The kidney removal of Catherine Eddowes.

[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

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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 .

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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]

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?

[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.

[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

[DJA]

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

PO was in Aldgate Street between Duke St and Houndsditch.

[JeffHamm]

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.

The doctor's were there to report on the post-mortem results, where the fact the uterus and kidney were absent is documented. Dr. Phillips, while sent for and who did come to the scene (as George shows), was not called to testify. Perhaps he would have mentioned what he observed when making his assessment about the similarity with the Chapman case.

Personally, I'm not sure what you're envisioning the doctor's did. Dr. Phillips was called to the scene to make a comparison with the Chapman case. That requires him to examine the body. And given Chapman's missing uterus was proposed by Baxter to be a possible motive for the murder in the first place, I fail to understand what you think Dr. Phillips was doing other than checking if the same things were done at both scenes. I genuinely cannot imagine what you think the doctors did given Dr. Brown summond Dr. Phillips for the expressed purpose of doing what I'm suggesting he did.

Regardless, I would like to see what evidence you have to connect organ thieves to any of these crimes? In my opinion, you're are engaging in conjecture that makes far far greater leaps of faith from any evidence than what I'm suggesting. So far, you've only really argued that organ thieves existed, and then from there you speculate a very large, unevidence, chain of improbable events, to get to your conclusion.

All I'm doing is suggesting that since the evidence places Dr. Phillips at the crime scene for the express purpose of making a comparison with the Chapman case, and from that I suggest he did what would be necessary to do what he's summond for - examine the body. And I also suggest that given the importance of the missing uterus to the Chapman case, it only goes to follow that he would note whether or not Eddowes' uterus was present or not (he would have no reason to check her kidneys, though). We even have, as George showed, indications that at the time there were whispers of her uterus being taken away (rumours), which it sounds like the police shut down (but they did try and keep things from getting out). In other words, there are lots of things that indicate what I'm suggesting has a very good chance of being the case.

Now, are there any documents outlining Dr. Phillips crime scene observations? No, but as I said, it's not a complete set of evidence, but it's a small step compared to your oddyssey of a journey between "organ thieves exist - two different thieves stole organs from Chapman and Eddowes." You've presented nothing beyond that in terms of evidence.

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?

Except everything points to Kelly's heart having been taken away. You can deny that all you want, and I'm not going to argue that point with you, but that's what the information we have indicates.

Nichols had nothing removed, but her injuries were not as extensive - nothing could be taken. Either JtR fled before completing what he set out to do, or it being his first mutilation murder, had not got to the point where a full opening of the abdomen was performed. Stride, obviously, wasn't mutilated at all, and it is not universally accepted she even is a victim of JtR. I'm 50/50 on her inclusion, but regardless, nothing could be taken because no mutilations were performed.


Similar if you include Tabram, she wasn't cut open the way Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly were, so nothign could be taken. McKenzie, if you include her, same - the mutilations were not as extensive.

And no, I don't see the fact that someone without any training in surgery might cut out things in different ways on two occasions. Particularly given that Chapman was killed while dawn was breaking, so there would be some light, while Eddowes in in the darkness of Mitre Square. Different methods doesn't only point to two different people, it also points to one person with no set way (no training) of doing something.

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.

He's a serial killer. They take body parts because they are very very disturbed individuals. I don't think he was particularly interested in the uterus, which is why he doesn't take Kelly's but rather takes her heart. He's taking what appeals to him in the moment.

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.

We have a list of the position in the room of the various body parts removed from her body, which does not list the heart. And we have the post-mortem recording that her heart was absent. Combined, that tells us her heart was taken from the scene. On top of that there are also a few news stories that either indicate that "a portion" of the body was missing, and at least one where it is specially said it was the heart that was missing.

Basically, we again have a fair bit of pointers that indicate her heart was taken by JtR.

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

You've given me nothing to consider though Trevor. You've just ignored all of the information we have that points to organs being taken, you even refuse to consider that Kelly's heart was missing despite many lines of information indicating that it was, in order to desperately cling to the argument of "Organ thieves exist therefore organ thieves stole the organs and all the information that suggests the organs were missing from the scene are just unfortunate coincidences." If you could present some actual evidence to perhaps fill out the very very large gaps in that idea, then I would have something to consider. Otherwise, it just looks like a huge pile of speculation, conjecture, and information burying.

- Jeff