The kidney removal of Catherine Eddowes.

[FISHY1118]

You keep quoting the post mortem reports and we know that the organs were not found missing until then !!!!!!!!!!!!!

In January 2016, a News of the World newspaper article dated 1896 was published in an online Ripper magazine. The paper featured an interview with Detective Inspector Reid who had retired that same year.

The News of the World journalist conducting the interview justifiably described Inspector Reid as ‘one of the most remarkable men ever engaged in the business of detecting crime.’ They met at Reid’s home and when sat at the drawing-room table the journalist bluntly asked the Reid ‘Tell me all about the Ripper murders.’ Reid responded by opening a cabinet drawer that contained ‘assassin’s knives, portraits, and a thousand and one curiosities of criminal association.’ Among the criminological ephemera was ‘probably the most remarkable photographic chamber of horrors in existence.’ Reid owned a set of Jack the Ripper victim photographs which he spread out on the table before telling the tale of the Whitechapel murders. Part of this interview would turn out to be the corroboration I was seeking, to negate the killer taking organs.

Set out below is part of that interview, which solely relates to Reid discussing the Mary Kelly Murder in which as can be seen, Reid does not refer to any other murder.

“This was a case in which a pretty, fair-haired, blue-eyed, youthful girl was murdered. She rented a room in a house in Dorset-street, for which she paid 4s 6d a week rent. The room was badly furnished for the reason that her class of people always pawn or sell anything decent they ever get into their places. The curtains to the windows were torn and one of the panes of glass was broken.
Kelly was in arrears with her rent and one morning a man known as ‘The Indian’, who was in the employment of the landlord of the house, went round about eight o’clock to see the woman about the money. Receiving no answer to his knock at the door, he peered through the window, and through the torn curtain saw the horrible sight of the woman lying on her bed hacked to pieces and pieces of her flesh placed upon the table.
I ought to tell you that the stories of portions of the body having been taken away by the murderer were all untrue. In every instance the body was complete. The mania of the murderer was exclusively for horrible mutilation. The landlord was brought round to the house by his man, and the sight of the poor mutilated woman turned his brain

All the evidence in all of the murders clearly points to the motive being nothing more than murder and mutilation

Now you can huff and puff all you like but it is not going to change the facts or the evidence to suggest that the killer of these women did not remove their organs

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The abdomen had been entirely laid open: the intestines, severed from their mesenteric attachments, had been lifted out of the body and placed on the shoulder of the corpse; whilst from the pelvis, the uterus and its appendages with the upper portion of the vagina and the posterior two thirds of the bladder, had been entirely removed. No trace of these parts could be found and the incisions were cleanly cut, avoiding the rectum, and dividing the vagina low enough to avoid injury to the cervix uteri. Obviously the work was that of an expert- of one, at least, who had such knowledge of anatomical or pathological examinations as to be enabled to secure the pelvic organs with one sweep of the knife, which must therefore must have at least 5 or 6 inches in length, probably more. The appearance of the cuts confirmed him in the opinion that the instrument, like the one which divided the neck, had been of a very sharp character. The mode in which the knife had been used seemed to indicate great anatomical knowledge.

Either the killer did this at Chapmans crime scene, or a someone performed it at the mortuary ... Wow they sure fooled Dr. George Bagster Phillips.


I only mention the part in red for those whose believe the killer had no, or may not needed any anatomical knowledge .



Either the killer did this at Chapmans crime scene, or a someone performed it at the mortuary

' Answer the question trevor .

[FISHY1118]

You keep quoting the post mortem reports and we know that the organs were not found missing until then !!!!!!!!!!!!!

In January 2016, a News of the World newspaper article dated 1896 was published in an online Ripper magazine. The paper featured an interview with Detective Inspector Reid who had retired that same year.

The News of the World journalist conducting the interview justifiably described Inspector Reid as ‘one of the most remarkable men ever engaged in the business of detecting crime.’ They met at Reid’s home and when sat at the drawing-room table the journalist bluntly asked the Reid ‘Tell me all about the Ripper murders.’ Reid responded by opening a cabinet drawer that contained ‘assassin’s knives, portraits, and a thousand and one curiosities of criminal association.’ Among the criminological ephemera was ‘probably the most remarkable photographic chamber of horrors in existence.’ Reid owned a set of Jack the Ripper victim photographs which he spread out on the table before telling the tale of the Whitechapel murders. Part of this interview would turn out to be the corroboration I was seeking, to negate the killer taking organs.

Set out below is part of that interview, which solely relates to Reid discussing the Mary Kelly Murder in which as can be seen, Reid does not refer to any other murder.

“This was a case in which a pretty, fair-haired, blue-eyed, youthful girl was murdered. She rented a room in a house in Dorset-street, for which she paid 4s 6d a week rent. The room was badly furnished for the reason that her class of people always pawn or sell anything decent they ever get into their places. The curtains to the windows were torn and one of the panes of glass was broken.
Kelly was in arrears with her rent and one morning a man known as ‘The Indian’, who was in the employment of the landlord of the house, went round about eight o’clock to see the woman about the money. Receiving no answer to his knock at the door, he peered through the window, and through the torn curtain saw the horrible sight of the woman lying on her bed hacked to pieces and pieces of her flesh placed upon the table.
I ought to tell you that the stories of portions of the body having been taken away by the murderer were all untrue. In every instance the body was complete. The mania of the murderer was exclusively for horrible mutilation. The landlord was brought round to the house by his man, and the sight of the poor mutilated woman turned his brain

All the evidence in all of the murders clearly points to the motive being nothing more than murder and mutilation

Now you can huff and puff all you like but it is not going to change the facts or the evidence to suggest that the killer of these women did not remove their organs

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Again you deflect trevor , im not taking about whether the organs were taken out of the room, only that they were taken out of mary kellys body !!!!! which is a fact you want to ignore . Your the one doing the huffing and puffing not i .

[Doctored Whatsit]

Thank you for this. If it's true that the killer didn't remove any organs, the 'From Hell' letter/kidney has to be a hoax? Apologies if you've been through this before.

A very important point. At no time, as far as I am aware, did the police say that the alleged Eddowes' kidney could not have been hers because no organs were ever removed.

[Patrick Differ]

My point is it seems unlikely that the Doctors would not be aware of any shenanigans by mortuary assistants since the result is tampering with evidence in an investigation. It would also put their own reputations at risk. I suppose it could happen in the case of Eddowes since her body was not examined for close to 12 hours after her death. These victims were not the same however as those poor who died and required autopsy because the family requested it. Most poor were just buried without any post mortem at all. The mortuary assistants would have known that these were Ripper victims so the probability of extraction by them in my estimation would be very low. Reids claim, for the time in which he lived, is not unexpected.

[Sam Flynn]

When all the post mortems were carried out some 12 hours after the bodies had been left at the mortuary there is no evidence to show any of the victims organs were found to be missing

1. There is no evidence that says those organs were all present and accounted for, either.

2. Dr Brown's detailed autopsy report definitely states that her kidney and uterus were missing.

3. The colon is an organ, and there was a large chunk of it missing from Eddowes' body. It was lying on the pavement at Mitre Square, as recorded in crime-scene drawings.

4. It's pretty obvious from the crime-scene photographs that Kelly's internal organs had been cut out of her body at the scene of her death.

[Trevor Marriott]

If Reid is correct it assumes he was at the post mortem of Chapman and Eddowes. This makes one wonder why any Doctor worth his salt would draw attention to a fellow surgeon as a possible Ripper suspect. That does not make much sense to me. Eddowes was in London Cities jurisdiction so it's not clear Reid would have been at that post mortem. There is little doubt, based on the anatomy itself and it's locations, that the killer could have easily removed the Uterus. In Chapman's case it was also part of the Vagina and bladder. In retrospect it might be that the kidney of Eddowes was taken by the mortuary assistant but would they not be investigated to ensure there were no shenanigans? It could also be that this mortuary assistant perpetrated the Lusk kidney hoax. That might actually make sense. My guess is mortuary assistants had to be a little twisted to hang out with dead bodies all day.
Without the kidney there was less escalation between Nichols and Kelly but Kelly negates that anyway. Kelly also destroys the idea that the killer was a Surgeon. Her body outraged the medical community.

I think you have misread the post. Reid was one of the officers directly involved in The Murders that occurred within the Met Jurisdiction, Eddowes came under the City Police jurisdiction and he did not attend the Eddowes Post mortem and in the part of the article I posted he only refers to Kelly.

When all the post mortems were carried out some 12 hours after the bodies had been left at the mortuary there is no evidence to show any of the victims organs were found to be missing

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Patrick Differ]

If Reid is correct it assumes he was at the post mortem of Chapman and Eddowes. This makes one wonder why any Doctor worth his salt would draw attention to a fellow surgeon as a possible Ripper suspect. That does not make much sense to me. Eddowes was in London Cities jurisdiction so it's not clear Reid would have been at that post mortem. There is little doubt, based on the anatomy itself and it's locations, that the killer could have easily removed the Uterus. In Chapman's case it was also part of the Vagina and bladder. In retrospect it might be that the kidney of Eddowes was taken by the mortuary assistant but would they not be investigated to ensure there were no shenanigans? It could also be that this mortuary assistant perpetrated the Lusk kidney hoax. That might actually make sense. My guess is mortuary assistants had to be a little twisted to hang out with dead bodies all day.
Without the kidney there was less escalation between Nichols and Kelly but Kelly negates that anyway. Kelly also destroys the idea that the killer was a Surgeon. Her body outraged the medical community.

[chubbs]

You keep quoting the post mortem reports and we know that the organs were not found missing until then !!!!!!!!!!!!!

In January 2016, a News of the World newspaper article dated 1896 was published in an online Ripper magazine. The paper featured an interview with Detective Inspector Reid who had retired that same year.

The News of the World journalist conducting the interview justifiably described Inspector Reid as ‘one of the most remarkable men ever engaged in the business of detecting crime.’ They met at Reid’s home and when sat at the drawing-room table the journalist bluntly asked the Reid ‘Tell me all about the Ripper murders.’ Reid responded by opening a cabinet drawer that contained ‘assassin’s knives, portraits, and a thousand and one curiosities of criminal association.’ Among the criminological ephemera was ‘probably the most remarkable photographic chamber of horrors in existence.’ Reid owned a set of Jack the Ripper victim photographs which he spread out on the table before telling the tale of the Whitechapel murders. Part of this interview would turn out to be the corroboration I was seeking, to negate the killer taking organs.

Set out below is part of that interview, which solely relates to Reid discussing the Mary Kelly Murder in which as can be seen, Reid does not refer to any other murder.

“This was a case in which a pretty, fair-haired, blue-eyed, youthful girl was murdered. She rented a room in a house in Dorset-street, for which she paid 4s 6d a week rent. The room was badly furnished for the reason that her class of people always pawn or sell anything decent they ever get into their places. The curtains to the windows were torn and one of the panes of glass was broken.
Kelly was in arrears with her rent and one morning a man known as ‘The Indian’, who was in the employment of the landlord of the house, went round about eight o’clock to see the woman about the money. Receiving no answer to his knock at the door, he peered through the window, and through the torn curtain saw the horrible sight of the woman lying on her bed hacked to pieces and pieces of her flesh placed upon the table.
I ought to tell you that the stories of portions of the body having been taken away by the murderer were all untrue. In every instance the body was complete. The mania of the murderer was exclusively for horrible mutilation. The landlord was brought round to the house by his man, and the sight of the poor mutilated woman turned his brain

All the evidence in all of the murders clearly points to the motive being nothing more than murder and mutilation

Now you can huff and puff all you like but it is not going to change the facts or the evidence to suggest that the killer of these women did not remove their organs

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Thank you for this. If it's true that the killer didn't remove any organs, the 'From Hell' letter/kidney has to be a hoax? Apologies if you've been through this before.

[Trevor Marriott]

Dr. George Bagster Phillips Report following the post mortem examination:

The abdomen had been entirely laid open: the intestines, severed from their mesenteric attachments, had been lifted out of the body and placed on the shoulder of the corpse; whilst from the pelvis, the uterus and its appendages with the upper portion of the vagina and the posterior two thirds of the bladder, had been entirely removed. No trace of these parts could be found and the incisions were cleanly cut, avoiding the rectum, and dividing the vagina low enough to avoid injury to the cervix uteri. Obviously the work was that of an expert- of one, at least, who had such knowledge of anatomical or pathological examinations as to be enabled to secure the pelvic organs with one sweep of the knife, which must therefore must have at least 5 or 6 inches in length, probably more. The appearance of the cuts confirmed him in the opinion that the instrument, like the one which divided the neck, had been of a very sharp character. The mode in which the knife had been used seemed to indicate great anatomical knowledge.

I think Dr Phillipps opinion is often overlooked .

You keep quoting the post mortem reports and we know that the organs were not found missing until then !!!!!!!!!!!!!

In January 2016, a News of the World newspaper article dated 1896 was published in an online Ripper magazine. The paper featured an interview with Detective Inspector Reid who had retired that same year.

The News of the World journalist conducting the interview justifiably described Inspector Reid as ‘one of the most remarkable men ever engaged in the business of detecting crime.’ They met at Reid’s home and when sat at the drawing-room table the journalist bluntly asked the Reid ‘Tell me all about the Ripper murders.’ Reid responded by opening a cabinet drawer that contained ‘assassin’s knives, portraits, and a thousand and one curiosities of criminal association.’ Among the criminological ephemera was ‘probably the most remarkable photographic chamber of horrors in existence.’ Reid owned a set of Jack the Ripper victim photographs which he spread out on the table before telling the tale of the Whitechapel murders. Part of this interview would turn out to be the corroboration I was seeking, to negate the killer taking organs.

Set out below is part of that interview, which solely relates to Reid discussing the Mary Kelly Murder in which as can be seen, Reid does not refer to any other murder.

“This was a case in which a pretty, fair-haired, blue-eyed, youthful girl was murdered. She rented a room in a house in Dorset-street, for which she paid 4s 6d a week rent. The room was badly furnished for the reason that her class of people always pawn or sell anything decent they ever get into their places. The curtains to the windows were torn and one of the panes of glass was broken.
Kelly was in arrears with her rent and one morning a man known as ‘The Indian’, who was in the employment of the landlord of the house, went round about eight o’clock to see the woman about the money. Receiving no answer to his knock at the door, he peered through the window, and through the torn curtain saw the horrible sight of the woman lying on her bed hacked to pieces and pieces of her flesh placed upon the table.
I ought to tell you that the stories of portions of the body having been taken away by the murderer were all untrue. In every instance the body was complete. The mania of the murderer was exclusively for horrible mutilation. The landlord was brought round to the house by his man, and the sight of the poor mutilated woman turned his brain

All the evidence in all of the murders clearly points to the motive being nothing more than murder and mutilation

Now you can huff and puff all you like but it is not going to change the facts or the evidence to suggest that the killer of these women did not remove their organs

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FISHY1118]

Please note that it was the Coroner (a lawyer with no medical qualifications) who said all these things. What Phillips actually said was "there were indications of anatomical KNOWLEDGE" - not skill, and certainly not "considerable skill". If one reads Phillips' description of how Chapman was cut up, there were plenty of meaningless cuts to her body and collageral damage to the internal organs. As I see it, Baxter grossly exaggerated what was actually presented in testimony and, in keeping with his flamboyant and larger-than-life personality, was rather dramatic in how he said it.

Dr. George Bagster Phillips Report following the post mortem examination:

The abdomen had been entirely laid open: the intestines, severed from their mesenteric attachments, had been lifted out of the body and placed on the shoulder of the corpse; whilst from the pelvis, the uterus and its appendages with the upper portion of the vagina and the posterior two thirds of the bladder, had been entirely removed. No trace of these parts could be found and the incisions were cleanly cut, avoiding the rectum, and dividing the vagina low enough to avoid injury to the cervix uteri. Obviously the work was that of an expert- of one, at least, who had such knowledge of anatomical or pathological examinations as to be enabled to secure the pelvic organs with one sweep of the knife, which must therefore must have at least 5 or 6 inches in length, probably more. The appearance of the cuts confirmed him in the opinion that the instrument, like the one which divided the neck, had been of a very sharp character. The mode in which the knife had been used seemed to indicate great anatomical knowledge.

I think Dr Phillipps opinion is often overlooked .

[FISHY1118]

Dr. George Bagster Phillips describes the body of Annie Chapman as he saw it at 6:30 AM in the back yard of the house at 29 Hanbury Street. This is inquest testimony.

"The left arm was placed across the left breast. The legs were drawn up, the feet resting on the ground, and the knees turned outwards. The face was swollen and turned on the right side. The tongue protruded between the front teeth, but not beyond the lips. The tongue was evidently much swollen. The front teeth were perfect as far as the first molar, top and bottom and very fine teeth they were. The body was terribly mutilated...the stiffness of the limbs was not marked, but was evidently commencing. He noticed that the throat was dissevered deeply.; that the incision through the skin were jagged and reached right round the neck...On the wooden paling between the yard in question and the next, smears of blood, corresponding to where the head of the deceased lay, were to be seen. These were about 14 inches from the ground, and immediately above the part where the blood from the neck lay.

He should say that the instrument used at the throat and abdomen was the same. It must have been a very sharp knife with a thin narrow blade, and must have been at least 6 in. to 8 in. in length, probably longer. He should say that the injuries could not have been inflicted by a bayonet or a sword bayonet. They could have been done by such an instrument as a medical man used for post-mortem purposes, but the ordinary surgical cases might not contain such an instrument. Those used by the slaughtermen, well ground down, might have caused them. He thought the knives used by those in the leather trade would not be long enough in the blade. There were indications of anatomical knowledge...he should say that the deceased had been dead at least two hours, and probably more, when he first saw her; but it was right to mention that it was a fairly cool morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost a great quantity of blood. There was no evidence...of a struggle having taken place. He was positive the deceased entered the yard alive...

A handkerchief was round the throat of the deceased when he saw it early in the morning. He should say it was not tied on after the throat was cut."

Report following the post mortem examination:

"He noticed the same protrusion of the tongue. There was a bruise over the right temple. On the upper eyelid there was a bruise, and there were two distinct bruises, each the size of a man's thumb, on the forepart of the top of the chest. The stiffness of the limbs was now well marked. There was a bruise over the middle part of the bone of the right hand. There was an old scar on the left of the frontal bone. The stiffness was more noticeable on the left side, especially in the fingers, which were partly closed. There was an abrasion over the ring finger, with distinct markings of a ring or rings. The throat had been severed as before described. the incisions into the skin indicated that they had been made from the left side of the neck. There were two distinct clean cuts on the left side of the spine. They were parallel with each other and separated by about half an inch. The muscular structures appeared as though an attempt had made to separate the bones of the neck. There were various other mutilations to the body, but he was of the opinion that they occurred subsequent to the death of the woman, and to the large escape of blood from the division of the neck.

The deceased was far advanced in disease of the lungs and membranes of the brain, but they had nothing to do with the cause of death. The stomach contained little food, but there was not any sign of fluid. There was no appearance of the deceased having taken alcohol, but there were signs of great deprivation and he should say she had been badly fed. He was convinced she had not taken any strong alcohol for some hours before her death. The injuries were certainly not self-inflicted. The bruises on the face were evidently recent, especially about the chin and side of the jaw, but the bruises in front of the chest and temple were of longer standing - probably of days. He was of the opinion that the person who cut the deceased throat took hold of her by the chin, and then commenced the incision from left to right. He thought it was highly probable that a person could call out, but with regard to an idea that she might have been gagged he could only point to the swollen face and the protruding tongue, both of which were signs of suffocation.

The abdomen had been entirely laid open: the intestines, severed from their mesenteric attachments, had been lifted out of the body and placed on the shoulder of the corpse; whilst from the pelvis, the uterus and its appendages with the upper portion of the vagina and the posterior two thirds of the bladder, had been entirely removed. No trace of these parts could be found and the incisions were cleanly cut, avoiding the rectum, and dividing the vagina low enough to avoid injury to the cervix uteri. Obviously the work was that of an expert- of one, at least, who had such knowledge of anatomical or pathological examinations as to be enabled to secure the pelvic organs with one sweep of the knife, which must therefore must have at least 5 or 6 inches in length, probably more. The appearance of the cuts confirmed him in the opinion that the instrument, like the one which divided the neck, had been of a very sharp character. The mode in which the knife had been used seemed to indicate great anatomical knowledge.

Either the killer did this at Chapmans crime scene, or a someone performed it at the mortuary ... Wow they sure fooled Dr. George Bagster Phillips.


I only mention the part in red for those whose believe the killer had no, or may not needed any anatomical knowledge .

[FISHY1118]

''According to Insp Reid no organs were taken from Mary Kelly, and after all he should know he was directly involved.''





But were not talking about '''organs being taken '' only the fact that the / a killer ''removed'' them from Mary Kelly!! . Which he did ,thats just a fact. .


Post-mortem

Dr. Thomas Bond, a distinguished police surgeon from A-Division, was called in on the Mary Kelly murder. His report is as follows:



The viscera were found in various parts viz: the uterus and kidneys with one breast under the head, the other breast by the right foot, the liver between the feet, the intestines by the right side and the spleen by the left side of the body. The flaps removed from the abdomen and thighs were on a table.





Notice how Dr Bond doesnt mention that any of the organs were damaged or muilated in any way ?




After all he should know '' he was in the room and saw the body...... and the organs.

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=FISHY1118;n845909]

Its tru because that's what happened .

We have doctors and police officers and eye witnesses whos testimony confirmed that to be the case

We have no evidence from any of the crime scenes that any of the outdoor crime scenes that any organs had been removed by the killer

What we dont have is any evidence in the slightest way that suggest the "organ harvesting theory" took place with the C5 victims , and that really should be the end of it

We have two different methods of extraction of organs from two different mortuaries

Mary kellys organ removal at the crime scene, totally blows a certain posters theory out of the water. He will argue that her body was mutilated beyond recognition and that included her internal organs , so somehow it is different because they were destroyed in the process .

According to Insp Reid no organs were taken from Mary Kelly, and after all he should know he was directly involved.

What he fails to provide and hasn't done each time when asked is to show evidence how he knows the organs where not removed prior to the mutilation ?, or offer up any official evidence that was reported at the time that confirms they were also mutilated beyond recognition?,and not removed and placed around different areas of her body and the room fully intact, as reported.

See above answer

Now having said that , I don't mind anyone having a theory as to the murders , and I'm sure we've all seen and heard some weird and wonderful ones .

Circumstantial evidence is admissible in a court of law

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FISHY1118]

This may be true, but if there was an illegal trade in body parts from mortuaries, being presented in the morgue with a partially disembowelled murder victim might be a good opportunity for someone to nick an organ or two? A dodgy morgue worker might be able to remove an organ very efficiently.

Its tru because that's what happened .

We have doctors and police officers and eye witnesses whos testimony confirmed that to be the case .

What we dont have is any evidence in the slightest way that suggest the "organ harvesting theory" took place with the C5 victims , and that really should be the end of it .

Mary kellys organ removal at the crime scene, totally blows a certain posters theory out of the water. He will argue that her body was mutilated beyond recognition and that included her internal organs , so somehow it is different because they were destroyed in the process .

What he fails to provide and hasn't done each time when asked is to show evidence how he knows the organs where not removed prior to the mutilation ?, or offer up any official evidence that was reported at the time that confirms they were also mutilated beyond recognition?,and not removed and placed around different areas of her body and the room fully intact, as reported. .

Now having said that , I don't mind anyone having a theory as to the murders , and I'm sure we've all seen and heard some weird and wonderful ones .

But anyone whose tries to convince people their theory is indeed a fact by providing mountains of circumstantial evidence and too many unanswered questions, is in my view is simply preposterous.

[chubbs]

There is no evidence whatsoever , that anyone other than the killer himself, removed any organs from any victim other than at the crime scene.

This may be true, but if there was an illegal trade in body parts from mortuaries, being presented in the morgue with a partially disembowelled murder victim might be a good opportunity for someone to nick an organ or two? A dodgy morgue worker might be able to remove an organ very efficiently.