How many victims?

[JeffHamm]

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.

Yes, indeed, the Anatomy Act expressly forbids the taking of bodies or parts if there is a post-mortem scheduled, so we're talking organ theft. Also, in the days previous, the trade was in whole bodies as these were needed for teaching disection, and to examine anatomy (by slowly and carefully taking apart an intact body). As you note, the demand for partial uterii would be minimal, as these would be all but useless. Also, we can't be sure the kidney was taken out all that carefully, all we know is that the cut through the membrane was clean. It's unknown if the kidney underneath was damaged during the removal because it was taken away. It's possible it was sliced into during the membrane cutting, putting great doubt into it being done slowly and carefully.

Anyway, there's no evidence that connects two separate mortuary assisstances (as you note, the bodies were in different places so there has to be two) known to be connected to the organ black market, nor is there any evidence of a common assistant being at both (at least then one could point to a potential thief), nor is there any evidence that trade in single, damaged, organs was rife at the time, despite the possibly there was still some demand for intact bodies.

Also, with regards to the timing, the argument there wasn't enough time is really a non-starter. It is clear that both Eddowes and Chapman were killed and badly mutilated at the scene. There has to have been enough time for all of that to occur. The only difference in Chapman's case to cut out the uterus, and for Eddowes, to botch the removal of the uterus (leaving a significant portion behind), and to cut through the membrane and remove the kidney (and we know the other viscera were found removed, making access to the kidney possible, so that viscera removal and placement had to have been done in all scenerios, that doesn't add time, just the cut and remove does). And those additional actions will add relatively little additional time to what was required to subdue, kill, and mutilate the victims to leave them as found. Basically, if there was enough time to subdue, kill, and mutilate (which there clearly was) there was enough time to do a few more cuts to remove the organs reported as taken. Particularly when the argument for there not being enough time with Eddowes is based upon assuming some of the unaccounted time was not used despite being available for consideration.

It's certainly an interesting idea, and it is one that needs to be examined and compared to the evidence. In my view, there is nothing in the evidence that makes the "killer took the organs" a problematic stance, and there is no evidence connecting any of the crimes to someone linked with the organ black market, or even a common assistant between the Chapman and Eddowes post-mortem who might at least be presented as the potential thief. Without something other than speculation to back the idea there was a connection between these crimes and an organ black market (simply saying both existed at the same time is not enough; the JtR crimes and the Royal Family existed at the same time but nobody seriously connects them, although as we know that was once considered "possible" too.

Anyway, I actually like the fact that different ideas are put out, and while I don't agree with Trevor's assessment, nor he with mine, it is good to have these conversations every so often as it forces all of us to put our cards on the table and point to the evidence that we base our interpretations upon. Very few are likely to change their minds, but it is useful for those who have not yet made up theirs.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

-There were was an attempt to open the abdomen on Nichols,maybe Mackenzie,but like Frances Coles - the killer's footsteps hurrying way was heard,the killer was disturbed so he was not able to get organs.

The injuries to Nichols and Mckenzie are mutilation injuries and not consistent witn any attempt to open up the abdomens and attempt to remove organs.

The suggestion that the killer was disturbed is a cop out excuse in my opininion and has been used to link Stride and Eddowes to the same killer with the suggestion that at the Stride murder he was disturbed and still wanted to find a victim that night. So if researchers are going to use that same excuse as the reason for no other attempt at organ removals on any other victims then why do we not see secondary attacks the same nights?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

-There were was an attempt to open the abdomen on Nichols,maybe Mackenzie,but like Frances Coles - the killer's footsteps hurrying way was heard,the killer was disturbed so he was not able to get organs.

-So the organ thieves only stole when the abdomen was opened,that way nobody will know something has been stolen.But if the abdomen was not open they would not steal because then people will know.Sneaky,but..
In the years dead bodies were sent to the mortuaries they made money in only two dead bodies,Chapman and Eddowes - these are the only 2 known dead people with abdomens open. It was not good business.

You should read Prof Hurrens research in full on the topic of illicit organ and body parts acquisition then you may look at this in a differmet light and tyou may be less flippant because your observations as posted are never more far from the truth and reality.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Varqm]

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

-There were was an attempt to open the abdomen on Nichols,maybe Mackenzie,but like Frances Coles - the killer's footsteps hurrying way was heard,the killer was disturbed so he was not able to get organs.

-So the organ thieves only stole when the abdomen was opened,that way nobody will know something has been stolen.But if the abdomen was not open they would not steal because then people will know.Sneaky,but..
In the years dead bodies were sent to the mortuaries they made money in only two dead bodies,Chapman and Eddowes - these are the only 2 known dead people with abdomens open. It was not good business.

[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.

[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

[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]

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

[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.

[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.

[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]

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 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

[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]

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