The kidney removal of Catherine Eddowes.

[Trevor Marriott]

WARNING GRAPHIC IMAGES IN THIS POST

All the medical people I have spoken to all say the same, first you have to know the location of the uterus and then another problem is being able to grip it to be able to remove it in the dark from a blood-filled abdomen without the aid of a retractor to hold the abdomen open

I should also mention that in the case of Chapman the fallopian tubes with the uterus attached were completely removed

But did the killer lift the intestines out, or did they recoil out of the abdomen following the abdomen being opened in the case of Chapman, we see no such activity with Eddowes.

As I have said before two different methods of extraction from two different mortuaries

To make it easier for those who still believe the killer removed the organs at the crime scenes I have posted below some images that highlight the degree of difficulty in that theory

Pic 1 shows the Uterus with fallopian tubes attached
Pic 2 Show the uterus
Pic 3 shows the uterus complete with fallopian tubes after removal

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Barnaby]

Hi Trevor,

I, too, have not rejected your theory as I find it creative and plausible. But I have doubts. Clearly, the killer at both crime scenes lifted out the intestines and put them over the victim's shoulder. So - at the very least - he could do that on that spot. As a non-medical expert, my question is that once the victim was basically eviscerated, how difficult would it have been to get at the uterus or kidney?

[Sam Flynn]

Unless the Ripper was also the Torso killer and had been potentially cutting up bodies for over a decade.

Sawing/chopping head and limbs is rather different from removing internal organs.

[Sam Flynn]

I think that it is very likely that the poor light must have affected the eviscerations. Also, the experience of the first attempt might have suggested a slightly different approach the next time. A slaughterman would be experienced at cutting up animals, but not humans, so he would be learning.

Poor light wouldn't make an experienced slaugherman/butcher (or surgeon, for that matter) attempt to open the abdomen by cutting three uneven slabs from the abdominal wall. It's inefficient, for one thing. For another, it's quite likely that the light was decent for the Chapman murder, and indeed for the Kelly murder - yet their killer(s) excavated their abdomens via a similarly clumsy "slab" method.

[Patrick Differ]

Butchers, especially Kosher Butchers, were trained to gut animals on their backs with the exception of Cattle. Kosher butchers were also trained to minimize mistakes in cutting. In other words they were better trained. Still..once the intestines were removed the Uterus and left Kidney would have been exposed. It appears the Doctors, true to their profession, used medical terminology that may have swayed the facts.

[Abby Normal]

Unless the Ripper was also the Torso killer and had been potentially cutting up bodies for over a decade.

hi rookie
thats actually a very good point. ive leaned toward they were tje same man for a while now, but i never considered the rippers skill to remove organs quickly in the dark may because he might also be the torsoman. need to contemplate more.

[GBinOz]

Hi George

We must also not forget the degree of difficulty for a killer in having first to locate the organs in almost total darkness, and then be able to grip slippery wet bloodied organs to remove them in double quick time.

Another pointer to the killer not removing the organs is that Chapman and Eddowes bodies were taken to two different mortuaries and we see two different methods of extraction of the uterus from both victims.

It is well-documented that there was an illegal acquisition of bodies and body parts from mortuaries.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

I found the medical experts in your video to be quite persuasive. A medical professional in my family agreed with their opinions regarding difficulty and time, particularly for Eddowes, and thought that the two uterus extractions were done by different people.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Hi Trevor,

Although I have never rejected totally the possibility of organs being removed at the mortuary, I can't help noticing that despite this offence being well-documented, not one police officer, nor one of the many police surgeons involved have mentioned this possibility. I am forced to assume that they have considered it to be impossible in these cases, presumably on the basis that maybe because of police presence the bodies could not have been tampered with, or perhaps the doctor was aware at the scene of the crime that the evisceration had been made. That was quite likely in the Eddowes case.

I admit that the reason no-one involved thought as you do is not known, but no-one did.

Hi Doc,

There was this exchange between Baxter and Phillips at the Chapman inquest:

[Coroner] Was the whole of the body there? - No; the absent portions being from the abdomen.
[Coroner] Are those portions such as would require anatomical knowledge to extract? - I think the mode in which they were extracted did show some anatomical knowledge.
[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.

And this:

Sergeant Baugham [Badham], 31 H, stated that he conveyed the body of the deceased to the mortuary on the ambulance.
[Coroner] Are you sure that you took every portion of the body away with you? - Yes.

Looking at the autopsy reports, there are "Body in situ" notes and "Post Mortem" notes:

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

The above version contains some differences for MJK from this version:

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

It can be seen that the organs were not noted as missing until the Post Mortem.

Cheers, George

[The Rookie Detective]

I think that it is very likely that the poor light must have affected the eviscerations. Also, the experience of the first attempt might have suggested a slightly different approach the next time. A slaughterman would be experienced at cutting up animals, but not humans, so he would be learning.

Unless the Ripper was also the Torso killer and had been potentially cutting up bodies for over a decade.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Definitely not a surgeon, agreed. However, even some doctors involved in the case at the time didn't believe it was the work of a slaughterman. Indeed, there's not even any consistency in the way that the victims' abdomens were cut open... Chapman, for example, had three differently-sized asymmetric "panels" of flesh cut from her abdomen, with a bias to one side. This hugely inefficient evisceration has all the hallmarks of improvisation, rather than the assured work of an experienced hand.

I think that it is very likely that the poor light must have affected the eviscerations. Also, the experience of the first attempt might have suggested a slightly different approach the next time. A slaughterman would be experienced at cutting up animals, but not humans, so he would be learning.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

Although I have never rejected totally the possibility of organs being removed at the mortuary, I can't help noticing that despite this offence being well-documented, not one police officer, nor one of the many police surgeons involved have mentioned this possibility. I am forced to assume that they have considered it to be impossible in these cases, presumably on the basis that maybe because of police presence the bodies could not have been tampered with, or perhaps the doctor was aware at the scene of the crime that the evisceration had been made. That was quite likely in the Eddowes case.

I admit that the reason no-one involved thought as you do is not known, but no-one did.

Well they would have known of the activities of body dealers and how they were allowed to acquire bodies and body parts legally and illegally but could not admit that the bodies had been tampered with before the post-mortems so it was easier to assume the killer removed the organs.

There is a lot of evidence to show that mortuary attendants were complicit in allowing organs to be taken from dead people

There was no evidence from the crime scenes save for Kelly that the organs had been removed

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

It was the swift evisceration that slaughtermen practised and not the neat organ removal of a surgeon.

Definitely not a surgeon, agreed. However, even some doctors involved in the case at the time didn't believe it was the work of a slaughterman. Indeed, there's not even any consistency in the way that the victims' abdomens were cut open... Chapman, for example, had three differently-sized asymmetric "panels" of flesh cut from her abdomen, with a bias to one side. This hugely inefficient evisceration has all the hallmarks of improvisation, rather than the assured work of an experienced hand.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi George

We must also not forget the degree of difficulty for a killer in having first to locate the organs in almost total darkness, and then be able to grip slippery wet bloodied organs to remove them in double quick time.

Another pointer to the killer not removing the organs is that Chapman and Eddowes bodies were taken to two different mortuaries and we see two different methods of extraction of the uterus from both victims.

It is well-documented that there was an illegal acquisition of bodies and body parts from mortuaries.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

Although I have never rejected totally the possibility of organs being removed at the mortuary, I can't help noticing that despite this offence being well-documented, not one police officer, nor one of the many police surgeons involved have mentioned this possibility. I am forced to assume that they have considered it to be impossible in these cases, presumably on the basis that maybe because of police presence the bodies could not have been tampered with, or perhaps the doctor was aware at the scene of the crime that the evisceration had been made. That was quite likely in the Eddowes case.

I admit that the reason no-one involved thought as you do is not known, but no-one did.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi Doc,

Thank you for posting the letter. I have not seen that before.

As I said in my post, removing organs with one sweep of a knife, was a description that I read in regard to the removal of Chapman's uterus, but was accompanied by collateral damage such as the cutting of the bladder. In Eddowes case the uterus was removed without nicking the bladder, which is located in front of the uterus.

A difference with the evisceration of animals by a butcher and that of the ripper victims is that the animal carcasses are hanging so that gravity assists with the removal of the internals and the blood. With the bodies on the ground the internals have to be removed by hand from a cavity with a blood pool.

Cheers, George

Agreed. He would have found the evisceration a little more difficult and more bloody.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Indeed, but I see little in the way of dexterity in any of the Whitechapel murders.

Perhaps not, but we have evidence of skill with a knife, and a job done swiftly, in poor light by someone with a clear purpose, and all done in a manner similar to the slaughterman's m.o., starting even with the method of throat slitting. It was done swiftly by someone who knew exactly what he was doing because he had done it before.

It was the swift evisceration that slaughtermen practised and not the neat organ removal of a surgeon.