The kidney removal of Catherine Eddowes.

[Herlock Sholmes]

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It’s strange that you should dismiss my suggestions by using the word ‘conjecture’ which means to: “form an opinion or supposition about (something) on the basis of incomplete information.” So basically it’s what we all do every day, including you, when discussing this case. Your theory is a piece of conjecture because you cannot know all of the facts.

…….

Then you suggest that the timings I have given to Lawende and Levy were wrong but they aren’t:

Lawende - “I have no doubt it was half-past one o'clock when we rose to leave the club, so that it would be twenty-five minutes to two o'clock when we passed the man and woman.”

Levy - “We got up to leave at half-past one on Sunday morning, and came out three or four minutes later.”

Lawende had a watch but it was synchronised to the clock in the club so if the clock in the club was out…

……

Then you make a point about the time that the couple entered Mitre Square (which we’ve gone over umpteen times in the past) I agree 100% that we can’t say for certain that the couple seen by the three men were Eddowes and her killer and, as the men didn’t look back, we have no idea how soon after they had passed that the two (if they were Eddowes and her killer) entered the square. But none of that is relevant is it Trevor because we aren’t trying to establish an exact time because we know that would be an impossible task. All that we are attempting to establish here is the earliest time that they could have entered Mitre Square to give us an idea of the maximum time available to the killer. If we can establish that the killer ‘might’ have had 10 minutes or even a little longer then to promote your theory you would have to provide proof that this length of time certainly wasn’t long enough.

The Doctor’s at the time clearly felt that the killer had sufficient time and of all of the millions of people of all professions and trades that read about these events in their newspapers I’m unaware of a single doctor or surgeon who stood up and said “..hold on, this was impossible.” We have the opinions of some modern day experts who have to be given due respect of course. I can’t recall the exact words used by the experts that you have quoted in the past but I seem to recall some uncertainty. It’s also the case (as I’m sure George would confirm from the JFK assassination) that we can get major disagreements between various experts on various subjects. There’s no doubt that Doctors today know more and employ improved techniques and better equipment but Doctors in the Victorian era knew how to remove an organ using a knife and they would have had an idea of how long these things would have taken.

So we appear to be far from having a consensus on whether the killer could have done what he did and we have to now consider that experts expressing doubts were probably basing their opinions around a period of time that was less than the killer actually had. In some cases it might even be possible that the killer actually had double the time available. For example, I’ve heard people cite 5 minutes and yet it might have been 10.

……

You keep stating the existence of organ thieves as if this amounts to proof. Really? I own a certain book. I can’t find it despite looking for it over the weekend. Thieves exist. So should I assume that thieves have stolen my book? Or is it more likely somewhere in the house where I haven’t looked yet?

……

Suggestions of organ thieves using lookouts and ‘in on it’ mortuary workers knowing when the coast was clear are strangely weak points in this instance Trevor. Firstly, even a mortuary worker, couldn’t have known if a detective or a doctor would simply show up unannounced. And if a lookout saw a doctors carriage pull up at the door of the mortuary he wouldn’t have been much help to his pal Dr. Frankenstein inside. But this is THE point Trevor, all these risks would have been avoided by organ thieves operating at night and after the post mortem. You are assuming stupidity on their parts.

……

Do you still have access to that piece on organ thieves that you used previously Trevor? I believe that there was only one?

[Geddy2112]

because the doctors had noted the injuries to her at the crime scene and anybody opening up the body to remove organs would have set the alarm bells ringing when it came to the post mortem because the wounds to her abdomen were not as severe as with Chapman and Eddowes

Hi Trevor, thanks. Do you think they would be that bothered about setting off alarm bells? I mean what they were doing was illegal. Something is either illegal or not so breaking another rule surely would not make any difference to them. After all if they were stealing the organs for cash would cutting open a dead woman be much of a bind for them. Surely they would not pass up the opportunity.

Was anything missing from Tabram? Or Nichols? Surely the docs at the scene would know about Chapman and maybe Eddowes if anything was missing in situ. All of Mary apart from her heart was accounted for at the scene so no theft there...

[Patrick Differ]

Did any of these Doctors say specifically that the killer did not remove the organs? Or did they say it was impossible for the killer to remove the organs? Or did they say they thought that the organs were removed in the mortuary not by the killer? Or knicked in transit? I think that answer is No to all. Why would the police interview 76 butchers and tailors and other skills using knives? Because there was no consensus amongst those who actually examined the bodies. Once the abdomen was opened was it possible that an expert with a knife just ripped the intestines out as described and then removed the organs working rapidly? Who knows how the apron was used or if the killer had other means to handle or wrap an organ?

[Trevor Marriott]

So how long did the killer have to commit the murder, mutilations and extractions? More unknowns; more estimations. So how do we look at this? Do we take the reasonable view of allowing for errors of estimation, of clocks being wrong and of the possibility of inaccurate synchronisation or are we going to play the ‘all of the clocks and all of the estimates were spot on’ game? Like most, I prefer the former but I suspect that in this case the latter will be heavily suggested by some.

PC. Watkin - said that he walked through the square at 1.30 with his lamp and saw nothing. He said that his beat took 12-14 minutes so we have 2 minutes leeway on the beat as a whole. I’ve only checked 2 reports but there’s no mention there of where he got his times from but there’s no mention of a watch. So it can’t be a huge stretch to speculate that he actually passed through at 1.27/1.28 and saw nothing as he said.

PC. Harvey - said that he went to the end of Church Passage and back at, according to him, 1.41/1.42 and saw nothing. He was reliant on the Post Office clock and we have no way of checking its accuracy or how it might have been synchronised with any other clicks used that evening.

Lawende said that he and his 2 friends had seen the couple at 12.35 because they had left the club at 12.30. Levy, however, said that they had risen at 12.30 but had left 3 or 4 minutes later. So there’s a contradiction between the two. YOU HAVE THE TIME WRONG

So what if - Watkin passes through at 1.28. Harvey passes a minute or so later. -CONJECTURE ON YOUR PART

What if the clock at the club was 5 minutes fast. I’ve known many a pub landlord use the same trick to get punters out a bit earlier. So the couple arrive at around 1.30. Lawende and co see them pass at 1.31. AGAIN CONJECTURE ON YOUR PART

They get into Mitre Square by 1.32. If Harvey looked in at 1.43 and saw nothing this gives the killer 10 minutes. And I’m sure that we could easily squeeze another minute or two into this scenario without stretching credulity. People and clocks are not perfect and should be treated as such. So it’s not impossible or unlikely that the killer might have had 10-12 minutes to do what he did.CONJECTURE BECAUSE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THE FEMALE,AND NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW WHAT TIME THE COUPLE ENTERED THE SQ-IF THE COUPLE WERE EDDOWES AND HER KILLER

Over the 100+ years of investigation how come it’s not an accepted fact that the killer couldn’t have removed the organs? I’d suggest that it’s a combination of two things Firstly, because those hinting that it was impossible or unlikely are in a minority. And secondly, the times have been tightened to the narrowest possible to make it appear unlikely or impossible. And as the ‘stolen in the mortuary’ suggestion doesn’t hold water then what remains is obvious…that the killer clearly did have time to remove the organs.

Time does not mean he did remove the organs you are forgetting the degree of difficulty in the fact that he would have had first to locate the slippery organs within a blood-filled abdomen and then be able to hold open the abdominal cavity open without retractors, then grip the slippery organs to be able to remove them all of this in almost total darkness-It didn't happen

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

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?

because the doctors had noted the injuries to her at the crime scene and anybody opening up the body to remove organs would have set the alarm bells ringing when it came to the post mortem because the wounds to her abdomen were not as severe as with Chapman and Eddowes

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

I have already stated in a previous post that the mortuary attendants worked closely with the body dealers and that female organs were sought by the hospitals.

The bodies were left overnight until the following day so we cannot say when the organs were taken I would assume that the mortuary attendant would have known what time the post-mortem was scheduled for so plenty of opportunity before to remove the organs

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

So how long did the killer have to commit the murder, mutilations and extractions? More unknowns; more estimations. So how do we look at this? Do we take the reasonable view of allowing for errors of estimation, of clocks being wrong and of the possibility of inaccurate synchronisation or are we going to play the ‘all of the clocks and all of the estimates were spot on’ game? Like most, I prefer the former but I suspect that in this case the latter will be heavily suggested by some.

PC. Watkin - said that he walked through the square at 1.30 with his lamp and saw nothing. He said that his beat took 12-14 minutes so we have 2 minutes leeway on the beat as a whole. I’ve only checked 2 reports but there’s no mention there of where he got his times from but there’s no mention of a watch. So it can’t be a huge stretch to speculate that he actually passed through at 1.27/1.28 and saw nothing as he said.

PC. Harvey - said that he went to the end of Church Passage and back at, according to him, 1.41/1.42 and saw nothing. He was reliant on the Post Office clock and we have no way of checking its accuracy or how it might have been synchronised with any other clicks used that evening.

Lawende said that he and his 2 friends had seen the couple at 12.35 because they had left the club at 12.30. Levy, however, said that they had risen at 12.30 but had left 3 or 4 minutes later. So there’s a contradiction between the two.

So what if - Watkin passes through at 1.28. Harvey passes a minute or so later.

What if the clock at the club was 5 minutes fast. I’ve known many a pub landlord use the same trick to get punters out a bit earlier. So the couple arrive at around 1.30. Lawende and co see them pass at 1.31.

They get into Mitre Square by 1.32. If Harvey looked in at 1.43 and saw nothing this gives the killer 10 minutes. And I’m sure that we could easily squeeze another minute or two into this scenario without stretching credulity. People and clocks are not perfect and should be treated as such. So it’s not impossible or unlikely that the killer might have had 10-12 minutes to do what he did.

Over the 100+ years of investigation how come it’s not an accepted fact that the killer couldn’t have removed the organs? I’d suggest that it’s a combination of two things Firstly, because those hinting that it was impossible or unlikely are in a minority. And secondly, the times have been tightened to the narrowest possible to make it appear unlikely or impossible. And as the ‘stolen in the mortuary’ suggestion doesn’t hold water then what remains is obvious…that the killer clearly did have time to remove the organs.

[Lewis C]

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.

Hi RD,

I agree that if we know that a suspect had skill/experience with a knife, that could be an additional reason to suspect him. However, I wouldn't eliminate a suspect for not having that experience, if for no other reason than that a suspect could have that skill without us knowing about it.

I also agree that Levy and Klosowski are better suspects than Lechmere and Maybrick, but there are bigger problems with the latter 2 suspects than that we don't know if they had skill with a knife.

Age, ethnicity, etc., are subjective observations if we're talking about people seen by witnesses. However, if we're talking about named suspects, in most cases we do know their ages and ethnicity.

[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.

[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.

A brilliant post from start to finish.

Pure quality Jon!

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.