The kidney removal of Catherine Eddowes.

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • GBinOz
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    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”

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    Hi Trevor,

    I wonder if this experiment was conducted while kneeling beside a body on the ground in the dark. Presumably it was conducted on a cadaver, so there would be no blood in the abdominal cavity. If it was conducted on an autopsy table with theatre lighting, and the bladder was still damaged, I think your point is made. My daughter tells me that she has attended abdominal hysterectomies conducted under modern theatre conditions by surgeons of highest repute who have nicked the bladder.

    Cheers, George

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    No more ridiculous than the suggestion that the killer removed these organs from blood-filled abdomens in the dark
    Well, that's precisely what happened... except that it wasn't quite "in the dark" and the abdomens weren't filled with blood.

    Dr Brown—“The bladder was in no way injured in the body
    Too bad the killer only managed to cut away part of the uterus this time, not to mention the cut length of colon he left on the pavement at the scene of the crime.

    Leave a comment:


  • Patrick Differ
    replied
    Some other organ...not argument..

    Leave a comment:


  • Patrick Differ
    replied
    There was a demand for cadavers and evidently fetuses but the competing Universities had a monopoly with the asylums. The monetary value for the Uterus and Kidney was apparently 1 shilling if there was a buyer. Would that entice a mortuary assistant? It's possible. Although any risk in a high profile case would probably not be worth it. There were plenty of poor without advocacy so there was a steady source of organs. It's not clear why JtR would kill just to extract the intestines. If he truly hated women the Uterus makes more sense. Once the intestines were out the Uterus and Kidney were exposed at that time. Why would a mortuary assistant himself target the Uterus and Kidney v some other argument. Logically I do not believe the mortuary theory holds up.

    Leave a comment:


  • John Wheat
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    No more ridiculous than the suggestion that the killer removed these organs from blood-filled abdomens in the dark.


    Are you saying it wasn't as dark as were led to believe?

    Leave a comment:


  • Indian Harry
    replied
    Originally posted by The Rookie Detective View Post

    And so the question is...


    What kind of killer could achieve the wounds upon his victims, in the relatively short time that he had to do so?


    A horse slaughterer.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post

    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!

    Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 01-21-2025, 11:07 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    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.


    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Patrick Differ View Post
    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.



    Leave a comment:


  • Patrick Differ
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Rookie Detective
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • The Rookie Detective
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    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

    Leave a comment:


  • GBinOz
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • FISHY1118
    replied
    There is no evidence whatsoever , that anyone other than the killer himself, removed any organs from any victim other than at the crime scene.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X