The kidney removal of Catherine Eddowes.

[Patrick Differ]

We are talking 1888 here, surely the organs would have just been ripped out when the animal was slaughtered and hung upside I dont think it would take a great deal of skill to do that

In the UK, kosher butchers (also known as shochets) do not require a specific license to slaughter animals for kosher consumption.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Not true Trevor. There was a Board of Shechita that consisted of the 5 Kosher Butchers on Butchers Row and overseen by Rabbi Adler. They took this very seriously in 1888.

[Doctored Whatsit]

The problem with the continuing suggestion that JtR was a shochet is, I believe, that the knife they traditionally used had a flat straight tip. The standard British butcher/slaughterer used a sticking knife, 6 to 8 inches long, and pointed. This is the weapon described by police surgeons as being expertly wielded by the ripper.

[Patrick Differ]

The problem with the continuing suggestion that JtR was a shochet is, I believe, that the knife they traditionally used had a flat straight tip. The standard British butcher/slaughterer used a sticking knife, 6 to 8 inches long, and pointed. This is the weapon described by police surgeons as being expertly wielded by the ripper.

Hi Doc..the shochet could do all of it as they taught all of it. The flat knife or chalaf would not have been used and i agree on the sticking knife. The shochet taught other butchers how and why they needed to keep their tools constantly sharp. It was an integral part of the profession and kosher process.
My suggestion is that this butcher was not a shochet but still a kosher butcher.

That said a Shochet has never surfaced in 136 years. The only Kosher Butcher that has so far surfaced is Jacob Levy. He got progressively more psychotic starting in 1886 and upon his release in 1887 was living in humiliation. By 1890 he was readmitted.

Was Levy the Ripper or was it someone like him living in the same area? Are those records still in existence or sitting in an asylum somewhere? Who knows.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi Doc..the shochet could do all of it as they taught all of it. The flat knife or chalaf would not have been used and i agree on the sticking knife. The shochet taught other butchers how and why they needed to keep their tools constantly sharp. It was an integral part of the profession and kosher process.
My suggestion is that this butcher was not a shochet but still a kosher butcher.

That said a Shochet has never surfaced in 136 years. The only Kosher Butcher that has so far surfaced is Jacob Levy. He got progressively more psychotic starting in 1886 and upon his release in 1887 was living in humiliation. By 1890 he was readmitted.

Was Levy the Ripper or was it someone like him living in the same area? Are those records still in existence or sitting in an asylum somewhere? Who knows.

If you agree on the use of a sticking knife, why is it still a kosher butcher that is your suspect? If it was a sticking knife, and I believe that was the police surgeons' opinion, all we have is the suggestion that JtR was an experienced butcher/slaughterer.

[Trevor Marriott]

It was simply an opinion with no evidence to support that opinion. They had to say something to explain away the missing organs; they could hardly go public with the fact that the organs could have been taken while the bodies were left for long periods of time before the post-mortems. The public would have been up in arms

and one question I keep asking, which posters seem not to want to answer, is if it was the same killer for Eddowes and Chapman, why do we see clear anatomical skill being used to remove the uterus and its appendages from Chapman and less anatomical skill shown in the removal of the organs from Eddowes?

The bodies were taken to 2 different mortuaries, and a modern-day gynaecologist has gone over the post-mortem reports and has indicated that two different methods of extraction were used in the removal of the uteri from both victims.

And why, if the killer was organ collecting, why take another uterus from Eddowes when he had a perfect specimen from Chapman?

This butcher theory is a dead duck in my opinion.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

It was simply an opinion with no evidence to support that opinion. They had to say something to explain away the missing organs; they could hardly go public with the fact that the organs could have been taken while the bodies were left for long periods of time before the post-mortems. The public would have been up in arms

and one question I keep asking, which posters seem not to want to answer, is if it was the same killer for Eddowes and Chapman, why do we see clear anatomical skill being used to remove the uterus and its appendages from Chapman and less anatomical skill shown in the removal of the organs from Eddowes?

The bodies were taken to 2 different mortuaries, and a modern-day gynaecologist has gone over the post-mortem reports and has indicated that two different methods of extraction were used in the removal of the uteri from both victims.

And why, if the killer was organ collecting, why take another uterus from Eddowes when he had a perfect specimen from Chapman?

This butcher theory is a dead duck in my opinion.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And I’ve asked you for the evidence you claimed to have seen of ‘organ thieves’ stealing body parts from mortuaries. Professor Hurren, who you are fond of quoting, only talks about ‘body dealers’ in the article that you refer to. I have found no evidence for the existence of people stealing organs from mortuaries. If you can’t provide the evidence that you claimed to have then everyone on here can only draw one conclusion. That there was no such thing. There may have been such a thing but no one can or should accept the existence of something without a smidgeon of evidence or simply on the word of someone that has a theory to prop up.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This butcher theory is a dead duck in my opinion.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I’ll give you one bit of credit Trevor. You have the hide of a rhinoceros. No matter how many times your theories are disproven and exposed you always do the same thing. You disappear for a time then return and hope that everyone will forget how badly your theory has been mauled.

If anyone stole organs (as opposed to taking whole bodies - as per Professor Hurren) their procedure would have had to have been (and I do mean had to have been) to remove them after a Post Mortem. I’ll explain the obvious yet again - a body comes in of a man who might have been poisoned - ‘organ thieves’ do their thing - PM doctors arrive and pull back the sheet “why has this man got an opened abdomen?” “Looks like those pesky ‘organ thieves’ have been at it again.”

So why would our ‘organ thieves’ taken the humongous risk on these two occasions of removing organs when two doctors had examined the body in Mitre Square and three doctors had examined the body at the mortuary. It would have been impossible for our organ thieves to have known what those doctors had or hadn’t seen. What I mean by that is that they couldn’t possibly have had even the minutest level of confidence that the doctors hadn’t spotted Eddowes uterus in place. So for an organ to have been found missing when it was there earlier would have exposed the ‘organ thieves’ and closed off their profitable sideline at Golden Lane Mortuary. And probably led to the arrest of a dodgy mortuary attendant who would then, to reduce his own punishment, have exposed the ‘organ thieves’ to the police.

And all that they would have had to have done to avoid this huge, dangerous and expensive risk would have been to have waited until after the PM. Try making sense Trevor.

Everyone on here can see this obvious point. You wriggle and turn a blind eye. Under the carpet it goes.

Your theory is a non-starter. It’s why you can’t find a single person to step up and say that they totally agree with you.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And why, if the killer was organ collecting, why take another uterus from Eddowes when he had a perfect specimen from Chapman?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

As I’ve mentioned before…but you ignore the point….why do you assume to know a motive simply to be able to make a point? What if he was ‘collecting?’ Have you abandoned your usual word choice ‘harvesting?’

[Herlock Sholmes]

and one question I keep asking, which posters seem not to want to answer, is if it was the same killer for Eddowes and Chapman, why do we see clear anatomical skill being used to remove the uterus and its appendages from Chapman and less anatomical skill shown in the removal of the organs from Eddowes?

The bodies were taken to 2 different mortuaries, and a modern-day gynaecologist has gone over the post-mortem reports and has indicated that two different methods of extraction were used in the removal of the uteri from both victims.
.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

1. This wasn’t a surgeon following ‘best practice’ with a patients life at risk. This was a madman committing murder.
2. Chapman was murdered and mutilated in a backyard and in broad daylight. Eddowes was killed in darkness, in a poorly lit square, in the open with three entrances/exits where someone could enter at any time. He was under greater pressure to do what he had to do as quickly as possible.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And why, if the killer was organ collecting, why take another uterus from Eddowes when he had a perfect specimen from Chapman?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

If your ‘organ thief’ was stealing organs to sell why did he make do with just a uterus and a kidney. According to you he was in a mortuary with the body on the slab. Why didn’t he take the heart, the liver, a lung or two?

[Herlock Sholmes]

and one question I keep asking, which posters seem not to want to answer, is if it was the same killer for Eddowes and Chapman, why do we see clear anatomical skill being used to remove the uterus and its appendages from Chapman and less anatomical skill shown in the removal of the organs from Eddowes?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Answered in #384.

Perhaps you could answer this one (and change the habits of a lifetime of course)

Dr Brown: “The uterus was cut away with the exception of a small portion, and the left kidney was also cut out.”

How is it that an ‘organ thief’ with the body on a slab couldn’t cut out the uterus properly? Which explains the above better?

a) A man with a body on a slab and in a lit room with little or no chance of being disturbed?

or,

b) A man doing what he did, in darkness, outdoors, wary of being disturbed from three directions?


And Isn’t it interesting that when the coroner asked Brown:

”Would the parts removed be of any use for professional purposes?”


He replied confidently:

”None whatever.”


Which theory is ‘dead and buried’?

23 people who have all researched and read about this case for years voted on whether or not the ripper took organs. Every single one said that your theory is a non-starter. Any reasonable person reading those results would say “well perhaps I’m wrong,” but not you Trevor. Every single point that you have made has been rebutted. You have been repeatedly challenged to provide evidence of a claim that you made but you ‘refuse’ point blank to do so. You have been proven wrong on Dr Phillips being at the mortuary but you have never acknowledged the fact despite the proof being there in black and white. And I, and others, have made numerous valid points against your theory and have you dealt with these points properly? No, you criticise the question, you answer a question that hasn’t been asked, you ignore points, you change the subject, you repeat falsehoods or you persistently make unfounded claims. Roger made a point on the other thread about dealing with people who discuss/debate in bad faith. This is what you do I’m afraid Trevor. I answer questions and respond to points. You duck and weave, dodge and avoid. It’s like trying to remove a slippery kidney.

[Trevor Marriott]

And I’ve asked you for the evidence you claimed to have seen of ‘organ thieves’ stealing body parts from mortuaries. Professor Hurren, who you are fond of quoting, only talks about ‘body dealers’ in the article that you refer to. I have found no evidence for the existence of people stealing organs from mortuaries. If you can’t provide the evidence that you claimed to have then everyone on here can only draw one conclusion. That there was no such thing. There may have been such a thing but no one can or should accept the existence of something without a smidgeon of evidence or simply on the word of someone that has a theory to prop up.

I did wonder how long it would take for you to rejoin this topic, you are so predictable

and Prof Hurren does highlight in her books the fact that there were corrupt mortuary attendants

If you accept that there were body dealers who not only dealt in bodies but also body parts, then would you not think that a mortuary would be a good place to conduct that type of operation?

This theory about butchers and slaughtermen having the skill and knowledge to anatomically remove these organs is really pie-in-the-sky stuff. If you take the Chapman murder, she not only had her uterus removed but the fallopian tubes, which were clearly still attached to the uterus. Now, what butcher or slaughterman would have the knowledge or the skill to remove these without damaging them? You need to take the blinkers off and start looking at this in a different light.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fiver]

Ergo, a killer who had cut up bodies before.

Like the Torso killer.

* The Ripper killings had a strong emotional content based on the excessive mutilations. The Torso Killer's cutting up the bodies appears to be functional, not emotional, done to reduce the bodies into pieces small enough to carry.
* The Ripper liked to pose the bodies of his victims and sometimes their personal effects. The Torso Killer did not.
* The Ripper killed his victims on the spot, as testified to by several police detectives and surgeons. The Torso Killer transported the bodies to where they were found.
* The Torso Killer disposed of his victims heads in a way they were never found, probably in an attempt to conceal their identities. The Ripper made no attempt to hide his victims' identities.
* The Torso Killer appears to have operated over a significantly wider area and over a much longer time than the Ripper.
* The Ripper was much more of a risk taker because of the public locations of his killings and the time the Ripper was willing to spend at those locations doing mutilations, taking organs, and posing the victims. Further evidence of risk taking is the Ripper appears to have been interrupted twice, appears to have killed twice in one night, and his continued killing in spite of the increased wariness of the general population, as well as increased patrolling by the police and the Whitechapel vigilance Committee.
* The Ripper liked taking internal organs as trophies. The Torso Killer took heads, and probably not as trophies.

[Fiver]

Here is an extract from my book "Jack The Ripper-The Real Truth" I interviewed a master butcher with 35 years experience in the meat trade who started off working in a slaughterhouse house.

"I have also been asked whether I could carefully remove these same organs in almost total darkness using a six-inch sharp-bladed knife."

This shows you were making a false assumption when you asked this question. Considering the random slashing and damaged organs, why do you assume the Ripper was "carefully" removing anything?

[Patrick Differ]

If you agree on the use of a sticking knife, why is it still a kosher butcher that is your suspect? If it was a sticking knife, and I believe that was the police surgeons' opinion, all we have is the suggestion that JtR was an experienced butcher/slaughterer.

Doc- why a kosher butcher and why a sticking knife ? 'In the case of the knife it was a process of elimination of knives and instruments used by medical people. The sticking knife looks like a perfect match based on knife specifications stated by Doctors. My opinion is a sticking knife is a high probability.

Why a Jewish Butcher? Connecting dots. If any of the eyewitnesses Long, Schwartz, Lawende, Levy, Hutchinson are to be believed then the perpetrator was Jewish. If the Police are to be believed then the perpitrator was Jewish.

I asked myself if all of these People collectively were biased but Schwartz, Lawende and Levy were Jews. Levy according to the Press, acted like he knew something but refused to get too involved. While he did testify at Eddowes inquest he did not say much other than disagree with Lawende on the height of the man seen with Eddowes. What did he know? What did he say? Levy thought the killer was 3 inches taller than Eddowes at 5ft 0 inches.

Finally, after the death of Mary Kelly, Detective Robert Sagar comes into focus. They were monitoring a Jewish Butcher working or interacting on Butchers Row. They went indercovet to gain access within the tight knit Jewish community. They could not just flash the badge and walk in? That appears telling.

The theory I am working on is that Jacob Levy is the butcher in the Jewish Butcher Theory, and that Lawende ( joseph hyam levys best friend and jacob levys first cousin) are the ones who identified Jacob Levy to the Police. Remember they refused to testify against him and it was thetefore impossible to convict him. So instead they monitored him up until the time his friends? ( his brother in law isaac Barnett) took him to Stone Asylum after examination Dr Sequira. A Doctor who himself was there at the Eddowes murder.