Kidney

[bolo]

Trevor,

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.

That depends on his skills. He could have held the knife by the blade which would have made it easier for him to cut the kidney out. Using a long knife for organ removal sure was difficult but given that our man had some experience with this kind of weapon, I guess (yes, I'm speculating here! ) he was able to somehow circumvent the problems.

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.

That may be true for Kate's kidney but what about her sloppily removed uterus? The latter does not give me the impression of the work of a medical student, i.e. a person with a professional medical background.

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.

Yes, point taken.

Stewart,

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.

Thanks for the info, Stewart, this clears up a few problems I had with Trevor's idea of a student prank.

So I take it that the bodies of the Ripper victims did not receive any special treatment, for example by guarding them until a proper examination and autopsy had been performed? They were important evidence, after all.

Regards,

Boris

[tnb]

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.

I should point out here that my use of the word 'tear' was somewhat misleading, as if you look at it in context I was referring to the way in which a sensationalist media could (and in many cases did) present the murders, somewhat flippantly. However, I take your point. I am aware of the various opinions you have sought from a wide range of medical personnel, and working within a medical environment myself I give all the respect due to their conclusions. That said, I am yet to see any evidence for myself which convinces me 100% that the organs were definitively removed by someone with knowledge of human anatomy - and I think it is important to remember that there was no consensus between the doctors who saw the corpses first hand at the time, and in fact the majority of opinion came down against such a conclusion. These doctors were in the best position of any of us - including modern day consultants - to say whether or not the bodies they saw first hand tallied with the Victorian surgical/pathology procedures they also knew first hand. This is not saying your conclusion is incorrect, simply that I believe it is a little premature, even after all your research, to say for certain that '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..

That is a very, very good point. However, again, it relies somewhat on the assumption that the killer had to, in that time, 'remove the organs with some medical precision'. Which is far from certain. 9 minutes is, I agree, tight to enter the square, kill Eddowes etc and deliberately target and remove the organs in question - in fact, almost impossibly so. However, it is quite enough time to enter the square, kill her, mutilate her face and body and have a root around and grab whatever he can. Again, this is purely subjective - and it is here that we need to look at the innnate prejudices of the people making these assumptions. To a doctor, an organ being removed - a kidney, a uterus or whatever - has been removed on purpose, and that will influence their interpretation of both intent and time. Although I do accept that the kidney is a somewhat unusual organ to find simply 'rooting around'.

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...

As Bolo rightly point out, however, it could also suggest that the person removing them was the same, but didn't know what they were doing. If I was to remove a uterus and then a few weeks later remove another, I am pretty sure that I would do it in two different ways, precisely because I don't know the right way, or even the way in which to define what worked or didn't work the first time. I would be making it up as I went along.

As for suggesting that a killer who sees a need to remove organs would only need one of each, that is quite frankly one hell of a leap. How can we propose to know for what purpose such a person (if that was the case) would remove the organs, so as to say that for that purpose he would only need one uterus? Sorry Trevor, all due respect and all that, but that is a very weak point.

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.

Two excellent points, although the fact that the doctors in question raised the point of the stripping and washing for me mitigates somewhat against the fact that they didn't spot the possibility you are suggesting. Surely they would have some idea if this kind of sharp (no pun intended) practice was going on in their mortuaries?

I still believe it is a hell of a coincidence if the only recorded incidents of this practice (as in it got into the newspaper reports etc, albeit misattributed to the killer) just happened to be the alleged victims of one serial killer. Unless you are suggesting that we are not dealing with a serial killer at all and that the post-mortem removal of the organs was the only reason they ended up being placed, wrongly, in sequence?

Of course, there is always the mistaken copycat angle...

[bolo]

Hi tnb, Trevor,

let me quote a longer section from Philip Sugden's Complete History of Jack the Ripper (revised paperpack, 2002, p. 265) concerning the possibility of a hoax:

"But what was of far more importance, Mr Sutton, one of the senior surgeons of the London Hospital, whom Gordon Brown [City Police surgeon] asked to meet him and another practitioner in consultation, and who was one of the greatest authorities living on the kidney and its diseases, said he would pledge his reputation that the kindey submitted to them had been put in spirits within a few hours of its removal from the body - thus effectually disposing of all hoaxes in connection with it. The body of anyone done to death by violence is not taken direct to the dissecting-room, but must await an inquest, never held before the following day at the soonest." (source: Major Smith, From Constable to Commissioner, pp. 154-5).

Sounds plausible to me.

Regards,

Boris

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi tnb, Trevor,

let me quote a longer section from Philip Sugden's Complete History of Jack the Ripper (revised paperpack, 2002, p. 265) concerning the possibility of a hoax:

"But what was of far more importance, Mr Sutton, one of the senior surgeons of the London Hospital, whom Gordon Brown [City Police surgeon] asked to meet him and another practitioner in consultation, and who was one of the greatest authorities living on the kidney and its diseases, said he would pledge his reputation that the kindey submitted to them had been put in spirits within a few hours of its removal from the body - thus effectually disposing of all hoaxes in connection with it. The body of anyone done to death by violence is not taken direct to the dissecting-room, but must await an inquest, never held before the following day at the soonest." (source: Major Smith, From Constable to Commissioner, pp. 154-5).

Sounds plausible to me.

Regards,

Boris

Well the last paragraph is wrong the purpose of an inquest is to determine the cause of death. Thats the purpose of a post mortem so what is written is wrong.

The doctors who performed the post mortems did not run the mortuaries they simply turned up to perfrom the post mortems as is still the case today in some areas

The practice of bodysnatching and stealing organs for research had been going on for many years prior to 1888 (Burke and Hare) is a case you should look at. The reason the anatomy act of 1832 was passed was to prevent this stealing of organs.

As far as our victims organs are concerned I dont think they were stolen in that sense they were taken lawfully by someone who was seeking out organs for reserach. What you also have to look at in the grand scheme of things is the fact that none of the other victims had the same abdominal mutilations which resulted in gaping wounds to the abdomen. As a result no organs removed. Anyone seeking organs would not have been in a position to remove organs because it would have been discovered. But with Chapman someone took a chance hoping the removal would go un noticed. With Eddowwes the person removing the kidney and Uterus had it much easier he was alreday aware that the missing organ from Chapman had been attributed to the killer and the fact that Eddowes was supposed to have been killed by that same killer job made even easier.

As to the suggestion that the killer had no anataomical knowledge that after murdering and mutilating he then just reached in and felt around would have been an impossible task. As i said before the abdomen would have been filled with blood for a start making it difficult to feel anyhting and make it hard to grip any organs. add to that very little light. I am sorry but thats one of the lame points regularly mooted by those who will not consider the new theory.

[Cap'n Jack]

My latest theory is that all of the victims had no organs, and that Jack the Ripper was in the Ten Bells removing the head off his pint of stout.

[Stewart P Evans]

The Point

...
Stewart,
Thanks for the info, Stewart, this clears up a few problems I had with Trevor's idea of a student prank.
So I take it that the bodies of the Ripper victims did not receive any special treatment, for example by guarding them until a proper examination and autopsy had been performed? They were important evidence, after all.
Regards,
Boris

No, there is no indication that the bodies of the victims were treated any differently in the mortuary procedure than others. But that is not really the point, the section of kidney could have originated from any post mortem, not necessarily from that of Eddowes. It was never proven to have been from her body, and this was stated at the time.

[Adam Went]

I wouldn't have thought that there could still be any serious doubt over whether Jack had any medical knowledge or not. He clearly knew what he was doing, and knew atleast the basics of the human anatomy.

We must remember here that he was able to extract these organs and mutilate these victims using nothing more than a knife - he did not have all the tools of a mortician available to him. Furthermore, he was working under pressure, in almost pitch black darkness in 4 of the 5 canonical murders. No mere mortal could be capable of that. There was even general agreement amongst the doctors involved in the case on this subject, and they were in the best position to judge.

As for the kidney.....the way it was cut, matching up with the Eddowes kidney, having the Bright's Disease, etc, seems to be a little more than a coincidence....BUT whoever wrote the letter had 2 weeks after the murder to hear all the details and pull that sick prank if they felt so inclined. Still, IMO, it is the most likely of all the Ripper communications to be genuine....

Cheers,
Adam.

[Stewart P Evans]

Agree

...
As for the kidney.....the way it was cut, matching up with the Eddowes kidney, having the Bright's Disease, etc, seems to be a little more than a coincidence....BUT whoever wrote the letter had 2 weeks after the murder to hear all the details and pull that sick prank if they felt so inclined. Still, IMO, it is the most likely of all the Ripper communications to be genuine....
Cheers,
Adam.

I agree that the murderer had, at least, some anatomical knowledge but I'm not so sure that the points regarding the kidney are all correct. There was no mention at the time of Bright's disease and the cut on the kidney section did not match up with the renal artery left in Eddowes' body. However, it is probably correct that the 'From hell' letter was more likely than the other letters to be genuine, although that's not saying much.

[Adam Went]

Hi Stewart,

Well there is always the conflicting reports by Dr. Openshaw on the matter of the kidney, although I thought I had read before that the renal artery did match up with that taken from Kate's body? Must have imagined it, or got some false information. We do know that it had been preserved though, it wasn't a fresh cut from a victim in the mortuary.

As for the communications, the most likely would have to be Dear Boss, Saucy Jacky and From Hell.....and I suppose you could include the Goulston Street Graffito in that list as well. Out of those 4, the From Hell letter and kidney definitely has to be the most likely to be from the killer.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Hunter]

Hi Adam,

I believe that Major Smith added the details about the renal artery connection in 1910. I must admit that I enjoyed his book when I was young and impressionable, but its hard to ascertain what can be taken seriously without verification. Brown contradicted this and did not mention Bright's disease, per-say; but his description of the physical condition of Eddowes' kidney has led some to speculate as such. I don't really know if it would make much difference anyway considering some of the people who's organs may have been available.

On the letter again. Like most, I've read many of the 'Ripper' letters sent during this period. I may seem melodramatic here but this one is really spooky. Its short, direct, and as I've said before, the 'style' doesn't seem faked. It may be a hoax, I guess, but it 'feels' like it is 'From Hell'.

I know that's not a scientific way of looking at this... but what the hell.

[Stewart P Evans]

Reports

Hi Stewart,
Well there is always the conflicting reports by Dr. Openshaw on the matter of the kidney, although I thought I had read before that the renal artery did match up with that taken from Kate's body? Must have imagined it, or got some false information. We do know that it had been preserved though, it wasn't a fresh cut from a victim in the mortuary.
As for the communications, the most likely would have to be Dear Boss, Saucy Jacky and From Hell.....and I suppose you could include the Goulston Street Graffito in that list as well. Out of those 4, the From Hell letter and kidney definitely has to be the most likely to be from the killer.
Cheers,
Adam.

Hi Adam, most of the errors regarding the kidney episode have derived from erroneous press reports and Henry Smith's 1910 book.

The press falsely attributed remarks about the half kidney, such as being 'ginny', to Openshaw, but he issued a corrective stating that all he could say was that it was a human kidney. Also Dr. Brown was interviewed during the week following receipt of the kidney, whilst he was still examining it, and he stated that any matching of the renal artery to what was left in the body was impossible as the artery had been 'trimmed off' the kidney section.

But, as you say, this letter probably is the most likely to have originated with the murderer. Best wishes, Stewart.

[Adam Went]

Hunter:

The difficulty with memoirs and what not written by officers decades after the case is that their memories are often vague and intertwined with other events. They must be taken notice of, of course, because they were there at the time, it's just unfortunate that they were not always factually correct - and Macnaghten started that particular trend very early on after the murders.

Doctors Openshaw, Bond, Brown and Phillips all seem to have had varying opinions on both the victim and/or the kidney as well, which makes it even harder to ascertain what the truth is. Although I think we're fairly safe in assuming that Kate was indeed a victim of JTR, it's time that one was nipped in the bud.

All I can say about the letter itself is that I agree entirely with your comments....

Stewart:

On Openshaw's comments, both his original "statement" and the corrective one which followed it were given to, and printed in the newspapers (IIRC, The Star carried the second of them) - as you would undoubtedly know, anything that was printed in the press in regards to the murders needs to be taken with a rather generous pinch of salt. There is quite a huge contrast between his two reported statements, and given that they were printed within a day or so of one another, it's hard to imagine what would have caused such a change in that amount of time.

Cheers,
Adam.