How many victims?

[Trevor Marriott]

If these body dealers were doing this for cash (which they obviously were) they were obviously paid x for a kidney, y for a liver, z for a heart etc. So why did they only pick individual organs in the case of ripper victims? Why not plunder the body of all sellable organs for the maximum cash haul?

Why not?

Because in the case of the ripper victims it very obviously didn’t happen.

You clearly have not read the previous post where research states that female organs were in greater demand!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[MrBarnett]

I am only concerned into her research into the illict and unlawful aquisition of body parts and bodies and the work of body dealers and corrupt mortuary attendants. If you or anyone else can disprove her research into this topic then feel free to post it because it adds even more weight to what happened to the organs of Eddowes and Chapman and if i am right adds more weight to show the killer did not take away the heart of Kelly.

Yet again I see desperation setting in with some who want to protect the old accpted theories by trying to destroy an academics research.The same desparation that set in with regards to Insp Reids interview whereby certain reserchers who did not accept the accuracy of that interview suggested he had misremebered the facts surrounding the Kelly murder, its really pathetic, when Reid had more involvement in the case than Bond

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes, she claims Dorset Street was the ‘epicentre’ of the activity you are particularly interested in. Have you checked out her evidence for saying so? Or are you taking it at face value because it supports your theory?

Have you read the article I linked to?

[Abby Normal]

They were removed at the mortuaries and acquired for medical research before the post mortems were carried out something that was rife in mortuaries in Victorian times.
the bodies of chapman and eddowes were left for up to 8 hours before the post mortems were carried out at which time the organs were found missing and presume removed by the killer

www.trevormarriott.co.uk


www.trevormarriott.co.uk

ahh yes so the the killer of chapman, eddowes and kelly eviscerated them, tore out there innards leaving them on and around the victims but didnt take any of the organs. and would this be seperate killers too? lol.

Trevor stop misleading the noobs

[MrBarnett]

Yes, she claims Dorset Street was the ‘epicentre’ of the activity you are particularly interested in. Have you checked out her evidence for saying so? Or are you taking it at face value because it supports your theory?

Have you read the article I linked to?

I think the link I provided may be to a translation of a translation, which may explain some of the textual errors. But having stated that Dorset Street was at the centre of the illicit body dealing trade, you would expect Dr Hallet to give her reasons for coming to that conclusion. Apart from some guff about the architectural scenery of Dorset Street - it had pubs, lodging houses, courts and an alley; it was near a churchyard and a refuge for the homeless - she provides nothing.

[Trevor Marriott]

ahh yes so the the killer of chapman, eddowes and kelly eviscerated them, tore out there innards leaving them on and around the victims but didnt take any of the organs. and would this be seperate killers too? lol.

Trevor stop misleading the noobs

You are another who rushes to put pen to paper without first engaging your brain.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

You clearly have not read the previous post where research states that female organs were in greater demand!!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

If someone gained access to the bodies why didn’t they take all of the saleable organs when they had chance?

Or perhaps you are suggesting that they were interrupted.

[Trevor Marriott]

I think the link I provided may be to a translation of a translation, which may explain some of the textual errors. But having stated that Dorset Street was at the centre of the illicit body dealing trade, you would expect Dr Hallet to give her reasons for coming to that conclusion. Apart from some guff about the architectural scenery of Dorset Street - it had pubs, lodging houses, courts and an alley; it was near a churchyard and a refuge for the homeless - she provides nothing.

But she does peovide and insight into Body dealers and the illicit trade in bodies and body parts does she not ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[MrBarnett]

But she does peovide and insight into Body dealers and the illicit trade in bodies and body parts does she not ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I don’t know, does she? She certainly has something to say about the subject, but is it accurate? Her stuff about JTR and Dorset Street is all over the place. Why take anything else she says at face value?

This has nothing to do with preserving accepted theories or gratuitously bashing an academic. You introduced her and I thought I’d check her out. If any Ripperologist came up with the rubbish in that article, they’d be ripped to shreds for it.

[Trevor Marriott]

I don’t know, does she? She certainly has something to say about the subject, but is it accurate? Her stuff about JTR and Dorset Street is all over the place. Why take anything else she says at face value?

This has nothing to do with preserving accepted theories or gratuitously bashing an academic. You introduced her and I thought I’d check her out. If any Ripperologist came up with the rubbish in that article, they’d be ripped to shreds for it.

You should know by now that with every story/account there is always and element of truth and if anyone can disprove what she says about the illicit dealing in body parts and bodies then fair enough, But she clearly had done a great deal of reserach. The examples in my post havent been plucked from out of the blue.

and of course if we get back to the murder of Eddowes which is important to this issue. As has been stated if the couple seen outside Mitre Square were the killer and Eddowes then we do not know what time they did move off, the later they did the less time the killer had with Eddowes and if that time was not sufficient to do all that he is purpored to have done then the topic of organs removal is flung wide open and begs the question who did remove the organs, where and when? and did the killer take away the heart from Kelly?

I am just trying to get people to take a look at this topic out of the box and not so ready to accept the old accepted theories with regards to the organs

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[MrBarnett]

You should know by now that with every story/account there is always and element of truth and if anyone can disprove what she says about the illicit dealing in body parts and bodies then fair enough, But she clearly had done a great deal of reserach. The examples in my post havent been plucked from out of the blue.

and of course if we get back to the murder of Eddowes which is important to this issue. As has been stated if the couple seen outside Mitre Square were the killer and Eddowes then we do not know what time they did move off, the later they did the less time the killer had with Eddowes and if that time was not sufficient to do all that he is purpored to have done then the topic of organs removal is flung wide open and begs the question who did remove the organs, where and when? and did the killer take away the heart from Kelly?

I am just trying to get people to take a look at this topic out of the box and not so ready to accept the old accepted theories with regards to the organs

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Which is very laudable, Trevor. It’s just a shame that when I took a look, I found the article I did - a rather pathetic attempt at solving the Ripper case.

[Varqm]

The problem with the organ was used for business/research view is when the "victims's abdomen" were opened by the killer,and observed in-situ, only then were organs taken.But when not like Nichols Stride,Mackenzie,Coles then no organs were taken.Nichols and Chapman were sent to the same mortuary and only Chapman's organs were stolen.It does not make sense.

[Trevor Marriott]

The problem with the organ was used for business/research view is when the "victims's abdomen" were opened by the killer only then were organs taken.But when not like Nichols Stride,Mackenzie,Coles then no organs were taken.Nichols and Chapman were sent to the same mortuary and only Chapman's organs were stolen.It does not make sense.

The answer to that is two fold the first you could argue that if the same killer killed all the victims why were there no attempts to remove organs at the crime scenes from other victims?

The other explanation is that the only two victims whose abdomens were opened in such a way by the killer as to be able for organs to be removed without arising suspicion were Chapman and Eddowes

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

You should know by now that with every story/account there is always and element of truth and if anyone can disprove what she says about the illicit dealing in body parts and bodies then fair enough, But she clearly had done a great deal of reserach. The examples in my post havent been plucked from out of the blue.

and of course if we get back to the murder of Eddowes which is important to this issue. As has been stated if the couple seen outside Mitre Square were the killer and Eddowes then we do not know what time they did move off, the later they did the less time the killer had with Eddowes and if that time was not sufficient to do all that he is purpored to have done then the topic of organs removal is flung wide open and begs the question who did remove the organs, where and when? and did the killer take away the heart from Kelly?

I am just trying to get people to take a look at this topic out of the box and not so ready to accept the old accepted theories with regards to the organs

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Do you consider it possible that an ‘old accepted theory’ as call them might be ‘accepted’ because they provide the best explanation of the facts? And that when you appear to be the only person proposing a theory there’s a fair chance that no one agrees with you because you might be wrong?

Your point about the later that Eddowes and her killer moved off the less time that he would have had is pointless because they might easily have moved off earlier allowing enough time. You might as well say that if the man with Eddowes had forgotten his knife he couldn’t have done it. Unless you can prove that they moved off later (and you can’t) then there’s no point raising it.

[Trevor Marriott]

Do you consider it possible that an ‘old accepted theory’ as call them might be ‘accepted’ because they provide the best explanation of the facts? And that when you appear to be the only person proposing a theory there’s a fair chance that no one agrees with you because you might be wrong?

Your point about the later that Eddowes and her killer moved off the less time that he would have had is pointless because they might easily have moved off earlier allowing enough time. You might as well say that if the man with Eddowes had forgotten his knife he couldn’t have done it. Unless you can prove that they moved off later (and you can’t) then there’s no point raising it.

Well there is a chance I may be right because there is no definitive evidence to conclusively prove the old accepted facts and my theory is not without corroboration to support it

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Gordon]

It all sounds rather Burke-and-Hare-ish, body parts disappearing from mortuaries. Two generations earlier this certainly happened, in the dark days of the 1820s, but in 1888 I would have expected more enlightenment.

It is worth asking where teaching hospitals got hold of bodies for medical students to dissect. It’s well known of course that the bodies of hanged criminals were made available for anatomizing through the early 19th century, but even that wasn’t enough to meet the demand at the time. Meanwhile from the 1830s onward, far fewer criminals were hanged, restricting the supply further, while at the same time with advances in medicine, and probably more doctors relative to the population, I would have expected the demand for bodies to rise further relative to the population.

It turns out that the Anatomy Act of 1832 made unclaimed bodies of poor people who died in workhouses and charitable hospitals available for dissection, which boosted the supply considerably. According to this article, the Act made body snatching "unnecessary" for the rest of the century. Which perhaps didn't prevent a few unscrupulous mortuary attendants from making a little money on the side even when times had moved on.

Still, it seems to me too much of a coincidence that body parts would have been stolen from two women who happened to be Ripper victims, particularly since Chapman and Eddowes were taken to two different mortuaries in different jurisdictions. I can understand of course why nobody would risk stealing their entire bodies, since they were known to be murder victims on whom autopsies would be performed, and if they disappeared, inconvenient questions would certainly be asked. Still, if anyone went to the trouble of stealing Kate’s kidney afterwards, why not take both while they were at it? Left alone, a rogue mortuary attendant would have the time to do that in the early hours of Sunday the 30th. It’s more likely that her killer, acting in haste, never had the time to perform more than one nephrectomy. Or perhaps one was all he wanted, or a uterus and one kidney were as much as he could conveniently carry away as trophies.

It’s also worth noting that Dr. Brown, who performed the autopsy on Kate, was unable to suggest any medical reason for the removal of her left kidney and uterus. His opinion was that they would be ”of no use for any professional purpose.”

Quite why he said that in the case of the kidney I don’t know, since my understanding is that it was excised intact and fairly cleanly. But the uterus was butchered, with the cervix cut off. That’s just what I’d expect of a frenzied killer doing a hurried hack job in a dark square at night, not someone in a mortuary with the time to extract a potentially saleable item with greater care. I have to conclude the killer was responsible for this travesty of “surgery.” And if he was, why did he chop her uterus out if he didn’t want to take it home in the first place? I imagine he carried it away, together with her kidney, wrapped in the other piece of Kate’s apron: the piece that was never found.