The kidney removal of Catherine Eddowes.

[Trevor Marriott]

Well, that's precisely what happened... except that it wasn't quite "in the dark" and the abdomens weren't filled with blood.

Of course they were filled with blood the abdomens had been stabbed and ripped open what do you think happen when that occurs blood vessels and arteries bleed

Too bad the killer only managed to cut away part of the uterus this time, not to mention the cut length of colon he left on the pavement at the scene of the crime

Murder and mutilation only

I have no idea of the level of skill or anatomical knowledge a body dealer or a mortuary attendant would have had but it goes to show that if the killer removed the organs at the crime scenes then we should have seen the organ extractions carried out the same way but that is not the case, What we see is two different methods of extraction on bodies that were taken to two different mortuaries do you not find that a little suspicious? Because I do !!!!!!!!!!!!

For the benefit of posters who may still have doubts I have posted below an article from the star newspaper

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

ORGAN PRICES.doc

[Trevor Marriott]

so the killer subdued them, cut their throats, killed them, ripped open the midsection, pulled out intestines, did other extensive mutilations to the body.... but wast the one who removed the internal organs. lol yeah right.

One thing you have got right is that the killer murdered and mutilated, there is no way the killer could have removed these organs at the crime scenes and if you keep believing that then you need a reality check so I would suggest you go back and review all the medical evidence both past and present.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Patrick Differ]

I first mentioned Grays Anatomy because that was the Standard textbook used by Surgeons at the time. It illustrates exposure of both the Uterus and Left Kidney. Why not the right kidney? Because it was covered by the Liver. The veins holding both the Uterus and Kidney were not difficult to detach from a very sharp knife. When these Doctors stated , " the intestines " were removed they did not state large and small which they were trained to do. I do not believe that was semantics or a mistake on their part. Not when they were specific about all other medical terminology. The killers target appeared to be the Uterus first. Taking Eddowes Kidney just added to the horror he was creating. This killer was cunning and sending messages in the process and getting off on the attention. Mary Kelly tells me he had a goal and planned. I believe he knew she entertained indoors. He waited 6 weeks not just because there was a police surge, he needed to satisfy his need for total mutilation of a woman. Kelly was young and beautiful an entertained indoors. And I think he knew.

[The Baron]

so the killer subdued them, cut their throats, killed them, ripped open the midsection, pulled out intestines, did other extensive mutilations to the body.... but wast the one who removed the internal organs. lol yeah right.

Because that’s the part where he thought, ‘Better not overdo it. Like.. Nah, intestines are fine, but kidneys? Too far!'

Or suddenly he thought, 'You know what? I'm not touching the internal organs. That’s where I draw the line.'



The Baron

[Abby Normal]

so the killer subdued them, cut their throats, killed them, ripped open the midsection, pulled out intestines, did other extensive mutilations to the body.... but wast the one who removed the internal organs. lol yeah right.

[GBinOz]

No more ridiculous than the suggestion that the killer removed these organs from blood-filled abdomens in the dark

Quote from Dr Brown re Edowes Murder

“Dr Brown—“The bladder was in no way injured in the body, and I may mention that a man accustomed to remove the portions removed was asked by me to do so as quickly as possible. He accomplished the task in three minutes, but not without injuring the bladder”

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

I wonder if this experiment was conducted while kneeling beside a body on the ground in the dark. Presumably it was conducted on a cadaver, so there would be no blood in the abdominal cavity. If it was conducted on an autopsy table with theatre lighting, and the bladder was still damaged, I think your point is made. My daughter tells me that she has attended abdominal hysterectomies conducted under modern theatre conditions by surgeons of highest repute who have nicked the bladder.

Cheers, George

[Sam Flynn]

No more ridiculous than the suggestion that the killer removed these organs from blood-filled abdomens in the dark

Well, that's precisely what happened... except that it wasn't quite "in the dark" and the abdomens weren't filled with blood.

Dr Brown—“The bladder was in no way injured in the body

Too bad the killer only managed to cut away part of the uterus this time, not to mention the cut length of colon he left on the pavement at the scene of the crime.

[Patrick Differ]

Some other organ...not argument..

[Patrick Differ]

There was a demand for cadavers and evidently fetuses but the competing Universities had a monopoly with the asylums. The monetary value for the Uterus and Kidney was apparently 1 shilling if there was a buyer. Would that entice a mortuary assistant? It's possible. Although any risk in a high profile case would probably not be worth it. There were plenty of poor without advocacy so there was a steady source of organs. It's not clear why JtR would kill just to extract the intestines. If he truly hated women the Uterus makes more sense. Once the intestines were out the Uterus and Kidney were exposed at that time. Why would a mortuary assistant himself target the Uterus and Kidney v some other argument. Logically I do not believe the mortuary theory holds up.

[John Wheat]

No more ridiculous than the suggestion that the killer removed these organs from blood-filled abdomens in the dark.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Are you saying it wasn't as dark as were led to believe?

[Indian Harry]

And so the question is...


What kind of killer could achieve the wounds upon his victims, in the relatively short time that he had to do so?

A horse slaughterer.

[Trevor Marriott]

Body Dealer: And what have you got for me today?
Jack the Mortuary Attendant: Two-thirds of a bladder, a uterus and a small chunk of abdominal flesh.
Body Dealer: Excellent! Next time, could you bring me a womb MINUS the cervix and just ONE kidney? I may have an interested buyer.


The organ-selling mortuary attendant theory is, and always has been, patently ridiculous.

No more ridiculous than the suggestion that the killer removed these organs from blood-filled abdomens in the dark

Quote from Dr Brown re Edowes Murder

“Dr Brown—“The bladder was in no way injured in the body, and I may mention that a man accustomed to remove the portions removed was asked by me to do so as quickly as possible. He accomplished the task in three minutes, but not without injuring the bladder”

The Hospitals would only pay on the quality of the organs in the case of Chapman the uterus was intact and still with the fallopian tubes attached so a perfect female specimen!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

The value was to sell them to the teaching hospitals and female body parts were in great demand, as I previously stated there were victorian body dealers who were complicit with mortuary attendants to acquire organs and in some cases bodies for financial gain.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Body Dealer: And what have you got for me today?
Jack the Mortuary Attendant: Two-thirds of a bladder, a uterus and a small chunk of abdominal flesh.
Body Dealer: Excellent! Next time, could you bring me a womb MINUS the cervix and just ONE kidney? I may have an interested buyer.


The organ-selling mortuary attendant theory is, and always has been, patently ridiculous.

[Trevor Marriott]

The fact remains that the Uterus was removed and there is no way to know what was used to handle the organs. In Eddowes case there was the Apron. Would there be much blood if the victims were bled out? Also, without photographs of the victims the only evidence would be the post mortem narratives. Still..it appears the requirements were a very sharp knife and possibily some anatomical knowledge. I dont believe there were 2 different mortuary assistants stealing organs with no value. It's an interesting theory.

The value was to sell them to the teaching hospitals and female body parts were in great demand, as I previously stated there were victorian body dealers who were complicit with mortuary attendants to acquire organs and in some cases bodies for financial gain.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Patrick Differ]

The fact remains that the Uterus was removed and there is no way to know what was used to handle the organs. In Eddowes case there was the Apron. Would there be much blood if the victims were bled out? Also, without photographs of the victims the only evidence would be the post mortem narratives. Still..it appears the requirements were a very sharp knife and possibily some anatomical knowledge. I dont believe there were 2 different mortuary assistants stealing organs with no value. It's an interesting theory.