The kidney removal of Catherine Eddowes.

[Trevor Marriott]

If you can’t understand my point then there’s nothing I can do. I can’t make it any simpler than I already have.

IF Reid is to be believed - yes of course you believe him because it suits you to do so. The doctor didn’t mention finding the heart in the room - he mentions the other organs though - therefore the heart wasn’t in the room. More simplicity that you appear to have problems grasping.

The doctor states that the heart was missing from the pericardium there is no evidence to show it was taken away. It doesn't suit me to believe Reid he was there its what the evidence tells me. Which you seem to dont want to accept

I’m not going to persist in making things simple and simpler and simpler just so that you can understand them Trevor. There’s a limit and I’ve passed it. You should ask someone else to explain it to you.

And I have reached my patience limit with you so its best we ignore any future contact on this topic to avoid any further hostilities

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Patrick Differ]

When you compare female anatomy (picture), to the Doctors narratives it becomes clear that the killer was not working like a trained surgeon based on procedures for removing organs. There was collateral damage to organs surrounding the kidney- liver, spleen, stomach , aorta. Slices and stab wounds. in addition to the intestines. The killer was indeed ripping and probing. Having successfully removed the Uterus from Chapman and then Eddowes in 2 different lighting environments, it appears that he was able to remove the kidney by feel that is evidenced by the collateral damage described in the post mortem. It is likely he learned in better light and much more time with Chapman.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You are not making any sense and you keep repeating yourself. You are clutching at straws in a feeble attempt to justify your belief that the killer took the organs,

I mention the murder of kelly where the killer had the chance to take countless internal organs but if Insp Reid is to be believed and I have no reason to doubt his word, the killer took no organs how do you explain that?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

If you can’t understand my point then there’s nothing I can do. I can’t make it any simpler than I already have.

IF Reid is to be believed - yes of course you believe him because it suits you to do so. The doctor didn’t mention finding the heart in the room - he mentions the other organs though - therefore the heart wasn’t in the room. More simplicity that you appear to have problems grasping.

I’m not going to persist in making things simple and simpler and simpler just so that you can understand them Trevor. There’s a limit and I’ve passed it. You should ask someone else to explain it to you.

[Trevor Marriott]

You’re doing your usual Trevor - you are not understanding the point being made and you are becoming irate because you think that this is down to me!

I know why organs are taken. I know that they are used for dissection and research but please read the following part..

IT CAN HAVE MADE ZERO DIFFERENCE TO THESE THIEVES WHETHER THEY GOT THEIR ORGANS DURING THE DAY OR DURING THE EVENING - THEY WOULDN'T HAVE THROWN CAUTION TO THE WIND AND MADE THE JOB MORE DIFFICULT AND MASSIVELY MORE RISKY JUST FOR THE SAKE OF ACQUIRING THOSE PARTS A VERY FEW HOURS EARLIER.

IT MAKES NO SENSE TREVOR.

You are not making any sense and you keep repeating yourself. You are clutching at straws in a feeble attempt to justify your belief that the killer took the organs,

I mention the murder of kelly where the killer had the chance to take countless internal organs but if Insp Reid is to be believed and I have no reason to doubt his word, the killer took no organs how do you explain that?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

It makes perfect sense as I said in a previous post at a post mortem when organs are removed they are dissected. How do you think they identified brights disease in Eddowes?

You clearly have no idea as to how body dealers obtained organs from mortuaries,

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You’re doing your usual Trevor - you are not understanding the point being made and you are becoming irate because you think that this is down to me!

I know why organs are taken. I know that they are used for dissection and research but please read the following part..

IT CAN HAVE MADE ZERO DIFFERENCE TO THESE THIEVES WHETHER THEY GOT THEIR ORGANS DURING THE DAY OR DURING THE EVENING - THEY WOULDN'T HAVE THROWN CAUTION TO THE WIND AND MADE THE JOB MORE DIFFICULT AND MASSIVELY MORE RISKY JUST FOR THE SAKE OF ACQUIRING THOSE PARTS A VERY FEW HOURS EARLIER.

IT MAKES NO SENSE TREVOR.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If you want to know more about the activities of Victorian Body dealers Elizabeth Hurren a lecturer at Leicester is an expert and she has published several books on the topic and she confirms what I have said as to how mortuary attendants were actively engaged with body dealers in acquiring not only organs but in some case whole bodies

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The problem is that there is nothing online to read in full. To read her ‘Dissecting JtR…” I’d need to contact her directly. She’d probably want paying.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

A quote from Prosector:

In November 1888 the first appendicectomy in Britain was yet to be performed. Very, very few surgeons had much experience of abdominal surgery. An average surgeon would probably only do a few hysterectomies in their entire career (and most of those by the vaginal rather than the abdominal route).

It's all very well to talk about the best way of taking out a kidney - from the front or the back. In 1888 no-one took out kidneys from living patients. It was only done in the dissecting room or the mortuary.

While I don't dispute your statement, I would point out that most of the doctors from the time had very little experience upon which to base such an opinion.

What sways my opinion slightly towards the probability that the organs were taken by Jack is the preparatory procedures. The mobilisation of the intestines and the removal of the descending colon to gain better access to the organs seems to indicate an intention to remove those organs. However, the modern opinion of experts with vast experience (not present in doctors of the time) suggests to me that either Jack had extensive experience in the dissecting room and/or a longer than estimated time to conduct his operations.

IMO Trevor presents a plausible alternative not deserving of blanket dismissal.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

I wouldn’t dispute the point that you’re making (from Prosector’s info) but we will have to agree to disagree on Trevor’s theory. I just don’t think it’s particularly plausible. Im not suggesting that it’s a stupid theory, Trevor is simply providing a possible explanation of what might have been the explanation if the killer couldn’t have done what was done in the time and conditions available. What I question is a) Trevor’s usual over-confidence and b) that the alternative is hugely more likely.

[Trevor Marriott]

The fact that they didn’t open up abdomens before a PM proves my point Trevor. That would have been how organ thieves operated. After the PM - so that no organs would be missed by prying eyes and that there would have been no need for open up abdomens and under the cover of darkness.

But what you are suggesting is that just because Eddowes abdomen was already opened the organ thief totally ignored the risk of organs being missed at the PM and the risks of working during the daytime which including the huge risk of interruption.

The financial rewards far outweighed the risk

How does this make sense Trevor? Why were they in so much of a rush that they couldn’t wait until after the PM? There is no logical explanation.

It makes perfect sense as I said in a previous post at a post mortem when organs are removed they are dissected. How do you think they identified brights disease in Eddowes?

You clearly have no idea as to how body dealers obtained organs from mortuaries,

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have never suggested that there were lookouts it would be easy for a mortuary attendant to allow access to a body dealer or someone acting of their behalf

My apologies Trevor. It was George and not yourself.

If you want to know more about the activities of Victorian Body dealers Elizabeth Hurren a lecturer at Leicester is an expert and she has published several books on the topic and she confirms what I have said as to how mortuary attendants were actively engaged with body dealers in acquiring not only organs but in some case whole bodies

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Thanks for that. I’ve never doubted that the trade existed though.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock - Which proves that organ thieves would have worked after the post mortem and not before. How could they have continued unnoticed if they went around opening up abdomens before the PM. The mortuary attendant could hardly have blamed mice.

Trevor - But they didn't go around opening up abdomens that's the whole point the opportunity presented itself because the abdomen on Chapman and Eddowes were ripped open exposing the internal organs

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

.

The fact that they didn’t open up abdomens before a PM proves my point Trevor. That would have been how organ thieves operated. After the PM - so that no organs would be missed by prying eyes and that there would have been no need for open up abdomens and under the cover of darkness.

But what you are suggesting is that just because Eddowes abdomen was already opened the organ thief totally ignored the risk of organs being missed at the PM and the risks of working during the daytime which including the huge risk of interruption.

How does this make sense Trevor? Why were they in so much of a rush that they couldn’t wait until after the PM? There is no logical explanation.

[GBinOz]

I have never suggested that there were lookouts it would be easy for a mortuary attendant to allow access to a body dealer or someone acting of their behalf

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Apologies Trevor. I presumed to make some suggestions to Herlock's post addressed to you. You did not suggest lookouts, I did.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

The Doctor’s at the time clearly felt that the killer had sufficient time and of all of the millions of people of all professions and trades that read about these events in their newspapers I’m unaware of a single doctor or surgeon who stood up and said “..hold on, this was impossible.”

Hi Herlock,

A quote from Prosector:

In November 1888 the first appendicectomy in Britain was yet to be performed. Very, very few surgeons had much experience of abdominal surgery. An average surgeon would probably only do a few hysterectomies in their entire career (and most of those by the vaginal rather than the abdominal route).

It's all very well to talk about the best way of taking out a kidney - from the front or the back. In 1888 no-one took out kidneys from living patients. It was only done in the dissecting room or the mortuary.

While I don't dispute your statement, I would point out that most of the doctors from the time had very little experience upon which to base such an opinion.

What sways my opinion slightly towards the probability that the organs were taken by Jack is the preparatory procedures. The mobilisation of the intestines and the removal of the descending colon to gain better access to the organs seems to indicate an intention to remove those organs. However, the modern opinion of experts with vast experience (not present in doctors of the time) suggests to me that either Jack had extensive experience in the dissecting room and/or a longer than estimated time to conduct his operations.

IMO Trevor presents a plausible alternative not deserving of blanket dismissal.

Cheers, George

[Trevor Marriott]

It’s strange that you should dismiss my suggestions by using the word ‘conjecture’ which means to: “form an opinion or supposition about (something) on the basis of incomplete information.” So basically it’s what we all do every day, including you, when discussing this case. Your theory is a piece of conjecture because you cannot know all of the facts.

…….

Then you suggest that the timings I have given to Lawende and Levy were wrong but they aren’t:

Lawende - “I have no doubt it was half-past one o'clock when we rose to leave the club, so that it would be twenty-five minutes to two o'clock when we passed the man and woman.”

Levy - “We got up to leave at half-past one on Sunday morning, and came out three or four minutes later.”

Lawende had a watch but it was synchronised to the clock in the club so if the clock in the club was out…

……

Then you make a point about the time that the couple entered Mitre Square (which we’ve gone over umpteen times in the past) I agree 100% that we can’t say for certain that the couple seen by the three men were Eddowes and her killer and, as the men didn’t look back, we have no idea how soon after they had passed that the two (if they were Eddowes and her killer) entered the square. But none of that is relevant is it Trevor because we aren’t trying to establish an exact time because we know that would be an impossible task. All that we are attempting to establish here is the earliest time that they could have entered Mitre Square to give us an idea of the maximum time available to the killer. If we can establish that the killer ‘might’ have had 10 minutes or even a little longer then to promote your theory you would have to provide proof that this length of time certainly wasn’t long enough.

The Doctor’s at the time clearly felt that the killer had sufficient time and of all of the millions of people of all professions and trades that read about these events in their newspapers I’m unaware of a single doctor or surgeon who stood up and said “..hold on, this was impossible.” We have the opinions of some modern day experts who have to be given due respect of course. I can’t recall the exact words used by the experts that you have quoted in the past but I seem to recall some uncertainty. It’s also the case (as I’m sure George would confirm from the JFK assassination) that we can get major disagreements between various experts on various subjects. There’s no doubt that Doctors today know more and employ improved techniques and better equipment but Doctors in the Victorian era knew how to remove an organ using a knife and they would have had an idea of how long these things would have taken.

So we appear to be far from having a consensus on whether the killer could have done what he did and we have to now consider that experts expressing doubts were probably basing their opinions around a period of time that was less than the killer actually had. In some cases it might even be possible that the killer actually had double the time available. For example, I’ve heard people cite 5 minutes and yet it might have been 10.

……

You keep stating the existence of organ thieves as if this amounts to proof. Really? I own a certain book. I can’t find it despite looking for it over the weekend. Thieves exist. So should I assume that thieves have stolen my book? Or is it more likely somewhere in the house where I haven’t looked yet?

……

Suggestions of organ thieves using lookouts and ‘in on it’ mortuary workers knowing when the coast was clear are strangely weak points in this instance Trevor. Firstly, even a mortuary worker, couldn’t have known if a detective or a doctor would simply show up unannounced. And if a lookout saw a doctors carriage pull up at the door of the mortuary he wouldn’t have been much help to his pal Dr. Frankenstein inside. But this is THE point Trevor, all these risks would have been avoided by organ thieves operating at night and after the post mortem. You are assuming stupidity on their parts.

……

Do you still have access to that piece on organ thieves that you used previously Trevor? I believe that there was only one?

I have never suggested that there were lookouts it would be easy for a mortuary attendant to allow access to a body dealer or someone acting of their behalf

If you want to know more about the activities of Victorian Body dealers Elizabeth Hurren a lecturer at Leicester is an expert and she has published several books on the topic and she confirms what I have said as to how mortuary attendants were actively engaged with body dealers in acquiring not only organs but in some case whole bodies

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Which proves that organ thieves would have worked after the post mortem and not before. How could they have continued unnoticed if they went around opening up abdomens before the PM. The mortuary attendant could hardly have blamed mice.

But they didn't go around opening up abdomens that's the whole point the opportunity presented itself because the abdomen on Chapman and Eddowes were ripped open exposing the internal organs

This pretty much eliminates your theory Trevor. Organ theft HAD to have taken place after the post mortem. So what possible reason could there have been that this organ thief was so desperate that he went in during the day and before a post mortem?

Well during a post mortem organs are taken out and dissected, after the post mortem if that happened the organs would have been of no use and of no value

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor, thanks. Do you think they would be that bothered about setting off alarm bells? I mean what they were doing was illegal. Something is either illegal or not so breaking another rule surely would not make any difference to them. After all if they were stealing the organs for cash would cutting open a dead woman be much of a bind for them. Surely they would not pass up the opportunity.

Was anything missing from Tabram? Or Nichols? Surely the docs at the scene would know about Chapman and maybe Eddowes if anything was missing in situ. All of Mary apart from her heart was accounted for at the scene so no theft there...

You are missing the point, no organs could have been taken from Stride and some of the other victims simply because the doctor saw what injuries had been inflicted on their abdomens and those injuries did not entail the abdomen being ripped open so with that in mind it would not have been possible for any organs to be removed before the post mortem and be attributed to the killer without the alarm bells sounding.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk