Kidney

[Stewart P Evans]

Yes

I'm sorry Stewart, I was in a hurry. The suggestion was that it could have been a prank from medical students. It still could have been a prank but the body would have had to be relatively fresh if it was destined for dissection as they didn't lay very long before formaline was injected.

Yes, but the body would probably not have been one destined for dissection, I don't quite follow the argument.

[Stewart P Evans]

Explain

Yes, but the body would probably not have been one destined for dissection, I don't quite follow the argument.

Just to explain that a little further, I think that it's a given that the kidney did not come from a cadaver destined for dissection which would have been injected with preserving fluids.

[Hunter]

Hi Stewart.

Yes, I guess that would make that point rather irrelevant. I was implying without stating as such that a contemporary view that the kidney was a medical student's prank may be less likely unless there was access to the body recently after death. That certainly does not mean that someone at the mortuary would not have access. Anything about the "Lusk" kidney beyond the probability that it was human is speculation either way. As you undoubtedly know Brown and Saunders didn't even come to the same conclusions as to the possibility of "Bright's Disease" it seems.

If it has any significance it has to be viewed in context with the letter and the fact, as far as I know, that a combination like this wasn't sent to anyone else during the murders though many letters were sent to the press, police and even Mr. Lusk.

[Stewart P Evans]

Access

Hi Stewart.
Yes, I guess that would make that point rather irrelevant. I was implying without stating as such that a contemporary view that the kidney was a medical student's prank may be less likely unless there was access to the body recently after death. That certainly does not mean that someone at the mortuary would not have access. Anything about the "Lusk" kidney beyond the probability that it was human is speculation either way. As you undoubtedly know Brown and Saunders didn't even come to the same conclusions as to the possibility of "Bright's Disease" it seems.
If it has any significance it has to be viewed in context with the letter and the fact, as far as I know, that a combination like this wasn't sent to anyone else during the murders though many letters were sent to the press, police and even Mr. Lusk.

We do not know, of course, what access medical students would have had to bodies in the mortuary. Also they may have been routinely allowed to watch everyday autopsies from which, I should imagine, it would have been easy to purloin such an organ. As much was said at the time.

The evidence we have, such as it is, indicates that probably it was not Eddowes' kidney. There was no mention made of Bright's disease, nor was Eddowes known to suffer from it. Brown was the City Police surgeon and conducted the autopsy. Saunders was the Public Analyst for the City of London and his main brief was to analyse the stomach contents. This, of course, has been much discussed in the past.

As for Lusk himself, he eventually felt that a prank had been perpetrated on him by someone from the London Hospital. I guess that he was in a good position to assess things and his opinion must carry some weight.

[Trevor Marriott]

Medical students would have been one of a number of persons who would have have had lawful access to organs from mortuaries under The Anatomy Act 1832.

The Act, provided for the needs of physicians, surgeons and students by giving them legal access to corpses that were unclaimed after death, in particular those who died in prison or the workhouse. Further, a person could donate their next of kin's corpse in exchange for burial at the expense of the donee.

So a medical student could have gone to the mortuary and removed Eddowes organ and then sent it as a prank. I wont post the rest of my theory yet again.

[tnb]

Firstly, to backtrack a little:

By the way, do we have reliable information about the size of the piece of apron?

Diddles is quite right about Jon Smyth's dissertation, which has always seemed pretty logical to me. I could be wrong but I don't think (s)he posted the link, if not here it is:

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-graffito.html

However, interestingly, this documentary shows what they claim to be the piece of apron in question, and the size is somewhat different. Although I have some SERIOUS doubts about the validity of the claim, not least because they call it a 'shawl', but it is clearly the apron they are referring to. I include it for completeness, make up your own mind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8Ev8GEr5zg&feature=related

Funny how popular perception almost always makes the apron smaller than it seems to have been and the graffiti bigger.

Now, to business:

Trevor- I am aware that your theory is the result of years of quite painstaking work, and whether or not I agree with your conclusions I respect the research that has gone into it. Therefore, please do not think I am being pedantic, but one thing has always bothered me - can you name one other case where there have been organs removed post-mortem, whether by a mortuary attendant or a medical student or whomever? Or even where it was suspected, or suggested as a serious possibility by a coroner, policeman etc?

If you can, I will put my hands up and say 'you've got me'. But if not (and I have certainly never found one) then I am sorry but it is a bit too much of a coincidence for me that this just happened to occur only in 3 cases of murder within weeks of each other in one small area of the East End. That is, of course, a subjective interpretation, and as ever you pays your money and takes your choice.

[Hunter]

That question was asked by me in the Anatomical thread and he admitted that there is no evidence that happened, especially in a high profile case such as this.

[Trevor Marriott]

Firstly, to backtrack a little:



Diddles is quite right about Jon Smyth's dissertation, which has always seemed pretty logical to me. I could be wrong but I don't think (s)he posted the link, if not here it is:

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-graffito.html

However, interestingly, this documentary shows what they claim to be the piece of apron in question, and the size is somewhat different. Although I have some SERIOUS doubts about the validity of the claim, not least because they call it a 'shawl', but it is clearly the apron they are referring to. I include it for completeness, make up your own mind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8Ev8GEr5zg&feature=related

Funny how popular perception almost always makes the apron smaller than it seems to have been and the graffiti bigger.

Now, to business:

Trevor- I am aware that your theory is the result of years of quite painstaking work, and whether or not I agree with your conclusions I respect the research that has gone into it. Therefore, please do not think I am being pedantic, but one thing has always bothered me - can you name one other case where there have been organs removed post-mortem, whether by a mortuary attendant or a medical student or whomever? Or even where it was suspected, or suggested as a serious possibility by a coroner, policeman etc?

If you can, I will put my hands up and say 'you've got me'. But if not (and I have certainly never found one) then I am sorry but it is a bit too much of a coincidence for me that this just happened to occur only in 3 cases of murder within weeks of each other in one small area of the East End. That is, of course, a subjective interpretation, and as ever you pays your money and takes your choice.

I cannot name another case simply because if it did happen previous then whover did it got away with it again it went unnoticed.

You have to remeber the taking of organs was lawful under The Anatomy Act. It has been documented that at almost evrey mortuary at around 9am there was a regular stream of bona fied persons seeking out organs. The bodies of Chapman and Eddowes were left until early afternoon before the doctors attended to carry out the post mortem.

The mortuary would have been filled with dead bodies who would have known which was high profile or not. It certainly would not have been kept separate and the bodies would have been fair game for any lawful organ seeker.

It would have gone un-noticed again had I not raised the suggestion.

[tnb]

It would have gone un-noticed again had I not raised the suggestion.

And for that, whether I/we agree with the eventual theory to come out of your research, should be genuinely grateful.

Can I just ask how well-known this 'common' practice was, as none of the press seem to have suspected this was the case? Although obviously I accept that a serial killer going around tearing organs out of his victim's bodies is a lot more sensational.

[Trevor Marriott]

And for that, whether I/we agree with the eventual theory to come out of your research, should be genuinely grateful.

Can I just ask how well-known this 'common' practice was, as none of the press seem to have suspected this was the case? Although obviously I accept that a serial killer going around tearing organs out of his victim's bodies is a lot more sensational.

You should be aware that the killer did not tear out the organs.The organs were removed by someone with some knowlege of the human anatomy

The questions you have to ask yourself are. Could anyone have performed these surgical removals at the crime scene having regard to the time they would have had or needed, the condition of the bodies i.e an abdomen filled with blood from the mutilations, the light available to them, To help you with two of those questions.

In the case of Eddowes she was murdered in an area of Mitre Square desribed as the "darkest part" If Pc Watkins can be belived the killer had no more than 9 minutes to enter the square with Eddowes un-noticed go to the darkest part, killer her mutilate her face and body and remove the organs with some medical precision and them leave again un-noticed. Its not as if the officer saw Eddowes and the killer walking in as he was leaving or whilst he was walking through the square. So 9 minutes must be tops.

The other issues you should consider are if the killer removed a uterus from Chapman why would he want another. On this point it should be noted that the two uteri were removed from both victims in different ways, again suggesting two different people.


I think the answer is quite clear because the first time it was discovered that organs were missing from the victims was when the post mortems were done. It was natural to assume at that time the killer had removed them. The doctors didnt arrive till later afternoon they wouldnt have know what had prececded their arrival. With the bodies lying on a table with serious abdominal mutilations inflicted by the killer it would be a quick and easy task for someone to quickly remove the organs. All the hard work had been done for that person by the killer. If that were the case i would suggest that in doing so that person created wounds some of which were desrcribed by the doctors who attributed those wounds/injuries to the killer.

In one case the doctors raised a concern that one of the victims bodies had been stripped and washed so every reason to beleive anyhting could have happened to those bodies whilst they lay in the mortuary.

To back that up it was suggested that the wounds made in entering the abdominal cavity of Eddowes were consistent with a post mortem process. The method of entering Chapmans was different again. This suggests to me two different people, coincidentally the bodies were taken to two different mortuaries.

[bolo]

Hi Trevor,

I think the answer is quite clear because the first time it was discovered that organs were missing from the victims was when the post mortems were done. It was natural to assume at that time the killer had removed them. The doctors didnt arrive till later afternoon they wouldnt have know what had prececded their arrival. With the bodies lying on a table with serious abdominal mutilations inflicted by the killer it would be a quick and easy task for someone to quickly remove the organs. All the hard work had been done for that person by the killer. If that were the case i would suggest that in doing so that person created wounds some of which were desrcribed by the doctors who attributed those wounds/injuries to the killer.

wouldn't there have been differences between the wounds inflicted by the killer and those created by some students in order to remove certain organs? Of course it's just my amateurish impression but I don't think the doctors wouldn't have noticed that.

Regards,

Boris

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,



wouldn't there have been differences between the wounds inflicted by the killer and those created by some students in order to remove certain organs? Of course it's just my amateurish impression but I don't think the doctors wouldn't have noticed that.

Regards,

Boris

You are quiet right this is where the suggestion comes in that the killer had some anatomical knowledge when in fact that anatomical knowledge was shown by the persons removing the organs at the mortuary, and the killer only murdered and mutilated the victims.

[bolo]

Trevor,

You are quiet right this is where the suggestion comes in that the killer had some anatomical knowledge when in fact that anatomical knowledge was shown by the persons removing the organs at the mortuary, and the killer only murdered and mutilated the victims.

I'm referring to simple differences in visual appearance here. If we assume that a student inflicted additional wounds in order to remove organs after the body had been brought to the mortuary, these wounds must have looked more recent than the ones inflicted by the killer. What's more, a medical student would have used a different instrument (like a scalpel) for organ removal than the killer, this would have been noticed as well.

In other words, I don't think that this part of the alleged prank would have worked without the doctors seeing through the game.

One more thing, the bodies were brought to mortuaries in the dead of the night or early morning, how could students or other persons not directly connected with the facilities have known that? Yes, they probably knew when the first press articles started to appear but by then it would have been too late to do anything.

Regards,

Boris

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Boris

Trevor,

I'm referring to simple differences in visual appearance here. If we assume that a student inflicted additional wounds in order to remove organs after the body had been brought to the mortuary, these wounds must have looked more recent than the ones inflicted by the killer. What's more, a medical student would have used a different instrument (like a scalpel) for organ removal than the killer, this would have been noticed as well.

Well the organs were not hacked out. I maintain that it would have been impossible to perform those removals and in particular the kidney using a knife with a 6inch blade which is what is suggested the killer used.

Dont forget the doctors stated that the organs were removed by someone with some anatomical knowledge not as precise as you would exepct from a surgeon but perhaps precise enough to suggest a medical student. With all the blood there would still be lying in the abdomen they would not have been able to notice anyhting different or be so precise to say at what approx time the organs were removed.

In other words, I don't think that this part of the alleged prank would have worked without the doctors seeing through the game.

The removal might not have been a prank, that is just one answer that has been put forward regarding the lusk kidney.

One more thing, the bodies were brought to mortuaries in the dead of the night or early morning, how could students or other persons not directly connected with the facilities have known that? Yes, they probably knew when the first press articles started to appear but by then it would have been too late to do anything.

I have already stated that from early morning at all mortuaries there would have been a regular stream of bona fide persons actively seeking organs quite lawfully under the Anatomy Act.
Regards,

Boris

[Stewart P Evans]

Mortuaries

...
...
I'm referring to simple differences in visual appearance here. If we assume that a student inflicted additional wounds in order to remove organs after the body had been brought to the mortuary, these wounds must have looked more recent than the ones inflicted by the killer. What's more, a medical student would have used a different instrument (like a scalpel) for organ removal than the killer, this would have been noticed as well.
In other words, I don't think that this part of the alleged prank would have worked without the doctors seeing through the game.
One more thing, the bodies were brought to mortuaries in the dead of the night or early morning, how could students or other persons not directly connected with the facilities have known that? Yes, they probably knew when the first press articles started to appear but by then it would have been too late to do anything.
...
Boris

Bodies were dealt with daily at the mortuaries, and would include sudden deaths from both the hospital and outside locations, and at all times.

Many autopsies were conducted during which the bodies were opened from the pubic bone to the neck and all organs removed. The organs were dissected to examine for injury or disease and afterwards replaced inside the torso which was stitched up.

The fact that the piece of kidney sent with the letter to Lusk was a longitudinally divided section could indicate that it had been divided for examination at an autopsy and just that half taken.

It would be very easy for a mortuary attendant or medical student (if present) to secure such a piece of organ without detection.