The kidney removal of Catherine Eddowes.

[FISHY1118]

''According to Insp Reid no organs were taken from Mary Kelly, and after all he should know he was directly involved.''





But were not talking about '''organs being taken '' only the fact that the / a killer ''removed'' them from Mary Kelly!! . Which he did ,thats just a fact. .


Post-mortem

Dr. Thomas Bond, a distinguished police surgeon from A-Division, was called in on the Mary Kelly murder. His report is as follows:



The viscera were found in various parts viz: the uterus and 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 and the spleen by the left side of the body. The flaps removed from the abdomen and thighs were on a table.





Notice how Dr Bond doesnt mention that any of the organs were damaged or muilated in any way ?




After all he should know '' he was in the room and saw the body...... and the organs.

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=FISHY1118;n845909]

Its tru because that's what happened .

We have doctors and police officers and eye witnesses whos testimony confirmed that to be the case

We have no evidence from any of the crime scenes that any of the outdoor crime scenes that any organs had been removed by the killer

What we dont have is any evidence in the slightest way that suggest the "organ harvesting theory" took place with the C5 victims , and that really should be the end of it

We have two different methods of extraction of organs from two different mortuaries

Mary kellys organ removal at the crime scene, totally blows a certain posters theory out of the water. He will argue that her body was mutilated beyond recognition and that included her internal organs , so somehow it is different because they were destroyed in the process .

According to Insp Reid no organs were taken from Mary Kelly, and after all he should know he was directly involved.

What he fails to provide and hasn't done each time when asked is to show evidence how he knows the organs where not removed prior to the mutilation ?, or offer up any official evidence that was reported at the time that confirms they were also mutilated beyond recognition?,and not removed and placed around different areas of her body and the room fully intact, as reported.

See above answer

Now having said that , I don't mind anyone having a theory as to the murders , and I'm sure we've all seen and heard some weird and wonderful ones .

Circumstantial evidence is admissible in a court of law

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FISHY1118]

This may be true, but if there was an illegal trade in body parts from mortuaries, being presented in the morgue with a partially disembowelled murder victim might be a good opportunity for someone to nick an organ or two? A dodgy morgue worker might be able to remove an organ very efficiently.

Its tru because that's what happened .

We have doctors and police officers and eye witnesses whos testimony confirmed that to be the case .

What we dont have is any evidence in the slightest way that suggest the "organ harvesting theory" took place with the C5 victims , and that really should be the end of it .

Mary kellys organ removal at the crime scene, totally blows a certain posters theory out of the water. He will argue that her body was mutilated beyond recognition and that included her internal organs , so somehow it is different because they were destroyed in the process .

What he fails to provide and hasn't done each time when asked is to show evidence how he knows the organs where not removed prior to the mutilation ?, or offer up any official evidence that was reported at the time that confirms they were also mutilated beyond recognition?,and not removed and placed around different areas of her body and the room fully intact, as reported. .

Now having said that , I don't mind anyone having a theory as to the murders , and I'm sure we've all seen and heard some weird and wonderful ones .

But anyone whose tries to convince people their theory is indeed a fact by providing mountains of circumstantial evidence and too many unanswered questions, is in my view is simply preposterous.

[chubbs]

There is no evidence whatsoever , that anyone other than the killer himself, removed any organs from any victim other than at the crime scene.

This may be true, but if there was an illegal trade in body parts from mortuaries, being presented in the morgue with a partially disembowelled murder victim might be a good opportunity for someone to nick an organ or two? A dodgy morgue worker might be able to remove an organ very efficiently.

[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.