The kidney removal of Catherine Eddowes.

[Trevor Marriott]

Me neither Patrick. There are so many points against this theory.

Just for your info and the info of others here, I have posted 2 more photos, the first highlights the problem the killer would have had with trying to use a long bladed knife inside a blood filled abdomen in almost total darkness, The second shows a uterus with the fallopian tubes as with the Chapman murder where the uterus was rmoved intact with the fallopian tubes still attached

[FrankO]

The placing of the still attached intestines on the shoulder is a medical procedure rather than a butchering technique, the latter being a complete removal. The "one sweep of the knife" was a description in the Chapman case, and does resemble a butchering technique. With Eddowes, the incision was made around the navel and the descending colon was removed and placed next to the body to enable access to the kidney. The uterus was removed without even a nick to the bladder, a demanding task even in a modern theatre.

IMO the Chapman evisceration resembled the technique of a butcher, but in Eddowes case there was some initial frenzy followed by dissection technique. The removal of Kelly's heart from the pericardium via the abdominal cavity was also a dissection room technique.

Hi George,

What are you saying or trying to say here? It's a bit confusing, because if the placing of the intestines, the incision around the navel and the removal of the heart are medical procedures (and I don't doubt they were), then aren't Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly connected? Yet, in the second part you seem to be suggesting that Chapman was eviscerated by a butcher rather than someone with knowledge of medical procedures, while Eddowes and Kelly were eviscerated by someone with such knowledge.

Cheers,
Frank

[Herlock Sholmes]

Let’s have a few proper quotes from Professor Hurren’s article shall we…as opposed to Trevor’s imaginary version of what she said

It was a quote from her and I resent your suggestion that I made it up, again signs of desperation by you and in a previous post you accepted it

I didn’t suggest that the quote wasn’t from her, as anyone could see. I pointed out that when she talked of body parts she was talking about amputated limbs and NOT internal organs. I even gave you the full quote. Despite giving you this obvious information you continue to post as if body parts equate to internal organs. So I’ll say it again - WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF PEOPLE STEALING INTERNAL ORGANS FROM MORTUARIES; PEOPLE THAT YOU HAVE CALLED ‘ORGAN THIEVES.’ YOU CLAIMED TO HAVE EVIDENCE BUT HAVE ‘REFUSED’ TO PROVIDE IT. ITS THEREFORE REASONABLE FOR EVERYONE TO ASSUME THAT SUCH EVIDENCE DIESNT EXIST.


So the requirement at the time was for bodies to dissect. a]

and body parts

Correct, whenever they were available in cases of amputated limbs. No organs though because they were already in the body. Because that’s where internal organs are Trevor. Internal means inside. So the phrase means organs inside the body. As opposed to external body parts. Like amputated limbs. Like arms, legs, hands etc. which are on the outside of the body. Unlike kidneys and uteri which are on the inside….hence the phrase internal organs. Clear?

So there was a body-broking business. No mention of organs.

Body broking business involves organs as well.

No it doesn’t because when a person takes a body the organs come as part of the deal. We have no evidence whatsoever of anyone stealing internal organs from a mortuary but leaving the corpse. That’s why if one body dealer had said to another “hold on, we’ve forgotten the internal organs,” his colleague would have said “no, they are inside the corpse.” Then he might add “what? Are you telling me that internal organs are actually inside the body? As opposed to arms and legs which are on the outside?” “Yes.” “Well….you learn something new every day.”

She is clearly talking about amputated limbs when she talks of body parts. As I said numerous times but you kept ignoring.

Thats your take on what she says and your take is biased. I Doubt an amputated limb could be described as an organ

She doesn’t describe an amputated limb as an organ Trevor. YOU ARE THE ONE DOING THAT!!!

Well waddya know Trevor? Who does Professor Hurren think removed the organs……the killer.

She can only give an opinon based on what she read, she has no formal medical experience this is proven by the statement you refer to whereby she states the organs were removed undamaged, which is true in the case of Chapman but not true in the case of Eddowes

And you have no ‘formal medical experience’ and yet, to read your posts, you seem to believe that your medical opinion carries weight.


www.trevormarriott.co.uk[/B]

How many people can you name out of the thousands the medically-trained people who have looked into this case over the years who will stand up and say - ‘in my opinion it is absolutely impossible that the ripper could have removed organs in Hanbury Street and Mitre Square?’

[FrankO]

If some of the popular suspects with no butchering or dissection room experience are to retain their positions on the suspect list, then an alternative theory, such as that presented by Trevor, is required. If the killer(s) took the organs, then the suspects without said skills need to be eliminated.

I agree, George. I tend to believe that, whoever killed and mutilated these poor women, he had experience with the knife, at least as a butcher and possibly as someone with some medical operating training. So, I don't think we require Trevor's theory, also because of the fact that the Ripper did not only get his victims's skirts out of the way to get access to the area of his prime interest, he also cut them open and got the intestines out of the way. Out of the way for what? Exactly, out of the way to cut out one or more organs. Also, there's the taken away piece of belly wall to consider. Why would organ thieves be interested in that? And why didn't they take belly wall in the other cases if it was of value? Would be much easier to cut & take away than a uterus, let alone a kidney.

Cheers,
Frank

[Herlock Sholmes]

The Time Conundrum is a focal point of this mystery. If some of the popular suspects with no butchering or dissection room experience are to retain their positions on the suspect list, then an alternative theory, such as that presented by Trevor, is required. If the killer(s) took the organs, then the suspects without said skills need to be eliminated.


JMO.

But my point is that no one can give an exact time. Estimates are estimates. The organs were missing….therefore the killer took them. Trevor’s fantasy can and should be ignored George. The case has enough crackpot theories without the total being added to.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’m tired of discussing this with someone that doesn’t debate in good faith. Yet again, the subject as a whole finds itself defending another silly theory or non-existent suspect.

That the killer took organs is a fact. I can’t take anyone seriously who doesn’t accept this.

[The Rookie Detective]

Hi Herlock,

I think that your second question can be answered. According to your timeline in a different thread, Watkins didn't see a body in Mitre Square at about 1:30, but then found the body at about 1:44. So that would mean that the maximum time the killer had would be about 14 minutes. Since the times are approximations, you could add a couple of minutes to that, but then to account for the killer entering the Square after Watkins left and leaving before he returned, you'd subtract a couple of minutes, so you still end up with about 14 minutes for the maximum amount of time that the killer had.

I'd suggest that the Ripper spent no more than 5 minutes with any of his victims (excluding MJK)

He clearly wasn't stupid and so spending more than 5 minutes outside and exposed to potential capture, would be highly unlikely.

The killer knew how to use a knife, had previous experience of cutting things open, and knew with a degree of certainly his potential escape routes, and the duration and rotation of the regulated police beats.

[The Rookie Detective]

The Ripper's signature was to take an organ from each of his victims as a trophy.

With Nichols he was interrupted. Stride also .

But the others...

Uterus
Kidney
Heart

He was consuming a part of his victim. Quite literally.

And the rest he used as part of his artistic sense of presentation when he openly displayed his work for others to find.

The sense of power and domination he felt must have been overwhelming.

Twisted beyond words.