The kidney removal of Catherine Eddowes.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is the obvious issue that Trevor won’t address. Potential organ thieves would have had 2 options, A - to steal the organs before the post mortem (,between the hours of 3/4am and 2pm) or B - to steal the organs after the post mortem. So…

A - The first point of course is no cover of darkness but the most important point is that they would have known that doctors had looked at the body in situ and in the mortuary (Phillips at least) and they would have had no idea what the doctors had or had not seen. So for all they knew Drs Phillips or Brown might have checked the abdomen and seen what organs were still in place. If they then found them missing at the post mortem then the mortuary would have doubled down on security and the organ thieving business would have been dead-in-the-water. They would also have known that this was no ordinary murder, it was super high profile, so that they would have run the serious risk of having a Doctor or detective walking in on them.

alternately they could have chosen..

B - Operating under the cover of darkness with no staff around. The PM had been done and so the body was due no more scrutiny. And as a general point - Eddowes open abdominal cavity was an extreme rarity so for an organ thief to have worked pre-post mortem would have usually entailed opening up the abdomen. But if they work after a post Mortem then all they would have had to do was to cut stitches.

There really is no choice. There was no rush for them so they weren’t compelled by time to steal organs at a time that was massively more risky. Common sense tells us that unless we had the world’s most criminally stupid organ thieves then they certainly wouldn’t have stolen organs before a post mortem. Therefore the theory falls flat.

And of course the coroner asked Dr. Brown at the inquest - Would the parts removed be of any use for professional purposes?

To which Brown replied - None whatever.

And of course from the I quest we have - The uterus was cut away with the exception of a small portion

So what circumstance would be likeliest to result in the failure to cut away the whole organ?

A person working in the street it poor lighting or an experienced organ thief with the body lying on a table in front of him in a lit room?

I think that we all know the answer to that one.

[Doctored Whatsit]

So now you are trying to say that the killer was so highly trained that he was able to remove organs using two different methods of extraction and all in almost total darkness.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

That is exactly what an experienced butcher/slaughterer said when I quoted his letter.

[Patrick Differ]

As a newcomer to Casebook it's awesome to see such lively debates. From a fresh perspective perhaps let me just say that from a logical standpoint there is nothing I have read to date that definitively says the killer " could not" have removed the kidney of Catherine Eddowes. Would a butcher have less skill than a mortuary assistant for example? Doubtful, and in fact butchers by trade work with effective speed as this skill has little changed from Victorian times until today, other than Automation and food safety. Could someone with base anatomical knowledge, for example someone who knew what a Uterus and Kidney even was or looked like ( requiring education not readily found amongst much of the Whitechapel population?), be able to extract organs with or without collateral damage? The killer had anatomical knowledge is what these Doctors believed. However, they did not say that only a Surgeon could have mutilated these women. Which suspects had anatomical knowledge likely means someone with a degree of education. Experience, a book like Grays Anatomy. However there are 3 definate skills this killer had- he could strangle a victim unconscious and then lay her on the ground requiring physical strength, he knew that cutting the victims throat and bleeding her out would minimize getting coated with blood, and he knew how to gut the abdomen. The latter not by Virchow method but gut none the less. Butcher or surgeon? I personally lean towards an educated butcher. Someone highly trained in this skill.

[Doctored Whatsit]

He was referring to the intestines not the organs !!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

That is a convenient assumption, but unfortunately, not a fact. And if you read the original, he said that anatomical knowledge would have been required in the removal. He is clearly not referring to intestines ripped out, but something much more precise.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So now you are trying to say that the killer was so highly trained that he was able to remove organs using two different methods of extraction and all in almost total darkness.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The doctors at the time said it and I agree with them.

[Herlock Sholmes]

How is it wrong, I am curious to know your mindset when it is well documented that there were in existence Victorian body dealers who acquired organs from mortuaries and that mortuary attendants were complicit in these removals which part of that do you not understand?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Again your strange thinking comes to the fore. Just because they existed it doesn’t mean that they stole the organs. Baboons existed, but we don’t accuse them of removing the organs.

My list number 90 shows how your theory holds no water. It held no water when you first proposed it. It held no water every time you’ve since mentioned it and it holds no water now.

I wonder if you will ever get it Trevor. Whether you will ever sit down quietly in a room and ask yourself “why does no one ever support any of my theories?” It’s a very valid question.

[Trevor Marriott]

Who would be more in haste - a killer at a crime scene or a thief in mortuary. Obviously the former.

You keep making this same point Trevor. This was a serial killer, he wasn’t kneeling there with a surgery handbook; he wasn’t concerned with methodology. If the killer had killed one woman from the front cutting her throat from right to left, but he killed the next from behind cutting her throat from left to right, would you insist that this was the work of two different killers. Or would you accept that a killer wasn’t compelled to use the same method every time?

We are not discussing that issue of cutting throats that's a totally different aspect of the case and is not relevant to the organs removals

I can’t fail to notice that you haven’t addressed my post number 90. I know why not of course.

So now you are trying to say that the killer was so highly trained that he was able to remove organs using two different methods of extraction and all in almost total darkness.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

And here we see it again Trevor. You say things like this all the time. “How many times do you need telling…” it doesn’t matter how many times you tell us things…you could tell us a thousand times…it still doesn’t change the fact that what you are telling us is wrong.

How is it wrong, I am curious to know your mindset when it is well documented that there were in existence Victorian body dealers who acquired organs from mortuaries and that mortuary attendants were complicit in these removals which part of that do you not understand?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Would an organ thief really botch the removal of Eddowes' uterus? Would they have cut Annie's bladder? I mean, they're trained, have light, the body is on a table, etc. It seems to me the proposed organ thieves seem to have less skill than what JtR would require, given they have everything in their favour and still can't seem to do it right.

- Jeff

Exactly Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

What about done in haste ?

and not forgetting Chapmans uterus complete with the fallopian tubes still attached was removed intact from one mortuary yet we see damaged organs removed from a second mortuary. So if Chapman and Edowes were killed by the same hand why do we not see the same methods of extraction of the uterus after all the killer got it right the first time.

and why would the killer take a second uterus when he had secured a perfect good specimen from Chapman

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Who would be more in haste - a killer at a crime scene or a thief in mortuary. Obviously the former.

You keep making this same point Trevor. This was a serial killer, he wasn’t kneeling there with a surgery handbook; he wasn’t concerned with methodology. If the killer had killed one woman from the front cutting her throat from right to left, but he killed the next from behind cutting her throat from left to right, would you insist that this was the work of two different killers. Or would you accept that a killer wasn’t compelled to use the same method every time?

I can’t fail to notice that you haven’t addressed my post number 90. I know why not of course.

[Trevor Marriott]

This is quite clear, the doctor is saying that he "carefully closed up the clothes of the woman" before the body was moved, and that "some portions had been excised". That is beyond doubt, a statement that excisions had already been made and noted by him. The use of the tense, "had been" make it clear that the excisions had already been made, and were not done later.

He was referring to the intestines not the organs !!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

How many times do you need telling that no organs were found missing at any of the crime scenes !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And here we see it again Trevor. You say things like this all the time. “How many times do you need telling…” it doesn’t matter how many times you tell us things…you could tell us a thousand times…it still doesn’t change the fact that what you are telling us is wrong.

1. The heart was absent from the pericardium.
2. An extensive list of all the organs found in the room was made.
3. When it come to internal organs the heart is the biggie.
4. The heart wasn’t on that list.
5. The absolutely INESCAPABLE conclusion is that the heart wasn’t found anywhere in the room.

Therefore the KILLER to the heart away.

End of story, Trevor.

[Doctored Whatsit]

[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. I carefully closed up the clothes of the woman. Some portions had been excised.

This is quite clear, the doctor is saying that he "carefully closed up the clothes of the woman" before the body was moved, and that "some portions had been excised". That is beyond doubt, a statement that excisions had already been made and noted by him. The use of the tense, "had been" make it clear that the excisions had already been made, and were not done later.

[Trevor Marriott]

Would an organ thief really botch the removal of Eddowes' uterus? Would they have cut Annie's bladder? I mean, they're trained, have light, the body is on a table, etc. It seems to me the proposed organ thieves seem to have less skill than what JtR would require, given they have everything in their favour and still can't seem to do it right.

- Jeff

What about done in haste ?

and not forgetting Chapmans uterus complete with the fallopian tubes still attached was removed intact from one mortuary yet we see damaged organs removed from a second mortuary. So if Chapman and Edowes were killed by the same hand why do we not see the same methods of extraction of the uterus after all the killer got it right the first time.

and why would the killer take a second uterus when he had secured a perfect good specimen from Chapman

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

Would an organ thief really have stolen organ before a post Mortem had been carried out?

1. He wouldn’t have known what any Doctor that had already examined the corpse had or hadn’t seen - so there would have existed a chance that of an organ being stolen that a Doctor had already noted as present.
2. With a post mortem still to do how could an organ thief have confidence that, at some point a police officer or a doctor might not show up for some reason connected to the ongoing investigation.
3. Surely any organ thieving would have been done after a post mortem when the thief could have absolute confidence that the doctors and police had no further use for the corpse.
4. Would organ thieves operate in broad daylight, especially at a mortuary like Golden Lane which, at that time, could probably have been described as state of the art.

These so called (non-existent) thieves had a choice. a) Wait until after the PM when all was quiet and risks were massively reduced, or b) Do it in broad daylight with more than one risk of discovery leading to the scuppering of their ‘earner.’
Why would they be so stupid? Remember Trevor….


Herlock’s Maxim No 2 - “ A theory is usually weakened if it relies on the suggestion of acts of egregious stupidity by those involved at the time.”

Would an organ thief really botch the removal of Eddowes' uterus? Would they have cut Annie's bladder? I mean, they're trained, have light, the body is on a table, etc. It seems to me the proposed organ thieves seem to have less skill than what JtR would require, given they have everything in their favour and still can't seem to do it right.

- Jeff