The kidney removal of Catherine Eddowes.

[Trevor Marriott]

It’s long past time that this thread (and theory) was put to bed now that we can all see the situation. Trevor refuses to a) provide evidence that he claims to have access to, b) consistently avoids answering direct questions, and c) he even refuses to accept points that everyone else would concede to be basic reason and common sense.


1. (This is what I mean by my point c). The starting point of Trevor’s theory is his ‘fact’ that the killer wouldn’t have had time in Mitre Square to remove organ. This is an example of him refusing to accept something that everyone else would accept without argument; that this claim cannot be made because we have no definitive time that the killer wouldn’t have required, we have no idea of the killer’s knowledge and level of skill and we don’t know how long the killer had available to him. Therefore it’s just a fact that the claim that the killer didn’t have time cannot be made.

And we still dont no how long the killer had with Eddowes

2. Next, Trevor claims that it’s known that organ thieves stole organs from mortuaries. I have never doubted him on this point (I’ve always said though that their mere existence cannot be considered proof that organs were taken.)

You have acknowledged that organs were stolen for mortuaries

3. Trevor stated in the strongest terms that Dr Phillips didn’t attend the mortuary before the post mortem. We now that to be incorrect and that, at 5.20am, Dr Brown was still at Golden Lane mortuary (possibly Sequiera too) awaiting Dr Phillips arrival - hardly something that he would have done if Phillips wasn’t due to arrive until 9 hours later.

The post mortem was not carried out on Eddowes till the afternoon, I am sure that having regard for the fact that Phillips was still dealing with Stride and Phillips had not arrived by 5.20am they would have adjourned till later

4. Trevor asks why no organs were taken from Nichols and Stride “if the killer was harvesting organs.” So he’s created a motive merely to use it to make a point. We don’t know why he took organs so we can’t know that for whatever reason he might have decided not to. Trevor also dismisses the entirely reasonable suggestion that in both cases the killer might have been interrupted but what’s worse is that Trevor doesn’t consider even Stride a ripper victim! So why does he now throw her back into the mix purely to make a point? This is a sure sign of real desperation.

Its a fact that if the killler was harvesting organs there was no attempt by the killer to remove organs from some of the other victims

5. Trevor claims to know for a fact that Kelly’s heart wasn’t missing. Such unfounded confidence borders on the bizarre. To support this he largely, but not entirely, relies on a 1896 News of The World article/interview with the retired Inspector Reid. Despite Trevor’s ongoing tactic of labelling anyone that he doesn’t believe as ‘unsafe to rely on’ it’s strange (to say the least) that he takes Reid’s word as gospel despite the fact that he makes so many errors in his interview that it’s often more like a work of fiction. He ignores the fact that Bond said that the heart was missing and that despite him listing the location in the room of the other organs he makes no mention of the heart. He also ignores Drs Gabe and Hebbert on this subject. And apart from this, even if the heart wasn’t missing this still would be evidence for organ thieves.

2 Senior police officers and a doctor confirm that the heart was not taken away by the killer

6. Trevor refuses to address this very obvious question - why did organ thieves, looking to make money from selling organs and having ample time and the ideal conditions, content themselves with a kidney and a uterus when they could easily have taken a sackful of organs. All saleable items. The reason that Trevor ignores this point couldn’t be more obvious.

I have addressed this question with regards to Kelly if as you believe, the killer took her heart, why did he not take any other organs when he had the time to remove almost every internal organ?

7. Finally Trevor, for some inexplicable reason, can’t seem to grasp that organ thieves would have had to, as part of their method, only taken organs from corpses due for a PM AFTER that PM had taken place. Imagine the doctors surprise at the PM when he pulled back the sheet on a woman who died in bed to find that her abdomen had been opened up? Stealing after a PM, under cover of darkness with (usually) no police or doctors coming and going make total sense. But in this case Trevor suggests that they were so desperate to get their hands on a kidney and a uterus that they simply couldn’t wait. They also ran the huge risk that the doctors who had examined the body might have noticed that the uterus was present. No sensible person could accept this suggestion.

You clearly are not a sensible person !!!!!!!!!

You need a reality check !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

It’s long past time that this thread (and theory) was put to bed now that we can all see the situation. Trevor refuses to a) provide evidence that he claims to have access to, b) consistently avoids answering direct questions, and c) he even refuses to accept points that everyone else would concede to be basic reason and common sense.


1. (This is what I mean by my point c). The starting point of Trevor’s theory is his ‘fact’ that the killer wouldn’t have had time in Mitre Square to remove organ. This is an example of him refusing to accept something that everyone else would accept without argument; that this claim cannot be made because we have no definitive time that the killer wouldn’t have required, we have no idea of the killer’s knowledge and level of skill and we don’t know how long the killer had available to him. Therefore it’s just a fact that the claim that the killer didn’t have time cannot be made.

2. Next, Trevor claims that it’s known that organ thieves stole organs from mortuaries. I have never doubted him on this point (I’ve always said though that their mere existence cannot be considered proof that organs were taken.) Trevor has always cited the work of Professor Elizabeth Hurren as the source of this information and I agree that her expertise on this subject cannot be doubted. I’ve read the article in question and nowhere in it does she mention organs being stolen from anywhere. This doesn’t mean of course that she hasn’t mentioned it in one of her other books or in one of the many papers that she’s written and Trevor insists that she has, but when I asked him to produce evidence of this (an entirely reasonable request) he refused point blank. What else can we assume from this other than such evidence doesn’t exist (as far as Trevor knows) and that he has just made an assumption which ‘helps’ his theory. Professor Hurren, in the only article that I’ve read, speaks only of ‘body dealers.’ People who profited from illegally obtaining corpses to sell to hospitals for dissection. If evidence is ever provided that ‘organ thieves’ existed and took organs from mortuaries I will have absolutely no issue with accepting it, but we cannot simply accept a suggestion from someone who refuses to back it up with evidence.

3. Trevor stated in the strongest terms that Dr Phillips didn’t attend the mortuary before the post mortem. We now that to be incorrect and that, at 5.20am, Dr Brown was still at Golden Lane mortuary (possibly Sequiera too) awaiting Dr Phillips arrival - hardly something that he would have done if Phillips wasn’t due to arrive until 9 hours later.

4. Trevor asks why no organs were taken from Nichols and Stride “if the killer was harvesting organs.” So he’s created a motive merely to use it to make a point. We don’t know why he took organs so we can’t know that for whatever reason he might have decided not to. Trevor also dismisses the entirely reasonable suggestion that in both cases the killer might have been interrupted but what’s worse is that Trevor doesn’t consider even Stride a ripper victim! So why does he now throw her back into the mix purely to make a point? This is a sure sign of real desperation.

5. Trevor claims to know for a fact that Kelly’s heart wasn’t missing. Such unfounded confidence borders on the bizarre. To support this he largely, but not entirely, relies on a 1896 News of The World article/interview with the retired Inspector Reid. Despite Trevor’s ongoing tactic of labelling anyone that he doesn’t believe as ‘unsafe to rely on’ it’s strange (to say the least) that he takes Reid’s word as gospel despite the fact that he makes so many errors in his interview that it’s often more like a work of fiction. He ignores the fact that Bond said that the heart was missing and that despite him listing the location in the room of the other organs he makes no mention of the heart. He also ignores Drs Gabe and Hebbert on this subject. And apart from this, even if the heart wasn’t missing this still would be evidence for organ thieves.

6. Trevor refuses to address this very obvious question - why did organ thieves, looking to make money from selling organs and having ample time and the ideal conditions, content themselves with a kidney and a uterus when they could easily have taken a sackful of organs. All saleable items. The reason that Trevor ignores this point couldn’t be more obvious.

7. Finally Trevor, for some inexplicable reason, can’t seem to grasp that organ thieves would have had to, as part of their method, only taken organs from corpses due for a PM AFTER that PM had taken place. Imagine the doctors surprise at the PM when he pulled back the sheet on a woman who died in bed to find that her abdomen had been opened up? Stealing after a PM, under cover of darkness with (usually) no police or doctors coming and going make total sense. But in this case Trevor suggests that they were so desperate to get their hands on a kidney and a uterus that they simply couldn’t wait. They also ran the huge risk that the doctors who had examined the body might have noticed that the uterus was present. No sensible person could accept this suggestion.


Trevor’s usual mantra is to claim that we are all somehow ‘attached’ to what he calls the ‘old established theories’ but we all know that this a cop out (no pun intended) used to justify an unbelievable theory. The ‘theory’ that the killer took organs is ‘established’ because that’s what the evidence unequivocally tells us. Trevor won’t accept this of course but there’s no point discussing a disproven theory with someone that ducks, dives, dodges and ignores questions, makes up his own evidence, applies different standards to different witnesses and wont accept reason that every other person on the planet would accept.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi Mike,

I just stumbled upon this snippet in the Evening News of 12 November that might be of interest:

"THE SEARCH FOR A CLUE IN THE ROOM
A somewhat important investigation was made on Saturday in the room in Miller's court in which the woman was murdered. The police had reason to believe that the murderer had burnt something before leaving the room after the crime, and accordingly the ashes and other matter in the grate were carefully preserved. Dr. Phillips and Dr. Macdonald, M.P., the coroner for the district, visited Miller's court, and after the refuse had been passed through a sieve it was subjected to the closest scrutiny by the medical gentlemen. Nothing, however, was found at the examination which is likely to afford any assistance or clues to the police."

Cheers,
Frank

This was brought up on a previous thread some time ago, and I suggested that the probable reason for getting Dr Phillips to study the sieved remains of the fire would be for evidence of a burnt heart. I couldn't think of any other reason to involve a police surgeon.

Perhaps someone should open a thread on Kelly's heart - we are doing it to death on this thread!

[FrankO]

I take your point about the interpretation of the phrase but I can’t see him listing the location of the other organs and yet he neglects to mention the heart. And when we add that to that Gabe’s “"a certain organ was missing.” Then we get Hebbert (who was Bond’s assistant and who attended the inquest) saying “ all the organs except the heart were found scattered around the room..."

Hi Mike,

I just stumbled upon this snippet in the Evening News of 12 November that might be of interest:

"THE SEARCH FOR A CLUE IN THE ROOM
A somewhat important investigation was made on Saturday in the room in Miller's court in which the woman was murdered. The police had reason to believe that the murderer had burnt something before leaving the room after the crime, and accordingly the ashes and other matter in the grate were carefully preserved. Dr. Phillips and Dr. Macdonald, M.P., the coroner for the district, visited Miller's court, and after the refuse had been passed through a sieve it was subjected to the closest scrutiny by the medical gentlemen. Nothing, however, was found at the examination which is likely to afford any assistance or clues to the police."

Cheers,
Frank

[Wickerman]

. . . It makes no sense. You ask about ‘different methods’ and I’ve answered so I’d like you answer on this one - why the hell, when he would have had ample time, opportunity and a serious motive didn’t he fill his sack full of organs? Surely you won’t claim that there was only a trade in kidneys and uteri?
. . .

No, he'll be claiming the killer went out with a shopping list, a uterus one day, a kidney the next, it's what they call - slayed to order.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If you think i am mistaken do your own reserach I sure you have the time to do this, unlike you I do not have the time or the inclination to continue this thread I am more than happy to stick by my belief that the killer did not remove these organs from the victims and I have provided enough evidence and facts to back it up.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I’m now not saying that you’re mistaken Trevor. The fact that you ‘refuse’ to provide the simple proof that you claim exists to your back up point proves that you made it up.

It’s good that you’ve made that clear to everyone.

[Trevor Marriott]

She doesn’t mention it anywhere in her "Dissecting Jack-the-Ripper: An Anatomy of Murder in the Metropolis", Crime, Histories and Society [Crime, Histories and Society], Journal of the International Association for the History of Crime and Criminal Justice, (December 2016), ISSN 1422-0857, Volume 20, Issue No. 2. pp. 5-30 - that’s a certainty.

So I’ll ask you again Trevor - if you have seen Professor Hurren mention body parts being stolen from mortuaries can you provide the evidence for us all please? I’m not saying that she hasn’t…I don’t know…but like anyone, I need proof and not just you telling me that this is the case.

Any chance of not changing the subject this time please?

If you think i am mistaken do your own reserach I sure you have the time to do this, unlike you I do not have the time or the inclination to continue this thread I am more than happy to stick by my belief that the killer did not remove these organs from the victims and I have provided enough evidence and facts to back it up.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

You might have tried answering at least one like - why would thieves, who profited from each organ, have only taken a kidney and a uterus when they would have had ample opportunity to steal a sackful of organs.

..I have said before female reprodutive organs were highly sought after


www.trevormarriott.co.uk[/B]

Anyone stealing body parts would have been doing it for cash. They wouldn’t have taken 2 organs to sell when they could easily have taken 5 or 6 to sell for even more.

Could you provide a less desperate response this time please?

[Herlock Sholmes]

she does highlight the illict trade in both organs and bodies involving corrupt mortuary attendants

www.trevormarriott.co.uk[/B]

She doesn’t mention it anywhere in her "Dissecting Jack-the-Ripper: An Anatomy of Murder in the Metropolis", Crime, Histories and Society [Crime, Histories and Society], Journal of the International Association for the History of Crime and Criminal Justice, (December 2016), ISSN 1422-0857, Volume 20, Issue No. 2. pp. 5-30 - that’s a certainty.

So I’ll ask you again Trevor - if you have seen Professor Hurren mention body parts being stolen from mortuaries can you provide the evidence for us all please? I’m not saying that she hasn’t…I don’t know…but like anyone, I need proof and not just you telling me that this is the case.

Any chance of not changing the subject this time please?

[Herlock Sholmes]

So you admit to inventing ‘organ thieves.’

Cheers

[Trevor Marriott]

No answer to my questions of course. So I’m now forced to consider that you haven’t read Professor Hurren’s work apart from the one freely available online in which she only speaks of body dealers and makes no mention of ‘organ thieves.’ I asked for a little evidence and as ever you obfuscate, change the subject and threaten to walk away.

What is a body dealer - a person who deals in body parts and bodies, as you eloquently put it an organ thief and she does highlight the illict trade in both organs and bodies involving corrupt mortuary attendants

You might have tried answering at least one like - why would thieves, who profited from each organ, have only taken a kidney and a uterus when they would have had ample opportunity to steal a sackful of organs.

Well I have pointed that out with the Kelly murder, if the killer was taking organs as you put it he could have taken a sackful

and I have said before female reprodutive organs were highly sought after

You have been well and truly busted Trevor. Again.

In you dreams

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think that it is really time to point out that this thread is about the kidney removal of Catherine Eddowes, and the continuing comments about Kelly's heart are irrelevant, and at best somewhat desperate.

The report by Dr Bond is an official document which sets out for all time the exact details of the murder scene. This was his job, and he was an experienced police surgeon. He wrote that "the pericardium was open below and the heart absent". As an absolute minimum that can only mean that the heart was not where it should have been. He details meticulously and thoroughly the complete details of where other various removed body parts were to be found. None of these were where they should have been, but none were said to be "absent". Therefore, when he doesn't mention that the heart was found anywhere in the room, we realise that "absent" can only mean "not there."

Dr Bond's official report should be the only source of information as to where body parts were or weren't to be found. There is no other official report saying otherwise. This therefore easily outweighs any newspaper gossip, rumour, speculation or opinion, and massively trumps the recolections of Inspector Reid, made many years later, and which are inaccurate and therefore clearly unreliable.

So, at the risk of annoying some people, I maintain that the only reliable evidence of the whereabouts of Kelly's heart were made by Dr Bond, so let's get back to the subject of this thread, please.

If anyone wants to continue the debate about Kelly's heart, may I suggest they open a new thread entitled "When Dr Bond said Kelly's heart was absent, he really meant that it was there, but he didn't notice it."

Absolutely Doc. It’s a desperate attempt to prop up a theory which is in bits on the ground.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think when the doctors came to do the post mortems they would have noticed the bodies of Chapman and the others bodies missing

Is there anything about this case that you actually understand Trevor? Because I’m beginning to think that there isn’t. If a body dealer took a body from a mortuary then clearly they would have done it AFTER a post mortem.

I only have one final thing to say on the topic, and that is the killer did not take the heart. There is ample evidence to support this.

No wonder you never made it as a detective.

That being the case it brings into question as to whether the killer did remove the organs from the other victims, when with Kelly he had the time and opportunity to remove and take away any number of internal organs,and the fact that there was no attempt to remove organs from some of the other victims

Feeble

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No answer to my questions of course. So I’m now forced to consider that you haven’t read Professor Hurren’s work apart from the one freely available online in which she only speaks of body dealers and makes no mention of ‘organ thieves.’ I asked for a little evidence and as ever you obfuscate, change the subject and threaten to walk away.

You might have tried answering at least one like - why would thieves, who profited from each organ, have only taken a kidney and a uterus when they would have had ample opportunity to steal a sackful of organs.

You have been well and truly busted Trevor. Again.

[Doctored Whatsit]

I only have one final thing to say on the topic, and that is the killer did not take the heart. There is ample evidence to support this.

That being the case it brings into question as to whether the killer did remove the organs from the other victims, when with Kelly he had the time and opportunity to remove and take away any number of internal organs,and the fact that there was no attempt to remove organs from some of the other victims[/B]

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I think that it is really time to point out that this thread is about the kidney removal of Catherine Eddowes, and the continuing comments about Kelly's heart are irrelevant, and at best somewhat desperate.

The report by Dr Bond is an official document which sets out for all time the exact details of the murder scene. This was his job, and he was an experienced police surgeon. He wrote that "the pericardium was open below and the heart absent". As an absolute minimum that can only mean that the heart was not where it should have been. He details meticulously and thoroughly the complete details of where other various removed body parts were to be found. None of these were where they should have been, but none were said to be "absent". Therefore, when he doesn't mention that the heart was found anywhere in the room, we realise that "absent" can only mean "not there."

Dr Bond's official report should be the only source of information as to where body parts were or weren't to be found. There is no other official report saying otherwise. This therefore easily outweighs any newspaper gossip, rumour, speculation or opinion, and massively trumps the recolections of Inspector Reid, made many years later, and which are inaccurate and therefore clearly unreliable.

So, at the risk of annoying some people, I maintain that the only reliable evidence of the whereabouts of Kelly's heart were made by Dr Bond, so let's get back to the subject of this thread, please.

If anyone wants to continue the debate about Kelly's heart, may I suggest they open a new thread entitled "When Dr Bond said Kelly's heart was absent, he really meant that it was there, but he didn't notice it."

[Trevor Marriott]

As it was just after midnight when I asked you for some evidence (in terms of quotes) and it’s now only 9.30(ish) am so I’ll of course give you more time.

Everyone will have noticed that all through these discussions I have never doubted your statement that there were organ thieves who did things like get into mortuaries and take organs from corpses. I took you at your word and never had cause to doubt the suggestion. I’ll stress here that I’m still not, at this point, stating that you are inventing anything or that you have made a mistaken assumption but after my re-read of Professor Hurren’s article it struck me (as it should have done sooner) that she never uses the phrase ‘organ thief.’ She always talks of ‘body dealers’ and nowhere, when describing the trade, does she ever mention people stealing specific organs. Obviously she might have mentioned organ thieves in her other books/articles, some of which you have read and possibly own (I haven’t bought any of her books due to the ridiculously high price) This why I asked for a bit of evidence from these books/articles. As I have only heard her mention those that stole/sold/bought bodies, but I did see a mention of mortuaries and people who work there (although not connected to organ theft) I wondered if you had mistakenly conflated the two to arrive at organ theft from mortuaries? So documented clarification would be helpful on this point.

A couple of follow on points that I wanted to make (and that I should have made a long time ago) is that organs equalled cash so I have to ask why, if our organ thieves were there in the mortuary knives at the ready, did they confine themselves to just 2 organs? Why not take the liver, the spleen, the lungs, the heart? It’s like a thief breaking into a shop and finding £1000 in the safe but only making off with £200. It makes no sense. You ask about ‘different methods’ and I’ve answered so I’d like you answer on this one - why the hell, when he would have had ample time, opportunity and a serious motive didn’t he fill his sack full of organs? Surely you won’t claim that there was only a trade in kidneys and uteri?

Surely the notion of ‘body theft’ makes far more sense than the suggestion of removing individual organs? And we know for a fact that body dealers existed.

I think when the doctors came to do the post mortems they would have noticed the bodies of Chapman and the others bodies missing

I only have one final thing to say on the topic, and that is the killer did not take the heart. There is ample evidence to support this.

That being the case it brings into question as to whether the killer did remove the organs from the other victims, when with Kelly he had the time and opportunity to remove and take away any number of internal organs,and the fact that there was no attempt to remove organs from some of the other victims

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk