The kidney removal of Catherine Eddowes.

[GBinOz]

No and neither did the doctors at the time, none of whom suggested that the killer couldn’t have removed those organs.

To be fair, at the Chapman inquest Baxter did ask Phillips if the organs could have been lost in transit, and Phillips evaded the question by replying that he wasn't present during the transit. At the Eddowes inquest there were questions as to whether the missing organs were of any commercial or professional value which might be interpreted as sub text for questioning when the organs went missing.

I'm starting to wonder why we dwell on a topic with so many uncertainties.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

The answer to that is quite simple they were not aware that the bodies had been tampered with during the long gap between bodies arriving at the mortuary and the post mortems being carried out.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes but they would have been aware of the possibility. Especially if someone on the inside was helping them.

[Doctored Whatsit]

I think people are overlooking the following issues.

1, If the killer was harvesting organs why did he mutilate the abdomens in such a way as to damage any organs he may have been seeking

2. Why would he take a second urterus from Eddowes when had a perfect intact specimen from Chapman

3, If the killer removed the organs from the victims why do we see two different methods of extraction involving two different mortuaries

4. Do posters who seek to dampen this theory fully appreciate the degree of difficulty in the killer having to put his hand into a blood-filled abdomen in the dark with a long bladed knife and to try to locate the organs and then if the killer was able to locate them to be able to grip the wet and slippery organs in the dark and be able to remove them in the case of Chapman not only the uterus but a uterus with the fallopian tubes still attached without the aid of a retractor to hold the walls of the abdomen open is beyond comprehension

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

You have attached your observations above to an item about the comments of Drs Brown and Phillips in relation to the anatomical knowledge and/or surgical skill on display. They therefore aren't obviously related to what I wrote, but your questions are interesting. By "people overlooking the following issues", you seem to be referring therefore to Brown and Phillips, who, I am inclined to think, knew what they were talking about.

1. I do not strongly propose that JtR set out with the initial intention of harvesting organs. It might have been a second thought after inflicting the initial cuts.
2. Why not? Is there some unknown rule that he had to follow?
3. He might well have chosen to do something differently, thinking "this way might be better, it wasn't quite right last time".
4. I was quoting Drs Brown and Phillips who had a much better idea of what was possible and likely than you and I ever will.

[Trevor Marriott]

To be fair, at the Chapman inquest Baxter did ask Phillips if the organs could have been lost in transit, and Phillips evaded the question by replying that he wasn't present during the transit. At the Eddowes inquest there were questions as to whether the missing organs were of any commercial or professional value which might be interpreted as sub text for questioning when the organs went missing.

I'm starting to wonder why we dwell on a topic with so many uncertainties.

Cheers, George

I think the answer to that question is that some posters cannot and will not accept the fact that there is a plausible alternative to the old accepted theory;

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes but they would have been aware of the possibility. Especially if someone on the inside was helping them.

But how would they have been aware?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

But how would they have been aware?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So do you think that these organ thieves just turned up randomly, broke into the mortuary and helped themselves. Night after night? Every other night? Just turning up at random hoping that there were bodies to plunder? Or would they have had some kind of contact with someone at the mortuary? Isn’t it also a reasonable bet, considering that these were the highest profile murders in crime history, and that the murders involved mutilations and organ removal (as per the newspapers), that the thieves would have been aware of the police’s interest in the full nature of the injuries?

Nothing about this makes sense Trevor. Any organ thieves, no matter who they are, had no reason to steal organs during daylight hours while an intensive investigation was going on when they could have done it at night with almost no risk of discovery.

[Patrick Differ]

Wasn't the postmortem required in a homicide to determine time, cause and full extent of the murder? Which would be a report for the Investigators to follow up on? The answer is yes so it would take some serious risk in my view for a mortuary assistant, who often interacted with these investigators, to remove these organs to set a false trail for these same investigators. What earthly incentive would a mortuary assistant have to help this killer?
Eddowes apron found on Goulston Street was matched to the remaining apron on her body. It was found with blood and matter which tells me it was inside that body for some purpose. Cutting the throats to bleed out a victim and minimize blood within the body would have been known by Surgeons and butchers but not as a procedure used by Surgeons but rather a butcher.
The relationship between surgeon, police and mortuary assistant, in my mind, especially with a series of high profile homicides, would have likely been compartmentalized to keep the press away from it and tipping off the killer. That is well documented. While the mortuary assistant theory is plausible, it fails to explain Eddowes apron or the idea that these mortuary assistants were traffickers in organs irrespective of the victim.
I guess anything is possible. Would a Surgeon strangle, cut the throat and rip open the abdomen? They could have just used a syringe to kill

[The Rookie Detective]

Wasn't the postmortem required in a homicide to determine time, cause and full extent of the murder? Which would be a report for the Investigators to follow up on? The answer is yes so it would take some serious risk in my view for a mortuary assistant, who often interacted with these investigators, to remove these organs to set a false trail for these same investigators. What earthly incentive would a mortuary assistant have to help this killer?
Eddowes apron found on Goulston Street was matched to the remaining apron on her body. It was found with blood and matter which tells me it was inside that body for some purpose. Cutting the throats to bleed out a victim and minimize blood within the body would have been known by Surgeons and butchers but not as a procedure used by Surgeons but rather a butcher.
The relationship between surgeon, police and mortuary assistant, in my mind, especially with a series of high profile homicides, would have likely been compartmentalized to keep the press away from it and tipping off the killer. That is well documented. While the mortuary assistant theory is plausible, it fails to explain Eddowes apron or the idea that these mortuary assistants were traffickers in organs irrespective of the victim.
I guess anything is possible. Would a Surgeon strangle, cut the throat and rip open the abdomen? They could have just used a syringe to kill

Great post


The way I see it; even though Trevor's suggestion is plausible and IMO well thought out and considered; I still believe that when we look at the combination of the following...


Strangulation
Throat cutting
Abdominal cuts
Facial cuts

... we not only see a natural progression over time, but we also see overkill IF the killer sought only organ extraction.

We also need to look at WHY the killer performed each stage at varying time and with different victims.


Strangulation - Incapacitation, domination, control and to kill

Throat cutting - control, domination, expression of power, and to ensure death by stopping the victim's blood pressure BEFORE commencing any further cuts.

Abdominal cuts - the primary target for attack, self gratification, exploration, ownership, consumption, enjoyment, trophy taking.

Facial/Head cuts & stabs - the secondary target for attack - self- gratification, dehumanisation, rage, punishment, obliteration, trophy taking


Now IF each victim was either stangled or had their throat cut, and then their abdomen was attacked and then organs extracted, then I can see Trevor's excellent reasoning on this.

However, because the killer added facial cuts/stabs, clipped eyelids and ears etc... then there is no reasoning behind WHY a killer seeking organs would then choose to cut the victim's face.

In other words; considering the limited time the killer had, there is no reasoning behind a killer seeking organs to then cut and stab the face, and almost take his victim's heads off, along with initial strangulation thrown in for good measure.

It's overkill and unnecessary for a killer seeking organs as their primary objective.

The psychology simply doesn't fit.

The killer appears to focus his attack primarily on the female reproductive organs; specifically the Uterus; the organ in which new life is grown.

The killer perhaps had a specific grievance with the female reproductive system.

But, when we then add into the mix that each of the victims had at some time been known to solicit; we then have a killer attacking the wombs of women who could be considered considerably more vulnerable to unplanned conception from random paying customers.

From the killer's point of view, he perhaps found a disliking for women who he may have considered reckless and unwomanly due to their actions of allowing their bodies to be used in a particular manner.

This provides a psychological motive for choosing to target his victim's reproductive organs.

Kelly aside, it's perhaps also telling that he chose women in their 40's; women who were likely coming towards the end of their reproductive capabilities.

I have wondered whether the killer when attacking the womb; was curious to see what they were made of as women; quite literally.

And while there's no evidence that Kelly was pregnant; imagine a killer who opens her abdomen and discovers he has also murdered an unborn feotus.

Would this be a reasoning to take his rage out on her face?
There's an unprecedented level of rage and anger associated with the obliteration of Kelly's face. The intentional dehumanising of her face almost feels personal to the killer's reasoning behind doing so.

That said; if the Ripper was a clinical psychopath, then decimating her face and body was probably as emotional and mundane as eating a sandwich, and the killer may have felt absolutely nothing whatsoever.

Ultimately; for the killer to be motivated be organ removal as his primary drive; his choice to also strangle, cut and stab the face (that has no organs) and remove pounds of flesh from the thighs etc... doesn't fit with a man motivated by money and selling the odd kidney.

And if the killer was inspired by the removal of organs to then sell on; why didn't he remove any of his victim's tongues?

The tongue would have been easier to cut out than any organs inside the abdomen, and yet he leaves the tongues in place.

Curious.

Lots to ponder indeed.

[Sunny Delight]

I know nothing about surgery nor do I know the location, from the front of how to even get near the kidney. I have zero idea on what a membrane even looks like. If however must be the case that whoever removed the kidney from Catherine Eddowes had anatomical knowledge and was accustomed to using a knife in such a way as to be very apt at removing organs. The doctors at the time and since have been impressed with the removal as the kidney is apt to be overlooked covered by a membrane.

The killer was someone who knew what he was doing.

[Geddy2112]

Nothing about this makes sense Trevor. Any organ thieves, no matter who they are, had no reason to steal organs during daylight hours while an intensive investigation was going on when they could have done it at night with almost no risk of discovery.

Not sure if this has been asked by why did the 'organ stealers' not open up Liz Stride and whip her bits out when she was lying in the mortuary?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Not sure if this has been asked by why did the 'organ stealers' not open up Liz Stride and whip her bits out when she was lying in the mortuary?

They must have been having night off Geddy. Or else they thought that St. George’s Mortuary, where Stride’s body was sent, was basically a shed and provided no challenge, whereas Golden Lane Mortuary, where Eddowes was sent, was a modern, purpose-built building which no doubt provided more of a challenge for the organ thieves.

[Wickerman]

I know nothing about surgery nor do I know the location, from the front of how to even get near the kidney. I have zero idea on what a membrane even looks like. If however must be the case that whoever removed the kidney from Catherine Eddowes had anatomical knowledge and was accustomed to using a knife in such a way as to be very apt at removing organs. The doctors at the time and since have been impressed with the removal as the kidney is apt to be overlooked covered by a membrane.

A membrane is a fatty shell that encloses the kidney. While organs are soft and can be squeezed, the membrane is hard, so an inexperienced mutilator would not likely recognise it by touch, and in the abdomen the kidney is out of sight being at the back of the body.

The killer was someone who knew what he was doing.

Yes, and that is how Dr. Brown phrased it.
A surgeon can recognise the work of another surgeon, it wasn't the fact the organ was a kidney, it is the fact the kidney is hidden from view inside something that is itself irregular in shape.
By removing that single organ the way he did, the killer was speaking to the authorities.

[The Rookie Detective]

A membrane is a fatty shell that encloses the kidney. While organs are soft and can be squeezed, the membrane is hard, so an inexperienced mutilator would not likely recognise it by touch, and in the abdomen the kidney is out of sight being at the back of the body.



Yes, and that is how Dr. Brown phrased it.
A surgeon can recognise the work of another surgeon, it wasn't the fact the organ was a kidney, it is the fact the kidney is hidden from view inside something that is itself irregular in shape.
By removing that single organ the way he did, the killer was speaking to the authorities.

A brilliant post from start to finish.

Pure quality Jon!

[Sunny Delight]

A membrane is a fatty shell that encloses the kidney. While organs are soft and can be squeezed, the membrane is hard, so an inexperienced mutilator would not likely recognise it by touch, and in the abdomen the kidney is out of sight being at the back of the body.



Yes, and that is how Dr. Brown phrased it.
A surgeon can recognise the work of another surgeon, it wasn't the fact the organ was a kidney, it is the fact the kidney is hidden from view inside something that is itself irregular in shape.
By removing that single organ the way he did, the killer was speaking to the authorities.

I would agree. It appears that in removing the kidney, from the front, in almost complete darkness in the manner in which he did and with the speed that he did- the killer was displaying his ability or taunting the authorities. Almost every surgeon appears to be impressed by the kidneys removal and suggest this was not someone 'rummaging' around but rather someone who had an idea what they wanted.

My bet has always been on a slaughterman. It's just a hunch. My father worked in an abbatoir and I have seen him in operation so to speak. I have often wondered if a pig slaughterer could have been the killer and if a pig also has a membrane around the kidney? Is this a common thing or unique to humans?

[The Rookie Detective]

A membrane is a fatty shell that encloses the kidney. While organs are soft and can be squeezed, the membrane is hard, so an inexperienced mutilator would not likely recognise it by touch, and in the abdomen the kidney is out of sight being at the back of the body.



Yes, and that is how Dr. Brown phrased it.
A surgeon can recognise the work of another surgeon, it wasn't the fact the organ was a kidney, it is the fact the kidney is hidden from view inside something that is itself irregular in shape.
By removing that single organ the way he did, the killer was speaking to the authorities.

And precisely why those persons of interest with absolute no anatomical knowledge and/or skill/experience with using a knife; should be considered as far less likely to be the Ripper

Forget age, height, ethnicity, appearance etc.etc... these are subjective observations based on an individual witnesses interpretation of what they think they saw from memory recall.

The first point of call should always be...

What did the Ripper actually do to the victims?

I find it baffling how individuals like Lechmere and Maybrick can be taken seriously as suspects, when there is no evidence they had the attributes that the Ripper was proven to have exhibited.

In contrast; when we consider the likes of...

Jacob Levy, who was a butcher, and no doubt experienced and skilled with a knife

Klosowski, who was a barber, but with surgical experience (and a proven serial killer)

These are just examples of 2 men who had potentially at the very least the basic attributes and skillset required to carry out the murders in the manner the Ripper did.