The kidney removal of Catherine Eddowes.

[Trevor Marriott]

Body Dealer: And what have you got for me today?
Jack the Mortuary Attendant: Two-thirds of a bladder, a uterus and a small chunk of abdominal flesh.
Body Dealer: Excellent! Next time, could you bring me a womb MINUS the cervix and just ONE kidney? I may have an interested buyer.


The organ-selling mortuary attendant theory is, and always has been, patently ridiculous.

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”

The Hospitals would only pay on the quality of the organs in the case of Chapman the uterus was intact and still with the fallopian tubes attached so a perfect female specimen!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

The value was to sell them to the teaching hospitals and female body parts were in great demand, as I previously stated there were victorian body dealers who were complicit with mortuary attendants to acquire organs and in some cases bodies for financial gain.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Body Dealer: And what have you got for me today?
Jack the Mortuary Attendant: Two-thirds of a bladder, a uterus and a small chunk of abdominal flesh.
Body Dealer: Excellent! Next time, could you bring me a womb MINUS the cervix and just ONE kidney? I may have an interested buyer.


The organ-selling mortuary attendant theory is, and always has been, patently ridiculous.

[Trevor Marriott]

The fact remains that the Uterus was removed and there is no way to know what was used to handle the organs. In Eddowes case there was the Apron. Would there be much blood if the victims were bled out? Also, without photographs of the victims the only evidence would be the post mortem narratives. Still..it appears the requirements were a very sharp knife and possibily some anatomical knowledge. I dont believe there were 2 different mortuary assistants stealing organs with no value. It's an interesting theory.

The value was to sell them to the teaching hospitals and female body parts were in great demand, as I previously stated there were victorian body dealers who were complicit with mortuary attendants to acquire organs and in some cases bodies for financial gain.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Patrick Differ]

The fact remains that the Uterus was removed and there is no way to know what was used to handle the organs. In Eddowes case there was the Apron. Would there be much blood if the victims were bled out? Also, without photographs of the victims the only evidence would be the post mortem narratives. Still..it appears the requirements were a very sharp knife and possibily some anatomical knowledge. I dont believe there were 2 different mortuary assistants stealing organs with no value. It's an interesting theory.

[The Rookie Detective]

Would the task be made easier with 2 culprits?

A couple perhaps?

One to overpower and subdue; the other to cut and eviscerate?

The man to hold the bladder, while the woman gets to the uterus with her knife?

Were the police only looking for solitary culprits?


Nobody would suspect a couple would they?


Even though there was a couple standing on the corner of the board school in the Stride murder and a couple allegedly seen talking to MJK not long before she was murdered.

What if "Jack the Ripper' were a couple of psychopaths?

That would explain how so much was done so fast and in relative darkness.

Many hands make light work and all that Jazz

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

My understanding is that in the case of Eddowes the bladder, which would be in front of the uterus and obscure the uterus in your photos, was intact and undamaged making the task more difficult than your photos may indicate.

Cheers, George

You are 100% correct George

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[The Rookie Detective]

Well you were warned !!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It goes to highlight just how difficult it would have been for someone to have accomplished those cuts and extractions; and all in relative darkness.

Unless the killer was a blind man of course.

Then the darkness would make no difference and his sense of touch enhanced.

If a blind man can win Strictly Come Dancing; then the Ripper may indeed have been blind.

I mean, who would suspect a blind man sitting on the street pavement with his concertina?

Never say never

[GBinOz]

Hi Trevor,

My understanding is that in the case of Eddowes the bladder, which would be in front of the uterus and obscure the uterus in your photos, was intact and undamaged making the task more difficult than your photos may indicate.

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

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

[Trevor Marriott]

That put me off my plum jam on toast.

Well you were warned !!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[The Rookie Detective]

That put me off my plum jam on toast.

[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.