The kidney removal of Catherine Eddowes.

[DJA]

CPC were not sheltering under eaves.The rain had stopped.

PO was in Aldgate Street between Duke St and Houndsditch.

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

Also, while Dr. Sequira (sp?) estimates the murder and mutilations could be done in 3 minutes (an amount of time some modern forensic pathologists have also suggested), I require the 5 minutes suggested by Dr. Brown I think it is (although he also say might require more, I go with the 5 as he states that, and also I'm already limiting everything to make it as hard as possible). Anyway, it turns out that even under those very tight constraints, there are many possibilities that could work. Basically, there's enough time in the stated information that I can't really rule out any of the scenarios.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

I'm not aware of modern opinion suggesting that the organ removals could be acheived in 3 minutes. Do you have a link so that I could see what is said?

Prosector was using ten minutes as a time for the organ removals for Eddowes:

My point (and Phillips’s) is to do it in 10 minutes took an enormous amount of anatomical knowledge and skill. Anyone just hacking away in order to find either a kidney or a uterus, especially using a long bladed, sharp pointed knife, would very quickly perforate the small bowel. That would instantly cause the abdominal cavity to fill with liquid small bowel content and make further progress impossible.

The three highly experienced experts in Trevor's video were doubting that the organ removal could be done in 9 minutes. To these times have to be added the time required for the subduing and murder of the victim plus the facial lacerations, including the incision of the eyelids, all in the dark.

My alternatives are:
1. Jack was highly experienced in the dissecting room
or
2. Trevor's theory
or
3. There was more time available that that which we suspect was available.

Best regards, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

But why bother to posts that are simply conjecture on your part it is of no evidential value

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Another irony overload Trevor.

Your suggestion that the organs were stolen in the mortuary is conjecture. You have no solid evidence for it and no one at the time suspected it. All that you have is an idea based on a supposed shortage of time when the length of time is debatable, combined with the apparent existence of organ thieves which you appear to believe a clincher.

I have listed the reasons why your theory doesn’t work, as have others.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Jeff,

I'm not aware of modern opinion suggesting that the organ removals could be acheived in 3 minutes. Do you have a link so that I could see what is said?

Prosector was using ten minutes as a time for the organ removals for Eddowes:

My point (and Phillips’s) is to do it in 10 minutes took an enormous amount of anatomical knowledge and skill. Anyone just hacking away in order to find either a kidney or a uterus, especially using a long bladed, sharp pointed knife, would very quickly perforate the small bowel. That would instantly cause the abdominal cavity to fill with liquid small bowel content and make further progress impossible.

The three highly experienced experts in Trevor's video were doubting that the organ removal could be done in 9 minutes. To these times have to be added the time required for the subduing and murder of the victim plus the facial lacerations, including the incision of the eyelids, all in the dark.

My alternatives are:
1. Jack was highly experienced in the dissecting room
or
2. Trevor's theory
or
3. There was more time available that that which we suspect was available.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

Or a combination of 1 and 3. Plus the experts might have ‘doubted’ but would they commit to saying tat it was absolutely impossible?

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

I'm not aware of modern opinion suggesting that the organ removals could be acheived in 3 minutes. Do you have a link so that I could see what is said?

Prosector was using ten minutes as a time for the organ removals for Eddowes:

My point (and Phillips’s) is to do it in 10 minutes took an enormous amount of anatomical knowledge and skill. Anyone just hacking away in order to find either a kidney or a uterus, especially using a long bladed, sharp pointed knife, would very quickly perforate the small bowel. That would instantly cause the abdominal cavity to fill with liquid small bowel content and make further progress impossible.

The three highly experienced experts in Trevor's video were doubting that the organ removal could be done in 9 minutes. To these times have to be added the time required for the subduing and murder of the victim plus the facial lacerations, including the incision of the eyelids, all in the dark.

My alternatives are:
1. Jack was highly experienced in the dissecting room
or
2. Trevor's theory
or
3. There was more time available that that which we suspect was available.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

I don't recall the specifics in terms of links, sorry, but there was a thread where a modern forensic pathologist (surgeon) said everything at Eddowes crime scene could be completed in as little as 3 minutes, and I believe he went so far as to say "even as little as 2." While I have no personal experience in this area, and I do try and keep my "guts" out of it, 2 minutes feels very very fast to me! Three I can think "ok, seems quick, but ok, I don't know", which is why I mentioned the 3 minutes.

Anyway, the important thing for laymen like you and I to notice is that expert opinion does not converge upon a single value. Rather, it is widely variable, and ranges from very very short, to very very long. Prosector, presuming his stated credentials are valid, just falls on the longer side of the range. But as the range is highly variable, as opinions are, it's not really meaningful. What we need to determine is how much time was available, and from that we can determine what JtR could do in that amount of time. Maybe JtR was just faster than most serial killers?

I tend to think of it this way, though. Let's imagine that Trevor is right, and the organs were not taken. Ok. We still need enough time to do everything else, all the mutilations, all the "cuts to the eye-lids", etc. So what we're really talking about is the difference in time between the "everything else" and the cuts required for the removal of the uterus (in Chapman's case) and the "everything else" and the cuts required for the removal of the uterus and kidney in Eddowes'. How much extra time do those extractions add to the "everything else" that everyone agrees was done?

Personally, I think the "extra time" is pretty minimal in the grand scheme of things, so if he had time for "everything else", which he must have since we all agree the everything else was done, then the extra time required to cut out the uterus (not in a trained way but just cutting out what he grabs way) and kidney strikes me as minimal. And given other mutilation serial killers, like Richard Chase, were able to cut out kidneys (he then cut them in half, and then put them back in their place as I recall - although his murders were indoors, not outside), despite having no medical training what-so-ever (he did, however, cut up lots of animals - he was quite psychotic - it's a nasty case), I have no problem with JtR being untrained and finding Eddowes' kidney.

My view is that JtR need not have any particular training, although I would expect him to have experience with cutting up animals. He's not queasy, so he must have some familiarity with opening up something. I think we grossly overestimate the time required as well, although I do agree with you about it being probable there was more time available to JtR than we often presume (but to qualify that, I mean in terms of minutes, maybe as many as 3 - not in range of 10 or 15 though).

As for Trevor's theory, as you can probably tell, I find it lacking in substance, but it makes up for it in bravado. His commitment to it is absolute, but that to me is not actually a strong point in the theory's favour, it is rather an irrelevant point. People can be highly committed to beliefs that are wrong after all.

I suspect JtR could have had no "formal" training in cutting up things because he shows no consistent "trained" pattern - he's "winging it", so to speak. He may have some experience of cutting up animals in a more informal setting (or as a psychotic past-time), but that's not necessarily the case.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

And I say again there is no evidence to show the organs were found missing at the crime scenes, or that any check was done to see if organs had been removed. Surely if the doctors had found organs missing at the crime scenes they would have mentioned it in their inquest testimony that then would have put the issue beyond doubt

No one is suggesting, as far as I’m aware, that the Doctors would have noticed organs missing at the crime scenes. But the fact that organs were missing is evidence that they were taken by the killer. It’s what the Doctors and the police believed at the time. What you, are any of us, can know for certain is that the doctors didn’t see the uterus present when they got the body to the mortuary. Indeed the evidence points very strongly too that because we know that Dr. Brown requested Dr. Phillips attendance because of his experience of Chapman’s murder. And so would you seriously suggest that, looking for similarities and faced with an opened abdomen, Dr. Phillips wouldn’t have checked for the most distinguishing feature…the missing uterus. Surely you can’t believe that Trevor?

And I again reiterate that if as suggested it was the same killer and his motive was to harvest organs why do we see no attempts made to remove organs from other victims? Is it a coincidence that organs were only found missing from the two victims who had their abdomens already opened, and two different methods of extraction from bodies that were taken to two different mortuaries, do you not think that remotely strange?

’If’ as suggested…

We don’t know what motivated him to remove organs or indeed what was running through his mind at any particular time. What you are trying to do is to attach a ‘solid’ motive because it gives you the option of challenging it.

I have explained the glaring obvious reasons why organs weren’t removed from all victims. Location and circumstance.

Do I think that two ‘methods’ was strange? No. As I’ve said before, this killer wasn’t working to a textbook. Perhaps he tried a second method thinking that it might be more efficient or that it might suit him better on some way.

With the chapman murder the killer removed not only the uterus but he was also able to remove the fallopian tubes still attached, and why would he take a uterus from Eddowes when he had taken a near-perfect specimen from Chapman.

So you claim to know that the killer wanted one of each organ like some insane stamp collector? Perhaps he wanted an extra one for ‘swapsies.’ Your question is one of the thousands that we can ask in this case without ever getting a genuine answer. We just don’t know so you can’t assume to know to make a point.

I will end this post by going back to the Kelly murder where if the killer was harvesting organs he could have filled his boots with any amount of organs but he doesn't take any and there is nothing to show that he took the heart other than an ambiguous statement for the doctor.

And we have no way of knowing why he didn’t ’fill his boots.’ And neither do you.

“The viscera were found in various parts viz; the uterus & 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 & the spleen by the left side of the body.”

“The Pericardium was open below & the Heart absent.”

It’s surprising, or perhaps it isn’t, that you prefer to rely on the memory of a non-medically trained police officer giving an opinion years later to the opinion of the highly experienced Doctor given at the time. In anyone’s ‘books’ whose opinion on this subject would usually carry the greatest weight Trevor? I’ll give you a clue. It’s not Reid.

And just to be fair, even if he hadn’t taken any parts away it wouldn’t particularly support your theory because we can’t know his thinking at the time. Perhaps the fact that he could set out the room as a kind of grotesque piece of visual art was enough for him.


You are simply trying desperately to protect the belief that the killer took the organs and you and others are not even prepared to consider alternatives

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And are you prepared to consider the possibility that the killer took the organs Trevor or do we have the usual situation where…You have a theory…therefore you assume that it must be true because you came up with it…and instead of accepting and discussing the points against it you resort to the usual tirade of capitals, exclamation marks and accusations that we’re just defending old ideas…whilst at the same time you are desperately trying to defend your theory at all costs.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's not peculiar to humans no, I was a butcher's apprentice back in the '70's, and we had to remove the sheep kidney from the membrane, and we were not allowed to use a knife incase we damaged the kidney. The membrane is a thick ball of hard fat.

I assume that you mean the 1970’s Wick?

[FISHY1118]

Regardless of which side of the argument your opinion may fall, there is no evidence that the missing organs were noted at the crime scene. As I posted previously, this link shows what was noted for the "Body in situ" and what was noted at the "Post Mortem".

https://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-victimwounds.html

The MJK notes are better described here:

https://www.casebook.org/official_documents/pm-kelly.html

When Phillips spoke about "some portions had been excised" (not some organs), it can be seen in the "in situ" description that he was talking about the "2 flaps of skin from the lower abdomen" which were lying next to the body.

In the case of Eddowes I see the considerations to be:

Did the killer have time to extract the organs? Not if it was only 7 minutes (IMO), leaving the alternative that they were extracted at the mortuary. However, the displacement of the intestines and the removal of the vertical colon, both observed at the murder site, is suggestive of preparation for organ extraction.

Was there more time than is generally considered to be available? If Watkins was skiving and didn't do the 1:30 check, there was certainly enough time available since Eddowes left the police station at 1 AM. That would mean that Lawende didn't see Eddowes with Jack, but there was another suspect sighting.

Cheers, George

''When Phillips spoke about "some portions had been excised" (not some organs), it can be seen in the "in situ" description that he was talking about the "2 flaps of skin from the lower abdomen" which were lying next to the body.''





Hi George , I disagree with what your saying here , id argue that the coroner as talking about Chapmans organs when he is questioning Dr Phillips .


[Coroner] Was the whole of the body there? No; the absent portions being from the abdomen;

If the two ''flaps of skin'' from the lower abdoman were lying next to the body, why did Dr Phillips reply they were Absent ?


It would be a bit of a stretch to suggest that he meant ''absent from Chapmans abdomen but laying right there next to here body'', dont you think ?, given the question the coroner asked .


ALso this ,

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.

Dr Phillips is clearly talking about the crime scene here, and not the post mortem room .


Cheers Fishy.

[FISHY1118]

To be fair, at the Chapman inquest Baxter did ask Phillips if the organs could have been lost in transit, and Phillips evaded the question by replying that he wasn't present during the transit. At the Eddowes inquest there were questions as to whether the missing organs were of any commercial or professional value which might be interpreted as sub text for questioning when the organs went missing.

I'm starting to wonder why we dwell on a topic with so many uncertainties.

Cheers, George

So am i right in thinking you now think Baxter was referring to organs when he question Dr Phillips ???. In not sure one could say Phillips was ''evading'' the question tho George ,just stating a fact he wasnt present .

[GBinOz]

So am i right in thinking you now think Baxter was referring to organs when he question Dr Phillips ???. In not sure one could say Phillips was ''evading'' the question tho George ,just stating a fact he wasnt present .

Hi Fishy,

"If the two ''flaps of skin'' from the lower abdoman were lying next to the body, why did Dr Phillips reply they were Absent ?" He didn't, they were excised but present and externally visible - see the "body in situ" report

I was always talking about Baxter referring to organs - he wanted to know when the organ and body parts went missing. Phillips could have replied to Baxter's question by saying that they were present at the crime scene but he had no way of telling how they disappeared. He just said he wasn't present at the transit, avoiding the question as to if they were present at the crime scene, because he didn't know, because that was the function of the post mortem to examine the inner body.

Then the body, which was supposed to be guarded in the mortuary, was found in the yard by the nurses who then washed the body without appropriate authorisation.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

Or a combination of 1 and 3. Plus the experts might have ‘doubted’ but would they commit to saying tat it was absolutely impossible?

Hi Herlock,

The concluding statement was:

"It's not in the realms of possibility that someone could do it in the circumstances described".

The medical investigation of the Eddowes murder runs from the 19 minute mark to the 22 minute mark and uses a 3D body - a wealth of information in only 3 minutes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpQqMtVVkzY&t=965s&ab_channel=dickcopy

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

While I have no personal experience in this area, and I do try and keep my "guts" out of it, 2 minutes feels very very fast to me! Three I can think "ok, seems quick, but ok, I don't know", which is why I mentioned the 3 minutes.

Hi Jeff,

I have no personal medical experience either. Even if I attended an abdominal hysterectomy I would still be none the wiser as I would probably spend the time passed out on the floor.

However, my daughter has attended dozens of these operations and witnessed surgeons of the highest repute nick the small bladder even with the benefit of full surgical lighting and assistance. She is firmly of the opinion that the organ extractions on Eddowes couldn't be done in ten minutes with no damage to the small bladder.

Cheers, George

[kjab3112]

Hi George

You are assuming that the killer cared about not damaging other organs (and obviously haemostasis is not a concern). The most similar modern procedure would be a resuscitative hysterotomy aka perimortem c-section. These should be started at four minutes post arrest and baby delivered by five minutes, ie one minute to cut through abdomen and open uterus. I can imagine an experienced slaughterman easily being able to open the abdomen and find the uterus in about one to two minutes and then the kidney could be a lucky find by him.

Paul

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi George

You are assuming that the killer cared about not damaging other organs (and obviously haemostasis is not a concern). The most similar modern procedure would be a resuscitative hysterotomy aka perimortem c-section. These should be started at four minutes post arrest and baby delivered by five minutes, ie one minute to cut through abdomen and open uterus. I can imagine an experienced slaughterman easily being able to open the abdomen and find the uterus in about one to two minutes and then the kidney could be a lucky find by him.

Paul

Well I have a statement from a master butcher who started his career in a slaughterhouse who would contest you post. In that statement he highlights the danger of working in the dark in a blood filled abdomen with a long bladed sharp knife he also highlights the problems he would encounter in trying to locate the organs in a human body and then trying to grip them to be able to remove them

I am sure that you are aware that modern-day surgeons wear surgical gloves so that they can grip organs more easily these were not around in victorian times.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Patrick Differ]

There are several points Dr Phillips stated that correspond to both Chapman and Eddowes. The knife was very sharp, the abdomen was severely mutilated and the time to perform the murders.

A very sharp knife vs a dull knife is critical. The sharper the blade the less collateral damage to organs and cleaner cuts. Whoever the killer was he kept his blade very sharp in all cases. Was it part of his daily job? It was certainly a skill.

Phillips was shocked at the abdominal mutilation and in terms of timing he said something telling. He said looking at Chapman's wounds he himself did not think he could perform the removals in less than 15 minutes. Then he went on to say that if he were to do it per his profession as a surgeon, it would take him at least an hour.

In my mind it says that Phillips did not believe the killer was a professional surgeon. He also stated he did not believe a surgical kit had a blade that would perform the cutting.

If we look at the post mortem and timing the question arises whether the killer could perform the overall killing in approximately 10 minutes, Eddowes the worst case. Phillips again reveals his thought that it would take him about 15 minutes as a non-surgeon.

Taking a look at Eddowes-
1:31 am PC Watson, a 17 year veteran enters and leaves Mitre Square.
1:35 am Lawende,Levy and Harris see a man and woman at Church Passage
1:40 am PC Harvey enters and leaves Church Passage and walks toward Aldgate ( did not see Lawende, Levy, Harris?)
1:44 am PC Watkins enters Mitre Square and finds Eddowes.

Could this happen in 9 minutes? Let's assume further...

1:35 to 1:36. - Eddowes and JTR enter Mitre
1:37 to 1:38 - The killer strangles, lays Eddowes on the ground and cuts her throat. Note it takes about 10 seconds to strangle a human unconscious at 11 lbs of pressure. The cuts to the throat with a sharp blade an additional 10 seconds.
1:39 to 1:44 am or 5 minutes to slice open the abdomen, remove the intestines which he did on Chapman, remove the Uterus which he did on Chapman , and then remove the kidney.
1:44. As PC Watkins enters Mitre Square the killer leaves the way he came in through Church Passage as he heard PC Harvey enter the passage at 1:40 and head towards Aldgate.

Could the killer have done it this way? Phillips thought he himself, again not as a Surgeon, would have taken 15 minutes.

The killer in my estimation took what he learned from Chapman and repeated it with Eddowes. He knew his way around sharp blades and was able to shave time off of the Eddowes attack based on Chapman. Lesson learned.

What he did next was also incredible. Consider this killer almost got caught with both Stride and Eddowes within less than an hour of each other. Yet he escapes to lay low for another hour somewhere between Mitre and Goulston Street before leaving 2 clues at Goulston and disappears once again.

All the while all hell is breaking loose as PCs are scrambling, Investigators are going door to door and streets are being searched. Yet he simply vanishes. Or was he right there.

Maybrick said he took a room on Middlesex Street and Jacob Levy lived at #36. Between Mitre and Goulston Street.