selling of body parts questions, please

[praline]

after seeing the footage on Nat Geo concerning the selling of body parts on the black market I wanted to lay to rest some of the questions that popped in my head concerning this practice to see if it was a plausible theory. I am not convinced of the German connection but I am curious about this particular part in the theory. If this was the case it would open up the flood gates on many more murders and theories. I sadly can't find any info to answer my questions. I am sure its here or on google somewhere and the problem is in my searching rather then lack of info. I tried to google organs for sale during Victorian period and all I came up with were church organs

I am going to list a few of my questions and hopefully someone can point me in the right direction as how I should find this information.

1. How common was the practice of selling body parts for profit? Was there cases or arrests or scandals involving this practice? The cynic in me tends to believe certain people will sell anything for profit (The window view of Chapman's investigation comes to mind) but I can't find any cases where this occurred in London during this time period. Maybe I am looking in the wrong places.

2. If the organs that were removed were for profit, why only take 1 kidney? Was this answered in this theory? Again I can't seem to find anything about it but my thinking is if 1 kidney was worth X amount of money, then 2 kidneys were worth X2. At the same time why take X organ and leave Y organ? It would seem one would want to make the largest profit they are able to with the least amount of work. If you can "harvest" 9 or 10 good internal parts off of 1 dead body rather then taking 1 body part off of 10 different bodies. Maybe there was a shortage on left kidneys and such that was the only profit to be made?

I have many more questions about this topic but those 2 should at least point me in the right directions.

[Errata]

I am going to list a few of my questions and hopefully someone can point me in the right direction as how I should find this information.

1. How common was the practice of selling body parts for profit? Was there cases or arrests or scandals involving this practice?

During the the 1880s, harvesting organs for sale was almost unheard of. The fear I am sure was there, as people remembered Burke and Hare. But once a poor person died, anyone who wanted their organs could take them. That was legal. A doctor could walk into a morgue and harvest whatever he wanted. And at this point, medical specimens were beginning to wane in usefulness. Staring at a kidney drawn in minute detail was better than staring at one in a murky jar, and since dissections had become commonplace seeing a kidney in the body, and the relationships it had with other organs was by far preferable.

The real organ trade was in anomalies. Mutter Museum kind of oddities. Two headed fetuses, a heart the size of a cat, tumors, etc. But clearly you can't tell who has abnormal organs until you look inside. So while it's possible people already on the surgical table could have been at risk of not waking up if they have a really fascinating bladder, people on the streets were perfectly safe.

Lastly, if you are going to preserve an organ as a specimen, the condition it come out in matters. If its all jacked up from stray knife cuts, stabs, parts are missing because of how it was cut out, etc. it is of no use. No medical student would buy one so inexpertly rendered. Never mind there wasn't any kind of market for uteri, since hysterectomies were common, and you could take those for free. It would be akin to knocking over a liquor store and only stealing the boxes. No one is going to buy them off you since liquor stores stack them outside for free.

[praline]

Would this be an older version of the Urban Legend of someone getting drunk only to wake up the next morning in a hotel bathtub covered in ice and a kidney missing?

I really liked the theory as I too have a hard time trying to fit in the time line and environment these horrible butcherings occurred under. I wasn't sure how to address the fact that in most of the killings internal organs were seen externally at the crime scene. I was hoping there was something to explain away my doubts.

[Hunter]

Hi Praline, and welcome to Casebook.

Errata has summed it up quite well. Organs were allowed to be taken from the bodies of paupers or the unclaimed, but there was hardly any profitable market in it and I have yet to see any legal cases where a mortuary attendant was prosecuted for procuring organs without authorization.

The eminent physician, Sir James Risdon Bennet, wrote several articles to the press after Coroner Baxter offered a theory that the murderer may have taken Annie Chapman's uterus to sell for profit, explaining the ease with which organs could be legally procured and the fact that such specimens offered little profit.

The subject of the documentary you saw and the author's theory behind it has been debated extensively on these boards by myself and Mr. Marriott. Without going into detail again as to why I do not subscribe to the idea that mortuary attendants took any organs from Chapman or Eddowes, I would suggest that you carefully read the inquest reports. The answers are there.

[praline]

Thank you so much Hunter and Errata for the valuable information you supplied me. I have read the inquest reports but have not studied them in depth as of yet. I am gathering my first step is to get an overall view of the case and familiarize myself with the key players and the time period along with the forensic police work that was available for that time.

Due to the name you gave me, Sir James Bennet I was able to find him if he is indeed the Bennet who was the president of the Royal College of Physicians. In his bio he was born in 1809 and died in 1891. This does tell me he was very old while making his inquest about the organ selling. Not that being old is bad but it does make me wonder how active he would be in the current medical community. It also seems to me that he does not see eye to eye with Baxter and it seems there are hard feelings between the 2. Also Bennett would not want it admitted if body selling was going on for fear of it looking bad for his trade along with his associates who might have been doing so. I see a conflict of interest with him.

This still leaves me back at square 1 with proof one way or another if this was a widespread activity. Bennett seems to be a very respected DR and had a wonderful career so in no way would I try and doubt him or cast shadow on him. At the same time I want to make sure the information I accept is not clouded by judgment.

Due to this name I was however able to trace back and read more about the Burke Hare murders. Egads not something you want to read in a dark room alone while everyone else in the house is asleep! Stuff horror films are made of. I turned on all the lights in the house and sacrificed my scaredy cat ways and did find a very good answer to my own question. Due to the Burke Hare murders the anatomy Act of 1832 was put into place. This made acquiring cadavers for scientific purposes easier. Up until this point dead bodies could only be used for Scientific research if they were executed. This made human bodies rather hard to come by with the growing scientific community. After Burke and Hare were caught killing to sell the bodies this Act was put into place. It does say it effectively eliminated the shortage of bodies.

I think both the newspaper article with Bennett ALONG with the information I gathered from the Anatomy Act of 1832 effectively puts to rest this theory for me....it didn't happen

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Praline

I feel I should interject here Hunter has his own views on the organ removal which he sees through rose tinted spectacles however that his his right.

Firtsly I would say there has been no suggestion that any mortuary attendant procured the organs of these victims. The anatomy act clearly allowed bona fide medical anatomists and doctors and medical students free and lawful access to organs and in some case cadavers for medical research from mortuaries.

I am sure that mortuary attendants were finacially rewarded by the various persons who regulary visited mortruaries to obtain organs after all they were poor people and they certainly would not have had any medical knowledge.

If the organs from the victims were removed by any of these medical persons at the mortuaries as I suggest it would explain the anataomical knowledge shown as expressed by the doctors.

Another important issue surrounding where and when these organs were removed is whether the killer could have removed a kidney and a uterus and carried out all the mutilations on Eddowes in 9 minutes In almost total darkness.

Medical experts say no but some ripper researchers who profess to be more
knowledegeable would argue that point.

Furthermore look at it another way you have a killer who ferociously attacks a female in a frenzied attack. Would he suddenly gain his composure enough to be able to calm down enough to be able to carry put precise removal of these organs.

I hope this now gives you a more balanced view of the organs removal issues.

[praline]

Trevor,
Yes I do believe the attacks could be of such a frenzied attack and still have the mind to remove the organs. I am using other cases my "computer chair detective" self has read into as some baseline for this case. There was a Russian killer (Andrei Chikatilo) who has many similarities to JTR. No, I am not saying JTR was Russian LOL I am looking at behaviors. Chikatilo had a dead body (he had recently used) in the trunk of his car when he went to the police station and passed a lie detector test and nothing outwardly was noticed. These type of killers generally can and do this. Even little Mary Bell was found to have no physical reactions (meaning pulse rate) when she was faced with murder. It would be stranger if JTR did indeed show any emotion or heightened response to the killing.

If you look into this Chikatilo (if you haven't already) you will see a huge correlation between his acts of violence and JTR's acts of violence. If Chikatilo was alive and in London in 1888 he would have been "my pick" on the ID of JTR.

AS to the debate here, after reading about how Dr. Robert Knox lost all credibility and his licensing along with his reputation over the burke/Hale murders it is doubtful to me that anyone in the medical community would risk becoming the next Dr. Knox by involving themselves in this type of harvesting. The murders did take place years before JTR but the horror stories that followed the trial were still in the minds of the medical community along with the older generation of folks.

As to the Eddowes I am not completely convinced JTR only had 9 minutes to perform the murder. We are going by the patrol of the night watchman. I have found it to be correct in other cases that what a patrol man says he did was not actually what he did. Huh? Well if you were a beat cop at night and found a nice little spot to catch a few winks and find out one of the worst murders happened while you were derelict of your duty ~ would you admit this or would you say, "Oh yeah I was JUST here patrolling not more then 9 minutes ago!"
I am not putting into question the honor of the guard but rather the possibility that he was sleeping on the job and was trying to cover his behind. At the very least this should be considered when discussing those 9 minutes and I am sure most have already done so.

As to the harvesting of organs I don't see how someone would do this and risk losing everything for something they could quickly get that would be in better condition for free. Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?

Also, these poor girls were torn to pieces
There is tons of evidence pointing to the fact they were cut open at the crime scene and their intestines thrown about. There is physical evidence supporting the fact that JTR indeed take the body parts in that body parts were indeed ripped from the women at the crime scene by him. In contrast there is no physical evidence that someone in the medical community doing so for scientific research.

At least that is the way I am looking at this. As stated before I am a noob when it comes to this case but I am trying to establish my own ideas independent from others. I really did like the idea of the parts being sold as a theory and wanted to continue using this in my developing theories but I just don't see any physical evidence pointing in this direction at this time.

[praline]

My apologies, I posted before I was finished

What you describe could not happen:
Furthermore look at it another way you have a killer who ferociously attacks a female in a frenzied attack. Would he suddenly gain his composure enough to be able to calm down enough to be able to carry put precise removal of these organs.

Is the exact definition of Psychopathy. Most serial killers had/have the ability to do this and that is one of the things that sets them apart from run of the mill murderers.

[Trevor Marriott]

They do if they have time which is one thing the killer never had in these murders.

The 9 minute window as decsribed eminated from a police officer PC Watkins not a nightwatchman

[praline]

They do if they have time which is one thing the killer never had in these murders.

I am not sure which statement this is in reference to? Could you please elaborate a bit more so I understand what your getting at here?

As to the police officer ~ I did mention a beat cop as well as a watchman. I understood the two careers to be one and the same in that they both carry out patrols of their area. A police officer could very well just as easily have been derelict of his duties and was trying to cover himself. I am not saying, "this is what happened in this particular case" I am saying that the possibility should be considered. It would not be the first time in history that an officer lied under oath in order to cover his behind. Just because he is an officer of the law doesn't mean his testimony should be taken as gospel truth.

[praline]

Another quick question, if I am not bugging you guys overly .. yell at me to hush if I become a pest

Inspector Collard stated at the inquest that he stayed with the body until the ambulance arrived and Catherine was placed in the conveyance. He then goes on to say that the body was stripped (at the mortuary) and examined in the presence of two doctors and himself. With 3 witnesses to the care and treatment of the remains before and during the examination, when were her body parts removed and sold if this body parts selling is accurate? It seems to me a chain of custody was in place and there would be no chance of someone being able to remove them under the watchful eye of these 3 witnesses who were in view of the body the entire time?

[Wickerman]

...
Yes I do believe the attacks could be of such a frenzied attack and still have the mind to remove the organs.

Hi Praline.
Only the attack on Martha Tabram is typically described as frenzied, and her candidacy as a Ripper victim is highly debated.
The subsequent murders of Nichols, Chapman & Eddowes appear more calm, calculated and methodical, I don't think our usual undestanding of 'frenzy' comes into it. Certainly these were conducted in haste, but there is no indication of frenzy, as we normally apply the term.

...
As to the harvesting of organs I don't see how someone would do this and risk losing everything for something they could quickly get that would be in better condition for free. Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?...

This might be a common misconception, to date we have seen lists offered by the medical community (B. M. A.?) which indicate certain prices for a variety of organs. However, as far as we can tell, the organs offered on these lists, and the associated prices were only available to members of the British Medical Association.

In other words the possibility exists that if you were only a member of the general public, or medically experienced abroad but not a recognised medical practitioner in the UK, and many foreigners were not, then the organs on these lists, and associated prices were not available to you.

We are quite possibly dealing with an illogical act, so judging these actions from the perspective of modern 'armchair' logic may not be applicable.

Regards, Jon S.

[praline]

Certainly these were conducted in haste, but there is no indication of frenzy, as we normally apply the term.

Wickerman, this is exactly what I am trying to explain but you did a much better job. Trevor explained that the murders were done in a frenzy. A true Psychopath won't show signs of frenzy as they don't feel in the same way as "normal" people. What one might see as a frenzy attack would be cold and methodical if done by a Psychopath.

In other words the possibility exists that if you were only a member of the general public, or medically experienced abroad but not a recognised medical practitioner in the UK, and many foreigners were not, then the organs on these lists, and associated prices were not available to you.

Now this is indeed interesting. Is there any copies of these list of parts for sale? Was it ever explained when and where the harvesting of Catherine's kidney took place? In the inquest it seems there were 2 Dr and an officer of the law standing guard of the body before the examination and observed the autopsy. I can't seem to play out a scene where the kidney could have been harvested at the mortuary without the knowledge of these 3 people.

In addition to the foreign medical community could the organs have been harvested for entertainment value/trophy? Errata brought up the selling of oddities. These murders did generate a huge amount of publicity. It did cross my mind that if the organs were harvested (and I have yet to see proof enough to satisfy me that they were) could it have been done by someone who sold them as an odd trophy? "Right here folks, the actual kidney Jack the Ripper ripped from the body of Catherine.."

However this publicity is one of the main reasons I can't see someone being able to harvest body parts from the victim before the examination. These bodies were the "superstars" of the mortuary all eyes and attention were on them.

We are quite possibly dealing with an illogical act, so judging these actions from the perspective of modern 'armchair' logic may not be applicable.

I might be a noobie to the case and have not formed very many of my own theories but I do not believe this. There is so much (unfortunately) more we have learned about Psychopathic killers since the days of JTR. I don't see him as anything other then a "typical" Psychopathic killer. I think the mystery surrounding him was due to the public rather then anything special JTR himself did. Albert Fish was killing in the same time period and his murders were much more horrifying.

Even in the most seemingly illogical killer there is a logic that the killer understands. Finding this "logic" helps investigators catch the killer but also to understand them and use what they learn on other cases.