The kidney removal of Catherine Eddowes.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

My poor choice of language. I was mean to say that discussion of the Eddowes case seems to invariably focus around the sighting of the CPC by Lawende when even Swanson described that sighting as "doubtful". No one knows where Eddowes was between the time she was released from the lockup until he body was found - some 45 minutes.

Scott Nelson has an excellent dissertation here:

https://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rip-butchersrow.html

Starting from the heading "Did Eddowes Know Someone in Butcher’s Row?" he enumerates several stories that could indicate Eddowes spent some of that time in Aldgate St where she was arrested for drunkenness earlier in the evening.

There is also an interesting post on the retirement of PC Langdon here:

https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/victorian-age-s-finest/other-police-and-authorities/33763-city-pc-e-t-langdon-retires-with-article

There is a statement that PC Watkins stepped aside to allow a man coming from the Square to pass. This would indicate that the murder was over before generally anticipated and cast some doubt on Watkins 1:30 visit to the square - could he have missed the body, or did he yield to an offer by Morris of a "nice cup of tea"? (Speculation alert).

Then of course there is the Stephen White story, which could have been the source of the "stepping aside" account, but with White rather than Watkins.

We really are locked in by Watkins beat times and the time required for the murder, mutilation and organ removals, with the acceptance of the validity of the CPC sighting serving only to reduce the later time.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

True, the CPC are often viewed as more certain a sighting than it probably was. In the Mitre Square simulations I put together I covered a number of different possibilities (including CPC not being Eddowes and JtR) with regards to their arrival and potential routes for JtR to flee. In those, I use the smallest of time windows available to the CPC (meaning, I go with Lawende's 1:35, since if something works with that time, then obviously it will work if we add an extra minute or two based upon Lave's 1:33 or 1:34). 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.

We also played with an idea that JtR fled down a passage way (to the south-west), and that the encounter described by PC Langdon occurred there (which I think requires about 7 minutes to get to Mitre Square - mind you, such details being recounted 25 years after the fact can be excused for being off, so if the encounter is supposed to be in St. James Square, then 7 minutes is wrong, but really, given the whole beat only requires 14 minutes for that beat, almost where ever Watkins is placed, 7 minutes is never going to be that far off). Anyway, playing around with that looked really good and interesting, but I don't think we could ever determine if the passage-way was actually accessible to the public at that time. There was quite a bit of interesting discussion about it at the time though.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

Anyway, I think we can make some inferences about timing based upon Lawende and co's statements even if the CPC is not Eddowes and JtR. While those inferences will be far from precise, I'm not so sure I would go so far as to view them as "red herrings".

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

My poor choice of language. I was mean to say that discussion of the Eddowes case seems to invariably focus around the sighting of the CPC by Lawende when even Swanson described that sighting as "doubtful". No one knows where Eddowes was between the time she was released from the lockup until he body was found - some 45 minutes.

Scott Nelson has an excellent dissertation here:

https://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rip-butchersrow.html

Starting from the heading "Did Eddowes Know Someone in Butcher’s Row?" he enumerates several stories that could indicate Eddowes spent some of that time in Aldgate St where she was arrested for drunkenness earlier in the evening.

There is also an interesting post on the retirement of PC Langdon here:

https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/victorian-age-s-finest/other-police-and-authorities/33763-city-pc-e-t-langdon-retires-with-article

There is a statement that PC Watkins stepped aside to allow a man coming from the Square to pass. This would indicate that the murder was over before generally anticipated and cast some doubt on Watkins 1:30 visit to the square - could he have missed the body, or did he yield to an offer by Morris of a "nice cup of tea"? (Speculation alert).

Then of course there is the Stephen White story, which could have been the source of the "stepping aside" account, but with White rather than Watkins.

We really are locked in by Watkins beat times and the time required for the murder, mutilation and organ removals, with the acceptance of the validity of the CPC sighting serving only to reduce the later time.

Cheers, George

[Trevor Marriott]

PC. Harvey said that he got to the end of Church Passage looking into Mitre Square at 1.41/1.42 but saw nothing despite his colleague Watkin finding the body of Catherine Eddowes 2 or 3 minutes later (if their times were synchronised of course) It’s unthinkable that the body wasn’t there when Harvey had stood there so how could he possibly have missed it?

I have only checked with The Telegraph report of the inquest and from the inquest papers themselves (Sourcebook) and then The Times report. None of these make clear when Harvey had previously been in Mitre Square although he says that he passed the Post Office clock at 1.28. (I can only assume that this clock was nearby - I’m sure that someone knows) But when we add the fact that Harvey somehow missed a horribly mutilated corpse (perhaps he was related to John Richardson) to the fact that he was dismissed from the police on July 1st 1889, just 9 months later and for reasons unknown, I’d suggest that we at least have to consider the possibility that this might not have been a very reliable officer.

PC. Watkin said that his beat took 12-14 minutes and that he had last walked through Mitre Square at 1.30.


Let’s assume 2 things just for the sake of speculation - and before Trevor says something I’ll remind him of Herlock’s Maxim No 6 - “There’s absolutely nothing wrong with speculation or conjecture as long as you acknowledge them as such.”

First, that the couple that Lawende and co saw weren’t Eddowes and her killer and second, that Harvey was untrustworthy and didn’t bother going down Church Passage. He wouldn’t have been the first officer to do such a thing. Some did much worse.


Suggestion - Catherine and her killer are talking and hear or see Watkin approach and duck out of sight somewhere. He walks down Church Passage and across Mitre Square. A few seconds after he goes down the passage Catherine says “come on, he won’t be back for at least a quarter of an hour, we’re safe.” They get into Mitre Square and he kills her… it’s 1.31. As he’s finishing the killer turns in the direction of Church Passage, as he’s keeps checking for the Constable’s return, and he sees the lamp in the distance so he stands up and walks away. Obviously Watkin can’t see him up ahead in the pitch black. The killer has had between 12 and 13 minutes with his victim.

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

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi George,

You are much better with finding information in the news reports than I am. But, while all of the news reports probably contain some inaccuracies, and Lloyds has had some doozies, The Times indicates the doctors examined the body, and it would be very unprofessional of them to make any medical statements based upon that examination. But that doesn't mean they didn't note the uterus was missing, or at least cut out (if they allowed for the possibility that it would be found somewhere in the gut cavity during the proper autopsy for example). The rumour mentioned in Lloyds points to this possibility, and the withdrawal of that rumour would arise when no official confirmation was given (the post-mortem not complete, so no comment type thing). We see the same thing with Kelly's heart. It's reported that "a portion was missing", then we a report saying "no, all accounted for", then the next day we get "despite what we said yesterday, there was indeed a portion missing", and so forth. The press was operating at full speed and the early reports after each crime are often later contradicted, and then sometimes re-affirmed. And while there are cases of total fabrication (I forget which paper, but there's one news story about an attack on a woman, which was entirely made up! No attack occurred), often there is at least some foundation of truth in them.

There probably was talk of Eddowes' uterus having gone missing. Now, whether that talk was based upon mere speculation by the public or whether it was information based upon the Drs' crime scene examination of the body is anybody's guess. Given the doctors, including Dr. Phillips, did examine the body at the crime scene (thanks for pointing out he was there at the crime scene; I couldn't find anything on where he met up with Dr. Brown). I find it hard to believe anyone would think they did not check and note that her uterus was not in its rightful place given that Dr. Phillips was sent for to obtain his opinion about similarities between the cases in the first place!

Remember, the whole point of sending for Dr. Phillips was because of his familiarity with the Chapman case in which the missing uterus was a key feature. The crime scene examination of Eddowes' would not be considered "full and proper" because that is what the post-mortem is, the full and proper and thorough examination of the body, where all the details are noted and recorded, so when the doctor's give testimony they report from the post-mortem examination but that doesn't mean they were unaware of some things before that.

And given how Dr. Phillips was sent for in order to make a comparison with the Chapman case, and we know he arrived at the crime scene, it is as close to certain as we can get in this case that they checked for her uterus, and noted it was not where it should be, and the fact it was taken away was later confirmed during the post-mortem (it wasn't found amongst the other viscera, for example).

I make no claims about whether or not they noted her kidney was also missing.

- Jeff

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

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?

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.

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.

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

[JeffHamm]

Hi Patrick,

Lawende furnished a description of the man, whom he described as a fair-moustached man wearing a navy jacket, peaked cloth cap, and red scarf. Chief Inspector Donald Swanson intimated in his report that Lawende's identification of the woman as Eddowes was doubtful. He wrote that Lawende had said that some clothing of the deceased's that he was shown resembled that of the woman he saw—"which was black ... that was the extent of his identity.

Here is the alternative. That it was not Jack and Cathy that Lawende saw that evening, and that all the times and circumstances we are assuming are red herrings.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

At various times there have been discussions with regards to the CPC (Church Passage Couple). As you rightly point out, Lawende's "identification" is not a particularly strong one.

If the CPC, however, are Eddowes and JtR, then things speak for themselves in terms of times when they are last seen in that location, which is when the men move off somewhere between 1:33 and 1:35, based upon the testimony of Lave and Lawende.

However, there are two other entrances to Mitre Square, so if the CPC are not Eddowes and JtR, then I think it is fair to argue that they entered from one of those alternatives. We know there were people around in the market, that is connected via a covered passage to Mitre Square, although nobody specifically reports seeing a couple together or notices anyone going into the passage from that side. That doesn't preclude those events, they are just not documented. Or, of course, they could have entered from Mitre Street itself.

From Lawende and co, we know they only moved on from the club when the rain let up. Although Church Passage wasn't covered, the CPC are in a location that would offer some shelter from the rain, so if they are not Eddowes and JtR, it's probable that they too move on about the same time the men move on (which is why PC Harvey doesn't see them when he eventually shows up). Of course, if it is Eddowes and JtR, they too would move on once the rain lets up, only they would be going into Mitre Square itself.

Eddowes and JtR obviously can't have been in Mitre Square when PC Watkins patrolled it at 1:30.

My thoughts are that if Eddowes and JtR are in either of the alternative starting point locations, that they too are probably sheltering from the rain that keeps the men from moving on from the club. As such, even if the CPC are not Eddowes and JtR, it strikes me that it is still most probable that they don't enter into Mitre Square until the rain stops around 1:33 - 1:35. So they would have to be somewhere close to Mitre Square, and not in a location where PC Watkins would spot them during his patrol. That makes me favour the covered passage to the market over entering from Mitre Street, although PC Watkins has to somehow not spot them in that passage when he does his patrol. Not completely out of the question, particularly if they are sheltering at the further end closer to the market than to Mitre Square itself.

Anyway, I think we can make some inferences about timing based upon Lawende and co's statements even if the CPC is not Eddowes and JtR. While those inferences will be far from precise, I'm not so sure I would go so far as to view them as "red herrings".

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

PC. Harvey said that he got to the end of Church Passage looking into Mitre Square at 1.41/1.42 but saw nothing despite his colleague Watkin finding the body of Catherine Eddowes 2 or 3 minutes later (if their times were synchronised of course) It’s unthinkable that the body wasn’t there when Harvey had stood there so how could he possibly have missed it?

I have only checked with The Telegraph report of the inquest and from the inquest papers themselves (Sourcebook) and then The Times report. None of these make clear when Harvey had previously been in Mitre Square although he says that he passed the Post Office clock at 1.28. (I can only assume that this clock was nearby - I’m sure that someone knows) But when we add the fact that Harvey somehow missed a horribly mutilated corpse (perhaps he was related to John Richardson) to the fact that he was dismissed from the police on July 1st 1889, just 9 months later and for reasons unknown, I’d suggest that we at least have to consider the possibility that this might not have been a very reliable officer.

PC. Watkin said that his beat took 12-14 minutes and that he had last walked through Mitre Square at 1.30.


Let’s assume 2 things just for the sake of speculation - and before Trevor says something I’ll remind him of Herlock’s Maxim No 6 - “There’s absolutely nothing wrong with speculation or conjecture as long as you acknowledge them as such.”

First, that the couple that Lawende and co saw weren’t Eddowes and her killer and second, that Harvey was untrustworthy and didn’t bother going down Church Passage. He wouldn’t have been the first officer to do such a thing. Some did much worse.


Suggestion - Catherine and her killer are talking and hear or see Watkin approach and duck out of sight somewhere. He walks down Church Passage and across Mitre Square. A few seconds after he goes down the passage Catherine says “come on, he won’t be back for at least a quarter of an hour, we’re safe.” They get into Mitre Square and he kills her… it’s 1.31. As he’s finishing the killer turns in the direction of Church Passage, as he’s keeps checking for the Constable’s return, and he sees the lamp in the distance so he stands up and walks away. Obviously Watkin can’t see him up ahead in the pitch black. The killer has had between 12 and 13 minutes with his victim.

[Patrick Differ]

Hi GB - it's possible that Lawende, Levy and Harris did not see Eddowes and JtR but 2 others. However it does not change the fact that the PC was on a 15 minute cycle in the Square. Did he lie as well or just miss that corner? If that were the case the killer had more time to take out organs. It seems unlikely but we are relying on the integrity of the PC and 3 eyewitness that could not or would not identify the pair. What is certain is that the same killer did kill both Chapman and Eddowes. I'm not sure the removal of organs necessarily points to a medical person or mortuary assistant. The Doctors of the time could not give a consensus. That means there was doubt from the Medical experts at the time. Would these Doctors know the capabilities of these assistants? I would hope so.

[chubbs]

Victorian 'Dead Houses' were known to supply bodies of the poor to medical schools...

"In addition to the practical and cultural reasons mentioned for the retention of a corpse, there was a risk that depositing a body in a mortuary would leave it vulnerable to surgical dismemberment. Dissection denied hope to a Christian family of bodily resurrection on Judgement Day, and was also a fate associated with the worst criminals, as from 1752 it had become an additional punishment for murderers after their execution.
Cadavers were valuable: before 1832, many had been stolen from graveyards and from the dead-house of at least one London workhouse to supply the
medical schools.
As well as the possibility of theft, there was also a risk that a corpse would be sold by the authorities. The Anatomy Act of 1832 permitted anyone having lawful Possession of the Body of any deceased Person€™ for any purpose other than burial to sell that body to a medical school, and the Sanitary Act of 1866 gave lawful possession to the poor law union relieving officer if a body in a mortuary was not buried within a period set locally by the authorities.
Some poor law authorities had demonstrated their willingness to sell the bodies of workhouse inmates, and cases had been publicised where the authorities had acted beyond the strict letter of the law.
Arrangements by vestries to use workhouse dead-houses, and also the erection of parish mortuaries close to workhouses, like that at St James Westminster, would have increased concerns about the fate of deposited corpses. Moreover, the number of bodies supplied to medical schools by poor law authorities increased from the 1870s, just when the number of mortuaries was growing, and some may have suspected hidden motives behind the erection of these buildings.
By retaining possession of a corpse until the funeral, the family retained control, and if they were finally forced to surrender it because the burial money could not be raised, ongoing decomposition would have rendered it less attractive to the surgeons."

http://www.stgitehistory.org.uk/media/housesforthedead.pdf

It doesn't take a great mind to deduce that corpses and their contents were vulnerable (and valuable) items in Victorian times.

[chubbs]

Is it actually a serious proposal that the mortuary attendants were stealing the organs? What do we know about the attendants? You can't be laying that kind of accusation upon people based on no evidence whatsoever. If you didn't know these men how can anyone judge what they were capable of?

You're right, of course. But there are tales of the things Peter Sutcliffe got up to when he worked in a mortuary, and I personally worked with someone who had been a slaughterhouse worker, who told me of bad goings-on. There is also the fact that bodies and body parts were sold in those days to be taken into account. It's quite possible that mortuary workers would be tempted to make a bit on the side by nicking stuff from the workplace - perks of the job. Office workers pinch stationery, so why wouldn't a Victorian mortuary worker snaffle up the odd bit of a dead body now & again, if he could get away with it?

[GBinOz]

If we are to believe the witness Lawende the killer was also wearing a red handkerchief. So he had more than just the apron at his disposal.

Hi Patrick,

Lawende furnished a description of the man, whom he described as a fair-moustached man wearing a navy jacket, peaked cloth cap, and red scarf. Chief Inspector Donald Swanson intimated in his report that Lawende's identification of the woman as Eddowes was doubtful. He wrote that Lawende had said that some clothing of the deceased's that he was shown resembled that of the woman he saw—"which was black ... that was the extent of his identity.

Here is the alternative. That it was not Jack and Cathy that Lawende saw that evening, and that all the times and circumstances we are assuming are red herrings.

Cheers, George

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

There is some information in The Times dated 1 Nov and Lloyds Weekly dated 30 Sep which is interesting but frustrating in its ambiguity.

The Times states:
The body was removed as soon as possible to the mortuary in Golden-lane, where it was examined in the presence of Dr. Brown and Dr. Sequeira. Dr. Phillips, of Spital-square, the surgeon of the H Division of Metropolitan Police, arrived shortly afterwards, and assisted in the preliminary examination of the body.
It then has a description of the preliminary examination containing only Eddowes clothing and accoutrements. It is then noted that:
In the afternoon a post-mortem examination of the body was made

Lloyds noted:
The report quickly spread that the part of the body missing from Annie Chapman had also been removed in this case, but on inquiry we found that the rumour was unfounded.

This (Sunday) morning the lamps were burning brightly, but a curious little circumstance was mentioned by the wife of a caretaker living directly opposite the spot where the murdered woman was found. As she went home with her little girl on Friday night she noticed that the lamp in the north-west corner of the square was so dull that she could scarcely see her way. This must have thrown the pavement on which the body was found into comparative darkness, and may thus have in some way contributed to the selection of the spot by the murderer.

After a very careful examination of the body where it was found, it was at three o'clock removed to the City mortuary in Golden-lane, and here Drs. Brown and Sequeira continued their investigation for a considerable time.

At twenty minutes past five, when we left the mortuary, after the interview most kindly accorded by Dr. Gordon Brown, there was an expectation on the part of the police that Dr. Phillips, who gave the important evidence in connection with the case of Annie Chapman, would speedily arrive there.

It should be noted that there were a number of inaccuracies in the Lloyds report.

I also came across this excerpt from Phillip's report of the Eddowes autopsy:

I think the perpetrator of this act had sufficient time, or he would not have nicked the lower eyelids. It would take at least five minutes.

So what, in Phillip's opinion, took at least five minutes. He nominated that Chapman's mutilations would have taken him 15 minutes. "At least five minutes" seems too short for all Eddowes mutilations and extractions, but too long for just the nicking of the lower eyelids.

As I said, interesting but ambiguous.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

You are much better with finding information in the news reports than I am. But, while all of the news reports probably contain some inaccuracies, and Lloyds has had some doozies, The Times indicates the doctors examined the body, and it would be very unprofessional of them to make any medical statements based upon that examination. But that doesn't mean they didn't note the uterus was missing, or at least cut out (if they allowed for the possibility that it would be found somewhere in the gut cavity during the proper autopsy for example). The rumour mentioned in Lloyds points to this possibility, and the withdrawal of that rumour would arise when no official confirmation was given (the post-mortem not complete, so no comment type thing). We see the same thing with Kelly's heart. It's reported that "a portion was missing", then we a report saying "no, all accounted for", then the next day we get "despite what we said yesterday, there was indeed a portion missing", and so forth. The press was operating at full speed and the early reports after each crime are often later contradicted, and then sometimes re-affirmed. And while there are cases of total fabrication (I forget which paper, but there's one news story about an attack on a woman, which was entirely made up! No attack occurred), often there is at least some foundation of truth in them.

There probably was talk of Eddowes' uterus having gone missing. Now, whether that talk was based upon mere speculation by the public or whether it was information based upon the Drs' crime scene examination of the body is anybody's guess. Given the doctors, including Dr. Phillips, did examine the body at the crime scene (thanks for pointing out he was there at the crime scene; I couldn't find anything on where he met up with Dr. Brown). I find it hard to believe anyone would think they did not check and note that her uterus was not in its rightful place given that Dr. Phillips was sent for to obtain his opinion about similarities between the cases in the first place!

Remember, the whole point of sending for Dr. Phillips was because of his familiarity with the Chapman case in which the missing uterus was a key feature. The crime scene examination of Eddowes' would not be considered "full and proper" because that is what the post-mortem is, the full and proper and thorough examination of the body, where all the details are noted and recorded, so when the doctor's give testimony they report from the post-mortem examination but that doesn't mean they were unaware of some things before that.

And given how Dr. Phillips was sent for in order to make a comparison with the Chapman case, and we know he arrived at the crime scene, it is as close to certain as we can get in this case that they checked for her uterus, and noted it was not where it should be, and the fact it was taken away was later confirmed during the post-mortem (it wasn't found amongst the other viscera, for example).

I make no claims about whether or not they noted her kidney was also missing.

- Jeff

[Sunny Delight]

Is it actually a serious proposal that the mortuary attendants were stealing the organs? What do we know about the attendants? You can't be laying that kind of accusation upon people based on no evidence whatsoever. If you didn't know these men how can anyone judge what they were capable of?

[JeffHamm]

You are asking a question that is unanswerable and I should reverse the question by asking you to show that they were not involved in the taking of organs from the mortuaries - cuts both ways.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

I'm afraid it doesn't cut both ways. It is impossible to prove a negative, therefore asking me to prove they were not there is similar to asking me to prove there isn't a teapot floating amongst the asteroids, that is so small and distant it cannot be detected (Russel's Teapot). The burden of proof lies upon the one proposing a testable idea. You are proposing there were organ thieves, so show some sort of proof that they are present at the critical times.

I present the evidence that tells us Dr. Phillips was sent for due to his knowledge of the Chapman case, and that he was sent for that very night. So we know he was sent for, we know why he was sent for, and we know that the missing uterus in the Chapman case was suggested as a motive by the coroner in that case. It is clear that they would have examined Eddowes' injuries that night (that was the purpose for sending for Dr. Phillips after all), and it is impossible that they would not have examined her uterus given that was offered as a motive in the Chapman case.

It's not a complete set of evidence, obviously, but given the case is over 135 years old it's more complete than one might hope. It is certainly more complete and evidence based than going from "organ thieves exist - therefore there was one there who removed her uterus and kidney at some point prior to the post-mortem."

- Jeff

[Wickerman]

... I have often wondered if a pig slaughterer could have been the killer and if a pig also has a membrane around the kidney? Is this a common thing or unique to humans?

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.

[Patrick Differ]

I am in agreement with Jeff. Both Doctors Philips and Brown described the Intestines as having been pulled out. They used past tense (had) to describe the removal of the Intestines, Uterus, part of the vagina, stomach and bladder from Chapman and the removal of the Uterus and kidney from Eddowes. It is clear that in the case of Chapman that Dr Philips was describing what he saw at Hanbury Street. " Had been removed".
in the case of Eddowes, Dr Brown went into much more technical detail of the wounds, including describing the very same extraction of the intestines from the mesentery as Chapman. Brown also describes the wounds to the organs in the upper abdomen including liver and spleen, in addition to cuts in the Aorta next to the left kidney and removal of the kidney. The apron found on Goulston Street was Eddowes and it contained blood and guts and was likely used to transport the removed organs to the killers lair somewhere between Mitre Square and Goulston Street. ( Where was the killer for 1 hour ?)

If 2 different mortuary assistants were removing organs from Chapman and Eddowes respectively then both Philips and Brown, with all their collective years of experience, missed it?
To my knowledge the mortuary assistants did not perform organ removal but were there to weigh the organs and clean up the mess. It would be hard to believe that 2 different assistants with 2 different victims would risk their employment for a shilling.

it's ok to have theories. However in this case we are being asked to believe that the killer took the time to strangle, cut the throat after lowering the victim to the ground, cut open the abdomen, remove the intestines, stab a bunch of organs and then just leave. Then the intestines are shoved back in the body, a tarp and wagon are used to transport the body to a makeshift shed passing as a mortuary in the case of Chapman and some mortuary assistant removes the Uterus, part of the vagina and bladder and sells them on the organ market. All before Dr Philips has had the chance to perform a post mortem, and in his process gives false information on the victim, sending the Investigators into false trails looking for a mad surgeon.

Then by pure chance the same thing happens to Eddowes? Unless there was mortuary assistant collusion?

The mortuary assistant theory makes little sense in the overall picture that considers what the Doctors stated. What there post mortem records show is that the killer did not possess surgical skill. He worked with light in the case of Chapman but was not precise in removing the Uterus. In the case of Eddowes he worked in relative darkness but deployed the same method . Eddowes shows collateral damage to organs around the kidney and it's removal. It would have happened by feel by someone with knowledge of what a kidney was. The killer could have used the apron to move around the body parts to minimize injury to himself.

In my view the Postmortems paint an accurate picture of what happened. If we are to believe the witness Lawende the killer was also wearing a red handkerchief. So he had more than just the apron at his disposal.