The kidney removal of Catherine Eddowes.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So for you, evidence that something is a piece of journalistic embellishment doesn’t make it unsafe to rely on? This appears to be what you’re saying?

I look forward to the next time you call Macnaghten unsafe to rely on. Or anyone for that matter.



Dr Bond - “The Pericardium was open below & the Heart absent.” ( not ‘removed and placed on the table,’ not ‘removed and found on the bed,’ but ABSENT…definition - not present in a place, at an occasion, or as part of something.

Dr Hebbert (Bond’s assistant) - "In this case, to be sure, all the organs except the heart were found scattered around the room..."

Dr Gabe, also present in the room - ““… a certain organ was missing".

Three Doctors, all present in the room and specifically looking at mutilations (unlike Reid who was probably throwing up somewhere) These trump by absolute miles Reid (whose article has so many errors it’s close to fiction) And Arnold who incorrectly claimed that the heart was on the table. So he was obviously just lumping the heart in with the rest of the organs.


So, to recap. I have 3 Doctors who were all there. You have 1. A retired Police Officer in an interview containing more things that are untrue than The Lord Of The Rings. 2. One Police Officer who mistakenly places the heart on a table with the rest of the organs; implying that Dr Bond forgot to mention it. 3. A clearly embellished newspaper report for American.

Mmmmm close

That should read “from America.”

[Herlock Sholmes]

And what’s even more of a joke is that even if the heart wasn’t missing it doesn’t come within a million miles of proving that organs were taken by the killer. This is how desperate Trevor is for straws that he can clutch at to prop up his redundant theory.

That should read “weren’t.’

I blame the heat.

[Trevor Marriott]

That should read “weren’t.’

I blame the heat.

Lets cut crap out and lets finish what is becoming a boring and repetive topic by you posting the evidence other than Bonds ambiguos statement that proves beyond a doubt that the killer took Kelly`s heart, and cut the crap snide remarks they are cheap and unwarranted

https://www.trevormarriott.co.u

[Trevor Marriott]

That should read “from America.”

You have the cheek to say i am cherrypicking thats rich coming from you

Dr Gabe
The second piece of corroboration comes from The New York Herald dated November 10th and is a quote from Dr Gabe who also attended the crime scene while the body was still in situ:
“The nose and ears were sliced away. The throat was cut from left to right, so that the vertebrae alone prevented a heads manlike severance. Below the neck the trunk suggested a sheep's carcass in a slaughter house. Ribs and backbone were exposed and the stomach, entrails, heart and liver had been cut out and carefully placed beside the mutilated trunk

I am sure the New York Herald didnt send a reporter all the way from NY

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Lets cut crap out and lets finish what is becoming a boring and repetive topic by you posting the evidence other than Bonds ambiguos statement that proves beyond a doubt that the killer took Kelly`s heart, and cut the crap snide remarks they are cheap and unwarranted

www.trevormarriott.co.u

No. I’m not eliminating Bond’s statement. He said the heart was absent. He listed the other organs. He didn’t mention the heart. At the very least this strongly implies that the heart was gone. You’re not chopping out pieces of inconvenience evidence to suit.

To be honest I’m long past tired (as 100’s of others have been over the years) of banging my head against a brick wall in trying to explain the obvious to you Trevor. It’s impossible to have a proper discussion with you because you are absolutely shot through with bias. You just come up with a theory and then you just don’t care how many embarrassing, poorly thought out things that you have to keep saying to try and prop it up. Look around you Trevor. That no one agrees with you, at the very least, should give you pause for thought that you might just be wrong but it never does. You have the blinkers on and you just keep ploughing on. Ignoring questions, changing the subject, torturing logic and reason.

The killer took body parts from Chapman and Eddowes with 100% certainty. And from Kelly with 90% certainty. Organ thieves had nothing to do with it because if they had taken body parts before the body was given a post mortem it would have been stupidity of a level that cannot be remotely reasonably suggested.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You have the cheek to say i am cherrypicking thats rich coming from you

Dr Gabe
The second piece of corroboration comes from The New York Herald dated November 10th and is a quote from Dr Gabe who also attended the crime scene while the body was still in situ:
“The nose and ears were sliced away. The throat was cut from left to right, so that the vertebrae alone prevented a heads manlike severance. Below the neck the trunk suggested a sheep's carcass in a slaughter house. Ribs and backbone were exposed and the stomach, entrails, heart and liver had been cut out and carefully placed beside the mutilated trunk

I am sure the New York Herald didnt send a reporter all the way from NY

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I never suggested that they did. Only that it was an American newspaper. Or are you now going to argue that New York wasn’t in America in 1888?

[Patrick Differ]

The body dealers who were operating in Victorian London at the time of the murders must have had some basic medical training to be able to facilitate the removal of organs from dead bodies as how elese was the trade in bodies and boy parts allowed to flourish?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor I dont read the history as body parts as much as entire bodies. The demand in the medical community was high and there were plenty of unclaimed bodies from workhouses and asylums. The Asylums had to perform post mortems only if the families requested it. There was profit in snatching bodies and was obviously well funded by the Upper Classes for future cures. Were Surgeons and med students in the loop? I think they were the recipients of whole cadavers and the requirement for parts only did not seem necessary. Im not an expert but looking at it logically i see no incentive for assistants to remove parts without a market. With a Ripper victim sitting in the Morgue my guess would be it would make zero sense to pick a kidney for removal. I would also think seeing the body of Eddowes in a mutilated state would cause a level of shock. Jack the Ripper.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’ve just re-read the much mentioned Professor Hurren’s article which appears to be the inspiration behind Trevor’s theory. So a brief (ish) summing up for those that haven’t read it (which appears to include Trevor)



At the start of her piece Professor Hurren points out the link that the victims had to Dorset Street which she sees as important and that it indicates that there was something about Dorset Street itself that was important to the ripper. Then she asks how the ripper managed to blend in with the surroundings. She concludes that the killer had the resources to maintain a disguise, or to be hidden by someone or earned money in such a way that it provided him with a cover story. She then describes the area and the methods of those who were forced into prostitution.

She then discusses the Medical Act (1858) and the extension of that Act in 1885. These set into law the anatomical training that doctors, surgeons, midwives etc had to undertake in order to enter their professions. This naturally involved dissection which led to the rise to a network of body dealers to supply the required number of cadavers. She then mentioned the Anatomy Act which stated that those who died in poverty in Poor Law institutions, and whose families couldn’t afford a funeral, had to repay their debt to society on the dissecting table. The network of body dealers was forced to expand in time though due to better diets, better sanitation and improvements in the treatment of disease etc. Body dealers bought bodies found dead in the street after they were taken to a nearby pub where the deal was made. They purchased bodies at the back doors of doss houses, brothels, night refuges, infirmaries and even convents (including women that died during failed abortions.) By 1888 the dissection records at St Bart’s record a body deal every night in the East End. They would eventually be buried in large public graves. The Professor suggests that if the ripper had medical knowledge then this environment would have provided cover for him.

According to Prof H, the body dealing business relied on a complex human supply chain and cash payments. She gives an example that an undertaker might have someone at the local mortuary or a dead house connected to a workhouse in his pay. Or a Porter or a nurse. For a payment these would inform him when there was a body. It’s also the case that amputated limbs were sold. Records were kept at the hospitals to satisfy a coroner, should there be an inquiry, that no foul play had occurred. It was legal to supply a body for dissection but it was illegal to personally profit from the sale.

She also says that body dealers were often sympathetic figures in the East End and so if the ripper was using the body dealing business as a cover he’d have had to have communicated sympathetically with people, just as he might have with his victims. Unfortunately she then states the body dealers often dressed in black and carried medical bags which she says were descriptions provided by some witnesses!

She then points out the likeliness that the killer had medical knowledge but her next point isn’t a good one:

“Yet crime historiography seldom discusses the possibility that a woman made the first initial approach, not a man. This would explain a lack of circumspection in all the cases.”

The “lack of circumspection” can surely be better explained by sheer financial desperation. It’s a little worrying that Professor Hurren doesn’t seem to get this obvious point. What she then suggests is that the killer might have had a female accomplice making the initial approach. She suggests Mary Jane Kelly although for some reason she calls her Mary Ann Kelly. She then calls her: “the fifth iconic victim.” Surely she meant ‘canonical’?

The professor then brings up the 1915 comment from a novice at a convent recalling an older nun saying: “If it had not been for the Kelly woman none of the murders would have happened”. Following on from this she makes her suggestion that Mary Kelly might have been connected to the body dealing trade. She even suggests that the barrows kept by McCarthy might have been used.

I’m not going to bother discussing the last few paragraphs of this because everyone will get the gist.


She does mention: "Trafficking in bodies and body parts to teach human anatomy to medical students was the norm in the East End of London in 1888" butreading through her article it appears that when she talks of body parts she’s talking about amputated limbs.

Through all of this she talks about ‘body dealers’ and not the ‘organ thieves’ that Trevor describes. Nowhere in this particular article does she talk about people stealing organs from bodies in mortuaries; or anywhere else for that matter. Maybe she does in other articles?



Question - I have to ask Trevor, is there any documented evidence anywhere of people specifically getting into mortuaries and removing organs and not the body as a whole?


It’s also noticeable that Professor Hurren says:

“Forensic evidence suggests that the murderer grabbed the women, cut their throats, and then eased the dying victim onto the street. In this way, they attracted as little attention as possible to the crime. It is noteworthy that fluids drained away fast, generally behind the victim’s head. They may have been attacked from the front but the body was then placed back carefully on the ground or bed. Blood thus gushed out of the body from the neck area but did not spill onto the torso. The murderer was then free to dissect the corpse cleanly : a valued anatomical skill in an era when preservation techniques were crude. Each torso was also opened from the neck to the navel. In a frenzied but highly skilled attack the womb was cut open above the upper vagina area. This exposed the pectoral muscles. The organs were taken out undamaged, including the womb itself.“


So even the person that Trevor uses as the basis for his theory believes that the killer took organs.

[Trevor Marriott]

I’ve just re-read the much mentioned Professor Hurren’s article which appears to be the inspiration behind Trevor’s theory. So a brief (ish) summing up for those that haven’t read it (which appears to include Trevor)



At the start of her piece Professor Hurren points out the link that the victims had to Dorset Street which she sees as important and that it indicates that there was something about Dorset Street itself that was important to the ripper. Then she asks how the ripper managed to blend in with the surroundings. She concludes that the killer had the resources to maintain a disguise, or to be hidden by someone or earned money in such a way that it provided him with a cover story. She then describes the area and the methods of those who were forced into prostitution.

She then discusses the Medical Act (1858) and the extension of that Act in 1885. These set into law the anatomical training that doctors, surgeons, midwives etc had to undertake in order to enter their professions. This naturally involved dissection which led to the rise to a network of body dealers to supply the required number of cadavers. She then mentioned the Anatomy Act which stated that those who died in poverty in Poor Law institutions, and whose families couldn’t afford a funeral, had to repay their debt to society on the dissecting table. The network of body dealers was forced to expand in time though due to better diets, better sanitation and improvements in the treatment of disease etc. Body dealers bought bodies found dead in the street after they were taken to a nearby pub where the deal was made. They purchased bodies at the back doors of doss houses, brothels, night refuges, infirmaries and even convents (including women that died during failed abortions.) By 1888 the dissection records at St Bart’s record a body deal every night in the East End. They would eventually be buried in large public graves. The Professor suggests that if the ripper had medical knowledge then this environment would have provided cover for him.

According to Prof H, the body dealing business relied on a complex human supply chain and cash payments. She gives an example that an undertaker might have someone at the local mortuary or a dead house connected to a workhouse in his pay. Or a Porter or a nurse. For a payment these would inform him when there was a body. It’s also the case that amputated limbs were sold. Records were kept at the hospitals to satisfy a coroner, should there be an inquiry, that no foul play had occurred. It was legal to supply a body for dissection but it was illegal to personally profit from the sale.

She also says that body dealers were often sympathetic figures in the East End and so if the ripper was using the body dealing business as a cover he’d have had to have communicated sympathetically with people, just as he might have with his victims. Unfortunately she then states the body dealers often dressed in black and carried medical bags which she says were descriptions provided by some witnesses!

She then points out the likeliness that the killer had medical knowledge but her next point isn’t a good one:

“Yet crime historiography seldom discusses the possibility that a woman made the first initial approach, not a man. This would explain a lack of circumspection in all the cases.”

The “lack of circumspection” can surely be better explained by sheer financial desperation. It’s a little worrying that Professor Hurren doesn’t seem to get this obvious point. What she then suggests is that the killer might have had a female accomplice making the initial approach. She suggests Mary Jane Kelly although for some reason she calls her Mary Ann Kelly. She then calls her: “the fifth iconic victim.” Surely she meant ‘canonical’?

The professor then brings up the 1915 comment from a novice at a convent recalling an older nun saying: “If it had not been for the Kelly woman none of the murders would have happened”. Following on from this she makes her suggestion that Mary Kelly might have been connected to the body dealing trade. She even suggests that the barrows kept by McCarthy might have been used.

I’m not going to bother discussing the last few paragraphs of this because everyone will get the gist.


She does mention: "Trafficking in bodies and body parts to teach human anatomy to medical students was the norm in the East End of London in 1888" butreading through her article it appears that when she talks of body parts she’s talking about amputated limbs.

Female reproductive organs were highly sought after by teaching hospitals

Through all of this she talks about ‘body dealers’ and not the ‘organ thieves’ that Trevor describes. Nowhere in this particular article does she talk about people stealing organs from bodies in mortuaries; or anywhere else for that matter. Maybe she does in other articles?

Surely a body dealer has to employ someone I never use the term body thieves if corrupt mortuary attendants who were clearly involved in this body/body parts operation as we know they were

Question - I have to ask Trevor, is there any documented evidence anywhere of people specifically getting into mortuaries and removing organs and not the body as a whole?

She highlights the fact that mortuary staff were involved and as no one was ever prosecuted to my knowledge that question is unanswerable

It’s also noticeable that Professor Hurren says:

“Forensic evidence suggests that the murderer grabbed the women, cut their throats, and then eased the dying victim onto the street. In this way, they attracted as little attention as possible to the crime. It is noteworthy that fluids drained away fast, generally behind the victim’s head. They may have been attacked from the front but the body was then placed back carefully on the ground or bed. Blood thus gushed out of the body from the neck area but did not spill onto the torso. The murderer was then free to dissect the corpse cleanly : a valued anatomical skill in an era when preservation techniques were crude. Each torso was also opened from the neck to the navel. In a frenzied but highly skilled attack the womb was cut open above the upper vagina area. This exposed the pectoral muscles. The organs were taken out undamaged, including the womb itself.“

So even the person that Trevor uses as the basis for his theory believes that the killer took organs.

Nice try Herlock but Prof Hurren is not a medical expert and I can assure you that in her books on Victorian body dealers she does give examples of bodies and body parts being acquired by body dealers from mortuaries

She has not done enough research into the Whitechapel murders because, as you know, that was not the case with Eddowes her uterus was damaged in its removal

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Nice try Herlock but Prof Hurren is not a medical expert and I can assure you that in her books on Victorian body dealers she does give examples of bodies and body parts being acquired by body dealers from mortuaries

She has not done enough research into the Whitechapel murders because, as you know, that was not the case with Eddowes her uterus was damaged in its removal

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Can you provide the evidence with a quote or two?

[GBinOz]

The professor then brings up the 1915 comment from a novice at a convent recalling an older nun saying: “If it had not been for the Kelly woman none of the murders would have happened”.

Interesting comment that would seem to lend some support to the theory that Barnett killed the other women to discourage Kelly from going back onto the streets, not that I subscribe to said theory.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Interesting comment that would seem to lend some support to the theory that Barnett killed the other women to discourage Kelly from going back onto the streets, not that I subscribe to said theory.

It was in the 1973 Barlow and Watt Jack the Ripper programme which is an enjoyable series if you haven’t seen it George.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Nice try Herlock but Prof Hurren is not a medical expert and I can assure you that in her books on Victorian body dealers she does give examples of bodies and body parts being acquired by body dealers from mortuaries

She has not done enough research into the Whitechapel murders because, as you know, that was not the case with Eddowes her uterus was damaged in its removal

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

As it was just after midnight when I asked you for some evidence (in terms of quotes) and it’s now only 9.30(ish) am so I’ll of course give you more time.

Everyone will have noticed that all through these discussions I have never doubted your statement that there were organ thieves who did things like get into mortuaries and take organs from corpses. I took you at your word and never had cause to doubt the suggestion. I’ll stress here that I’m still not, at this point, stating that you are inventing anything or that you have made a mistaken assumption but after my re-read of Professor Hurren’s article it struck me (as it should have done sooner) that she never uses the phrase ‘organ thief.’ She always talks of ‘body dealers’ and nowhere, when describing the trade, does she ever mention people stealing specific organs. Obviously she might have mentioned organ thieves in her other books/articles, some of which you have read and possibly own (I haven’t bought any of her books due to the ridiculously high price) This why I asked for a bit of evidence from these books/articles. As I have only heard her mention those that stole/sold/bought bodies, but I did see a mention of mortuaries and people who work there (although not connected to organ theft) I wondered if you had mistakenly conflated the two to arrive at organ theft from mortuaries? So documented clarification would be helpful on this point.

A couple of follow on points that I wanted to make (and that I should have made a long time ago) is that organs equalled cash so I have to ask why, if our organ thieves were there in the mortuary knives at the ready, did they confine themselves to just 2 organs? Why not take the liver, the spleen, the lungs, the heart? It’s like a thief breaking into a shop and finding £1000 in the safe but only making off with £200. It makes no sense. You ask about ‘different methods’ and I’ve answered so I’d like you answer on this one - why the hell, when he would have had ample time, opportunity and a serious motive didn’t he fill his sack full of organs? Surely you won’t claim that there was only a trade in kidneys and uteri?

Surely the notion of ‘body theft’ makes far more sense than the suggestion of removing individual organs? And we know for a fact that body dealers existed.

[Trevor Marriott]

As it was just after midnight when I asked you for some evidence (in terms of quotes) and it’s now only 9.30(ish) am so I’ll of course give you more time.

Everyone will have noticed that all through these discussions I have never doubted your statement that there were organ thieves who did things like get into mortuaries and take organs from corpses. I took you at your word and never had cause to doubt the suggestion. I’ll stress here that I’m still not, at this point, stating that you are inventing anything or that you have made a mistaken assumption but after my re-read of Professor Hurren’s article it struck me (as it should have done sooner) that she never uses the phrase ‘organ thief.’ She always talks of ‘body dealers’ and nowhere, when describing the trade, does she ever mention people stealing specific organs. Obviously she might have mentioned organ thieves in her other books/articles, some of which you have read and possibly own (I haven’t bought any of her books due to the ridiculously high price) This why I asked for a bit of evidence from these books/articles. As I have only heard her mention those that stole/sold/bought bodies, but I did see a mention of mortuaries and people who work there (although not connected to organ theft) I wondered if you had mistakenly conflated the two to arrive at organ theft from mortuaries? So documented clarification would be helpful on this point.

A couple of follow on points that I wanted to make (and that I should have made a long time ago) is that organs equalled cash so I have to ask why, if our organ thieves were there in the mortuary knives at the ready, did they confine themselves to just 2 organs? Why not take the liver, the spleen, the lungs, the heart? It’s like a thief breaking into a shop and finding £1000 in the safe but only making off with £200. It makes no sense. You ask about ‘different methods’ and I’ve answered so I’d like you answer on this one - why the hell, when he would have had ample time, opportunity and a serious motive didn’t he fill his sack full of organs? Surely you won’t claim that there was only a trade in kidneys and uteri?

Surely the notion of ‘body theft’ makes far more sense than the suggestion of removing individual organs? And we know for a fact that body dealers existed.

I think when the doctors came to do the post mortems they would have noticed the bodies of Chapman and the others bodies missing

I only have one final thing to say on the topic, and that is the killer did not take the heart. There is ample evidence to support this.

That being the case it brings into question as to whether the killer did remove the organs from the other victims, when with Kelly he had the time and opportunity to remove and take away any number of internal organs,and the fact that there was no attempt to remove organs from some of the other victims

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Doctored Whatsit]

I only have one final thing to say on the topic, and that is the killer did not take the heart. There is ample evidence to support this.

That being the case it brings into question as to whether the killer did remove the organs from the other victims, when with Kelly he had the time and opportunity to remove and take away any number of internal organs,and the fact that there was no attempt to remove organs from some of the other victims[/B]

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I think that it is really time to point out that this thread is about the kidney removal of Catherine Eddowes, and the continuing comments about Kelly's heart are irrelevant, and at best somewhat desperate.

The report by Dr Bond is an official document which sets out for all time the exact details of the murder scene. This was his job, and he was an experienced police surgeon. He wrote that "the pericardium was open below and the heart absent". As an absolute minimum that can only mean that the heart was not where it should have been. He details meticulously and thoroughly the complete details of where other various removed body parts were to be found. None of these were where they should have been, but none were said to be "absent". Therefore, when he doesn't mention that the heart was found anywhere in the room, we realise that "absent" can only mean "not there."

Dr Bond's official report should be the only source of information as to where body parts were or weren't to be found. There is no other official report saying otherwise. This therefore easily outweighs any newspaper gossip, rumour, speculation or opinion, and massively trumps the recolections of Inspector Reid, made many years later, and which are inaccurate and therefore clearly unreliable.

So, at the risk of annoying some people, I maintain that the only reliable evidence of the whereabouts of Kelly's heart were made by Dr Bond, so let's get back to the subject of this thread, please.

If anyone wants to continue the debate about Kelly's heart, may I suggest they open a new thread entitled "When Dr Bond said Kelly's heart was absent, he really meant that it was there, but he didn't notice it."