circumstances and in the time available.

Where would this forum be without such conundrums.

Best regards, George

[JeffHamm]

If they had have noticed any organs missing it would have been documented

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But it is documented, at the inquest it is reported that her uterus and kidney were missing.

And if they noticed that the uterus and kidney were present, which they would have given Dr. Phillips was called in because of his familiarity with the Chapman case, but later both were found to be missing as per your organ thief, that would have been documented.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

From Dr. Brown's testimony at the inquest:

By the Coroner: Before we removed the body Dr. Phillips was sent for, as I wished him to see the wounds, he having been engaged in a case of a similar kind previously. He saw the body at the mortuary. The clothes were removed from the deceased carefully. I made a post-mortem examination on Sunday afternoon.

While Dr. Brown does not specifically state that Dr. Phillips saw the body upon its arrival at the mortuary and not just at the post-mortem, that is the implication of his statement.

And since Dr. Phillips was called for specifically due to his familiarity with the Chapman injuries, where the uterus was missing, it is untenable to argue that they did not examine Eddowes with regards to her uterus.

I accept that there is wiggle room, and one could speculate that Dr. Phillips only arrives at the time of the post-mortem, however, given he was sent for prior to the body being removed from Mitre Square, I suggest that the weight of the evidence is strongly against that. But, there may be reports other than just the inquest testimony as found on Casebook (under the official documents section) that goes against what I'm suggesting here. I just don't have access to them at the moment. But in my opinion, unless something demonstrates that Dr. Phillips did not come at the time he was called for, then based upon the above it is manifestly obvious that they must have noted her missing uterus before any organ thief would have a chance to claim it.

- Jeff

If they had have noticed any organs missing it would have been documented

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

From Dr. Brown's testimony at the inquest:

By the Coroner: Before we removed the body Dr. Phillips was sent for, as I wished him to see the wounds, he having been engaged in a case of a similar kind previously. He saw the body at the mortuary. The clothes were removed from the deceased carefully. I made a post-mortem examination on Sunday afternoon.

While Dr. Brown does not specifically state that Dr. Phillips saw the body upon its arrival at the mortuary and not just at the post-mortem, that is the implication of his statement.

And since Dr. Phillips was called for specifically due to his familiarity with the Chapman injuries, where the uterus was missing, it is untenable to argue that they did not examine Eddowes with regards to her uterus.

I accept that there is wiggle room, and one could speculate that Dr. Phillips only arrives at the time of the post-mortem, however, given he was sent for prior to the body being removed from Mitre Square, I suggest that the weight of the evidence is strongly against that. But, there may be reports other than just the inquest testimony as found on Casebook (under the official documents section) that goes against what I'm suggesting here. I just don't have access to them at the moment. But in my opinion, unless something demonstrates that Dr. Phillips did not come at the time he was called for, then based upon the above it is manifestly obvious that they must have noted her missing uterus before any organ thief would have a chance to claim it.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Grrrr I'm struggling here with the logic of it all. Trevor states only "pre-opened" corpses would provide opportunity for the thieves as nothing was taken from Nichols or Stride. I believe nothing was taken from Kelly apart from possibly the heart as all was accounted for. So this organ pinching seems a pretty poor business/hobby/fetish or whatever because they are relying on 'cut open' victims and surely there were not many of them around... scant pickings so to speak.

Or am I barking up the wrong tree here?

You’re not Geddy. This is the simple point that I’m making which Trevor is reacting to as if I’m writing in Dutch.

An organ thief, by the very nature of the occupation, would have sprung into action after the post mortem for reasons that shouldn’t require explaining. This would have meant them acting later in the day as opposed to mornings or early mornings. It also seems obvious that they wouldn’t have operated while there was the very real, and regular issue of officials (doctors, nurses, detectives, senior mortuary officials being in and out.) So they wouldn’t have operated surely have operated in the evenings - no one around, PM completed, cover of darkness etc)

What Trevor is claiming is that they would have ignored all of these risks purely because the abdomens were open. So, according to him, they would still have accepted the risk of people coming in and out and of working during the day just because they could access the organs earlier? What was the rush? What difference would a few hours make?

Plus…and this is another major point that he wilfully ignores….people in the mortuary (accomplices) would have known that Brown had looked at the body before the PM (and that Phillips had also been there doing the same)….so how could they possibly have known that the doctors, understanding the nature of Chapman’s injuries, hadn’t checked the internal organs and noted what was still there and what wasn’t. How could they possibly have been willing to risk their entire operation by taking organs before the PM with the massive risk of the Doctors knowing that those same organs had been in place when the body had arrived at the mortuary.

Trevor can’t answer this one because there is no answer. I’m not theorising, or speculating, I’m simply stating the stupid risks that they wouldn’t have taken.

[Geddy2112]

IT MAKES NO SENSE TREVOR.

Grrrr I'm struggling here with the logic of it all. Trevor states only "pre-opened" corpses would provide opportunity for the thieves as nothing was taken from Nichols or Stride. I believe nothing was taken from Kelly apart from possibly the heart as all was accounted for. So this organ pinching seems a pretty poor business/hobby/fetish or whatever because they are relying on 'cut open' victims and surely there were not many of them around... scant pickings so to speak.

Or am I barking up the wrong tree here?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, all that avoidance must be tiring for you Trevor,

[Trevor Marriott]

If you can’t understand my point then there’s nothing I can do. I can’t make it any simpler than I already have.

IF Reid is to be believed - yes of course you believe him because it suits you to do so. The doctor didn’t mention finding the heart in the room - he mentions the other organs though - therefore the heart wasn’t in the room. More simplicity that you appear to have problems grasping.

The doctor states that the heart was missing from the pericardium there is no evidence to show it was taken away. It doesn't suit me to believe Reid he was there its what the evidence tells me. Which you seem to dont want to accept

I’m not going to persist in making things simple and simpler and simpler just so that you can understand them Trevor. There’s a limit and I’ve passed it. You should ask someone else to explain it to you.

And I have reached my patience limit with you so its best we ignore any future contact on this topic to avoid any further hostilities

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Patrick Differ]

When you compare female anatomy (picture), to the Doctors narratives it becomes clear that the killer was not working like a trained surgeon based on procedures for removing organs. There was collateral damage to organs surrounding the kidney- liver, spleen, stomach , aorta. Slices and stab wounds. in addition to the intestines. The killer was indeed ripping and probing. Having successfully removed the Uterus from Chapman and then Eddowes in 2 different lighting environments, it appears that he was able to remove the kidney by feel that is evidenced by the collateral damage described in the post mortem. It is likely he learned in better light and much more time with Chapman.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You are not making any sense and you keep repeating yourself. You are clutching at straws in a feeble attempt to justify your belief that the killer took the organs,

I mention the murder of kelly where the killer had the chance to take countless internal organs but if Insp Reid is to be believed and I have no reason to doubt his word, the killer took no organs how do you explain that?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

If you can’t understand my point then there’s nothing I can do. I can’t make it any simpler than I already have.

IF Reid is to be believed - yes of course you believe him because it suits you to do so. The doctor didn’t mention finding the heart in the room - he mentions the other organs though - therefore the heart wasn’t in the room. More simplicity that you appear to have problems grasping.

I’m not going to persist in making things simple and simpler and simpler just so that you can understand them Trevor. There’s a limit and I’ve passed it. You should ask someone else to explain it to you.

[Trevor Marriott]

You’re doing your usual Trevor - you are not understanding the point being made and you are becoming irate because you think that this is down to me!

I know why organs are taken. I know that they are used for dissection and research but please read the following part..

IT CAN HAVE MADE ZERO DIFFERENCE TO THESE THIEVES WHETHER THEY GOT THEIR ORGANS DURING THE DAY OR DURING THE EVENING - THEY WOULDN'T HAVE THROWN CAUTION TO THE WIND AND MADE THE JOB MORE DIFFICULT AND MASSIVELY MORE RISKY JUST FOR THE SAKE OF ACQUIRING THOSE PARTS A VERY FEW HOURS EARLIER.

IT MAKES NO SENSE TREVOR.

You are not making any sense and you keep repeating yourself. You are clutching at straws in a feeble attempt to justify your belief that the killer took the organs,

I mention the murder of kelly where the killer had the chance to take countless internal organs but if Insp Reid is to be believed and I have no reason to doubt his word, the killer took no organs how do you explain that?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

It makes perfect sense as I said in a previous post at a post mortem when organs are removed they are dissected. How do you think they identified brights disease in Eddowes?

You clearly have no idea as to how body dealers obtained organs from mortuaries,

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You’re doing your usual Trevor - you are not understanding the point being made and you are becoming irate because you think that this is down to me!

I know why organs are taken. I know that they are used for dissection and research but please read the following part..

IT CAN HAVE MADE ZERO DIFFERENCE TO THESE THIEVES WHETHER THEY GOT THEIR ORGANS DURING THE DAY OR DURING THE EVENING - THEY WOULDN'T HAVE THROWN CAUTION TO THE WIND AND MADE THE JOB MORE DIFFICULT AND MASSIVELY MORE RISKY JUST FOR THE SAKE OF ACQUIRING THOSE PARTS A VERY FEW HOURS EARLIER.

IT MAKES NO SENSE TREVOR.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If you want to know more about the activities of Victorian Body dealers Elizabeth Hurren a lecturer at Leicester is an expert and she has published several books on the topic and she confirms what I have said as to how mortuary attendants were actively engaged with body dealers in acquiring not only organs but in some case whole bodies

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The problem is that there is nothing online to read in full. To read her ‘Dissecting JtR…” I’d need to contact her directly. She’d probably want paying.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

A quote from Prosector:

In November 1888 the first appendicectomy in Britain was yet to be performed. Very, very few surgeons had much experience of abdominal surgery. An average surgeon would probably only do a few hysterectomies in their entire career (and most of those by the vaginal rather than the abdominal route).

It's all very well to talk about the best way of taking out a kidney - from the front or the back. In 1888 no-one took out kidneys from living patients. It was only done in the dissecting room or the mortuary.

While I don't dispute your statement, I would point out that most of the doctors from the time had very little experience upon which to base such an opinion.

What sways my opinion slightly towards the probability that the organs were taken by Jack is the preparatory procedures. The mobilisation of the intestines and the removal of the descending colon to gain better access to the organs seems to indicate an intention to remove those organs. However, the modern opinion of experts with vast experience (not present in doctors of the time) suggests to me that either Jack had extensive experience in the dissecting room and/or a longer than estimated time to conduct his operations.

IMO Trevor presents a plausible alternative not deserving of blanket dismissal.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

I wouldn’t dispute the point that you’re making (from Prosector’s info) but we will have to agree to disagree on Trevor’s theory. I just don’t think it’s particularly plausible. Im not suggesting that it’s a stupid theory, Trevor is simply providing a possible explanation of what might have been the explanation if the killer couldn’t have done what was done in the time and conditions available. What I question is a) Trevor’s usual over-confidence and b) that the alternative is hugely more likely.