How many victims?

[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.

[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

[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

[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]

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

Hi Jeff

I dont think we are talking about organ theft in the true sense If we are to accept Prof Hurrens research it shows an illegal trade in body parts and bodies and among those concered who were able to facilitate this trade were mortuary attendants and others named by Prof Hurren.

I think the times relating to the murder of Edowes are paramount to this whole organ removal issue.

And I say again at the risk of being repetetive, the Mitre Square timings cannot safely be relied upon because we simply dod not know what time the couple entered the square, as I keep saying the later they moved off the less time there is for the killer to do all that he is supposed to have done. So it is wrong for people to keep saying the killer had sufficient time.

Again some will seek to rely on the time given by Dr Brown with regards to his expert, but again we do not know under what conditions the expert carried out the experiment was it in the daylight in a mortuary with plenty of light, or was it in the dark in a mortuary, I suspect it was not under the crime scene conditions in any event. So that time stated is unsafe also to rely on.

The timings are important to those who say the killer took the organs and they contuine to argue that the killer had time, but we simpy do not know to be able to say conclusivley so the alternative has to be considered and not discarded outright simply because of the old accpted theory and what some want to beleive.

In my opinion the whole organ removal issue througout the theory stands or falls with the Eddowes murder because if the killer did not have the time in Mitre Square, then the whole organ removal issue surrounding Chapman and Kelly is brought into serious question.

Then we take Dr Phillips time estimate for the removal of the organs from Chapman which shows a conflict with Brown

Dr Phillips. I think I can guide you by saying that I myself could not have performed all the injuries I saw on that woman, and effect them, even without a struggle, under a quarter of an hour.

Bearing in mind the uterus and fallopian tubes were removed from Chapman which clearly shows whoever removed them did so for medical research an issue with which my modern day consultant gynecologist concurs with me on.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff
I think the times relating to the murder of Edowes are paramount to this whole organ removal issue.

And I say again at the risk of being repetetive, the Mitre Square timings cannot safely be relied upon because we simply dod not know what time the couple entered the square, as I keep saying the later they moved off the less time there is for the killer to do all that he is supposed to have done. So it is wrong for people to keep saying the killer had sufficient time.

Again some will seek to rely on the time given by Dr Brown with regards to his expert, but again we do not know under what conditions the expert carried out the experiment was it in the daylight in a mortuary with plenty of light, or was it in the dark in a mortuary, I suspect it was not under the crime scene conditions in any event. So that time stated is unsafe also to rely on.

The timings are important to those who say the killer took the organs and they contuine to argue that the killer had time, but we simpy do not know to be able to say conclusivley so the alternative has to be considered and not discarded outright simply because of the old accpted theory and what some want to beleive.

In my opinion the whole organ removal issue througout the theory stands or falls with the Eddowes murder because if the killer did not have the time in Mitre Square, then the whole organ removal issue surrounding Chapman and Kelly is brought into serious question.

Then we take Dr Phillips time estimate for the removal of the organs from Chapman which shows a conflict with Brown

Dr Phillips. I think I can guide you by saying that I myself could not have performed all the injuries I saw on that woman, and effect them, even without a struggle, under a quarter of an hour.

Bearing in mind the uterus and fallopian tubes were removed from Chapman which clearly shows whoever removed them did so for medical research an issue with which my modern day consultant gynecologist concurs with me on.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

Yes, we differ on this point. I do see and understand what you're saying, but as you know I draw different conclusions. The mutilations to Eddowes are more extensive than to Chapman, and there isn't 15 minutes available as PC Watkins' patrols was only 14. And, given contemporary and modern medical opinion has suggested as little as 3 minutes would be required in the Eddowes' case, then it suggests the original estimate for Chapman's case must be highly unsafe to rely upon. But, even if not, given you do not believe Chapman was murdered when Cadosche was going back and forth to the loo, the time required in the Chapman case is irrelevant because if she's murdered early in the morning then JtR could have had all the time in the world and taking more time there has no bearing on the Eddowes case. It's only the Eddowes case where we have a definite restriction on the time available due to PC Watkin's patrol times, allow for a maximum of 14 minutes.

And I agree we don't know what time Eddowes and JtR entered the square, but we do know there was enough time for her to be murdered and mutilated extensively, with placements of intestines out of the way, etc. Let's call that X time. The only point of contention is if two additional actions were under taken, the removal of 3/4 of her uterus, and the removal of her left kidney (which may or may not have been damaged in the process, something we don't know because it was never examined). Those two additional actions would simply increase our estimate of X only by the amount of time required to perform those two specific cuts (call that Y time), means we are comparing X vs X+Y, where Y is proportionally very small. So X and X+Y are amounts of time very close to each other. While we do not know for sure how long X is, we know X + Y is not much longer and we know for certain that JtR had X amount of time, all we are debating is whether or not he also had that additional Y amount of time, which would not be very much additional time. Arguing that they may have entered in the small time window such that X was available but not X+Y is incredibly unlikely, particularly when doing so dismisses the fact that there is still time unaccounted for which would make X+Y available.

Anyway, we're going round in circles as we've covered this before. As I say, I do like exploring all sorts of ideas and while we may disagree with each other, I don't mean to be disagreeable, but I realize text can sometimes come across that way, and apologize if my writing style does that at times.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

Yes, we differ on this point. I do see and understand what you're saying, but as you know I draw different conclusions. The mutilations to Eddowes are more extensive than to Chapman, and there isn't 15 minutes available as PC Watkins' patrols was only 14. And, given contemporary and modern medical opinion has suggested as little as 3 minutes would be required in the Eddowes' case, then it suggests the original estimate for Chapman's case must be highly unsafe to rely upon. But, even if not, given you do not believe Chapman was murdered when Cadosche was going back and forth to the loo, the time required in the Chapman case is irrelevant because if she's murdered early in the morning then JtR could have had all the time in the world and taking more time there has no bearing on the Eddowes case. It's only the Eddowes case where we have a definite restriction on the time available due to PC Watkin's patrol times, allow for a maximum of 14 minutes.

And I agree we don't know what time Eddowes and JtR entered the square, but we do know there was enough time for her to be murdered and mutilated extensively, with placements of intestines out of the way, etc. Let's call that X time. The only point of contention is if two additional actions were under taken, the removal of 3/4 of her uterus, and the removal of her left kidney (which may or may not have been damaged in the process, something we don't know because it was never examined). Those two additional actions would simply increase our estimate of X only by the amount of time required to perform those two specific cuts (call that Y time), means we are comparing X vs X+Y, where Y is proportionally very small. So X and X+Y are amounts of time very close to each other. While we do not know for sure how long X is, we know X + Y is not much longer and we know for certain that JtR had X amount of time, all we are debating is whether or not he also had that additional Y amount of time, which would not be very much additional time. Arguing that they may have entered in the small time window such that X was available but not X+Y is incredibly unlikely, particularly when doing so dismisses the fact that there is still time unaccounted for which would make X+Y available.

Anyway, we're going round in circles as we've covered this before. As I say, I do like exploring all sorts of ideas and while we may disagree with each other, I don't mean to be disagreeable, but I realize text can sometimes come across that way, and apologize if my writing style does that at times.

- Jeff

Thats ok Jeff I fully understand your position as you understand mine.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

.   Again some will seek to rely on the time given by Dr Brown with regards to his expert, but again we do not know under what conditions the expert carried out the experiment was it in the daylight in a mortuary with plenty of light, or was it in the dark in a mortuary, I suspect it was not under the crime scene conditions in any event. So that time stated is unsafe also to rely on.

You’re looking at this issue the wrong way Trevor. The only way that there could be tangible doubt against the killer of Eddowes having enough time would be if we had evidence that the couple moved on later rather than earlier. Simply saying that they ‘might’ have moved on later achieves nothing as long as there was no barrier to them moving on earlier. And there wasn’t. It’s the equivalent of recreating a scene and putting an obstacle there which wasn’t there originally.

Also, do these type of disturbed killers have to have done exactly the same things every time? Yes of course I understand that patterns are looked for by investigators; similarities and differences, but is a difference like a body part being removed from one victim and not another enough to show different killers? We still have to face and dismiss the fact that these women were all from the same walk of life; apart from Kelly they were of a similar age group; they all lived within a very small area; they all had their throats cut; they all suffered abdominal mutilates (except for one of course) and these murders took place over a space of less than three months. This collection of facts move these murders about as far ‘out of the ordinary’ as we can imagine and so we can’t really have a stronger or more substantial pointer to the one killer theory. So is the fact that not all the victims had body parts removed sufficient to dismiss this?

[Trevor Marriott]

. Again some will seek to rely on the time given by Dr Brown with regards to his expert, but again we do not know under what conditions the expert carried out the experiment was it in the daylight in a mortuary with plenty of light, or was it in the dark in a mortuary, I suspect it was not under the crime scene conditions in any event. So that time stated is unsafe also to rely on.

You’re looking at this issue the wrong way Trevor. The only way that there could be tangible doubt against the killer of Eddowes having enough time would be if we had evidence that the couple moved on later rather than earlier. Simply saying that they ‘might’ have moved on later achieves nothing as long as there was no barrier to them moving on earlier. And there wasn’t. It’s the equivalent of recreating a scene and putting an obstacle there which wasn’t there originally.

Also, do these type of disturbed killers have to have done exactly the same things every time? Yes of course I understand that patterns are looked for by investigators; similarities and differences, but is a difference like a body part being removed from one victim and not another enough to show different killers? We still have to face and dismiss the fact that these women were all from the same walk of life; apart from Kelly they were of a similar age group; they all lived within a very small area; they all had their throats cut; they all suffered abdominal mutilates (except for one of course) and these murders took place over a space of less than three months. This collection of facts move these murders about as far ‘out of the ordinary’ as we can imagine and so we can’t really have a stronger or more substantial pointer to the one killer theory. So is the fact that not all the victims had body parts removed sufficient to dismiss this?

It has to be taken into consideratiion if you are sugesting that there was only one killer who according to you and others after murdering a victim removed organs from their body. But the one killer suggestion and his removal of organs is not in line with the one killers MO. Either either did did remove the organs from some of the victims and not others but there is no logical reason for him to change his MO if organs were the motive for the murders which I dont believe was the case ,aand I dont buy the being disturned explantion because as I have stated this was used to show that the same killer killed Stride and then found Eddowes, but we see no evidence of any seconday attacks surrounding the victims who didnot have any attempts to have organs removed

If the killer was after organs why would he mutilate the victims abdomens in such a way as to cause injury to any organs he may have been seeking, why not simply cut their throats and open up the abdomens no need to make his job more difficult by stabbing repeatedly the abdomens cutting blood vessels and arteries causing the adbomen to fill up with blood. On that topic you have to also the degree of difficulty involved in a killer trying to locate vital organs in almost total darkness and then having located them being in a position to take hold of slippery organs without the assistance of surgical gloves to be able to gain a good grip and then remove them with some medical precision- It didnt happen !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

It has to be taken into consideratiion if you are sugesting that there was only one killer who according to you and others after murdering a victim removed organs from their body. But the one killer suggestion and his removal of organs is not in line with the one killers MO. Either either did did remove the organs from some of the victims and not others but there is no logical reason for him to change his MO if organs were the motive for the murders which I dont believe was the case ,aand I dont buy the being disturned explantion because as I have stated this was used to show that the same killer killed Stride and then found Eddowes, but we see no evidence of any seconday attacks surrounding the victims who didnot have any attempts to have organs removed

If the killer was after organs why would he mutilate the victims abdomens in such a way as to cause injury to any organs he may have been seeking, why not simply cut their throats and open up the abdomens no need to make his job more difficult by stabbing repeatedly the abdomens cutting blood vessels and arteries causing the adbomen to fill up with blood. On that topic you have to also the degree of difficulty involved in a killer trying to locate vital organs in almost total darkness and then having located them being in a position to take hold of slippery organs without the assistance of surgical gloves to be able to gain a good grip and then remove them with some medical precision- It didnt happen !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

This is not meant to be insulting. It’s a genuine question. What is it with some people?

You are another one who doesn’t appear to be able to separate opinion from fact. How can you say “It didn’t happen.” How the hell can you ‘know’ that Trevor? You simply can’t. What your doing is applying a very neat little set of easily breakable rules that serve your own theory.

The killer ‘must’ have wanted to remove organs every time therefore if the killer didn’t remove organs it wasn’t the same killer.

Starting with a false positive isn’t conducive to good reasoning Trevor and it’s difficult to apply logic to actions that aren’t logical. We don’t even know for anything like certain what motivated him? What if he heard voices? Would those voices have followed a method? So we just can’t know what was going through the killers mind at the time of the murders? We can’t know what was happening in his life? Maybe outside influences had an effect on his thought processes which therefore his actions from murder to murder?

To say that “It didn’t happen” is complete nonsense Trevor and you do yourself or your argument no favours by taking the approach of claiming your opinion as fact. You have to rely on obvious waffle such as ‘well they might have walked away later?’

You are impervious to reason in the defence of your theory Trevor. It’s your baby. Sadly though it was stillborn. It’s no more than a ‘what if’ to add to the 1000 other ‘what if’s’ in this case. The evidence overwhelmingly points to Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly being killed by the same hand. Stride is up for debate of course.

[DJA]

On that topic you have to also the degree of difficulty involved in a killer trying to locate vital organs in almost total darkness and then having located them being in a position to take hold of slippery organs without the assistance of surgical gloves to be able to gain a good grip and then remove them with some medical precision- It didnt happen !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Operating surgeons did not use surgical gloves in 1888.
First introduced in 1889. USA.
Get a grip Trev

[Trevor Marriott]

This is not meant to be insulting. It’s a genuine question. What is it with some people?

You are another one who doesn’t appear to be able to separate opinion from fact. How can you say “It didn’t happen.” How the hell can you ‘know’ that Trevor? You simply can’t. What your doing is applying a very neat little set of easily breakable rules that serve your own theory.

The killer ‘must’ have wanted to remove organs every time therefore if the killer didn’t remove organs it wasn’t the same killer.

Starting with a false positive isn’t conducive to good reasoning Trevor and it’s difficult to apply logic to actions that aren’t logical. We don’t even know for anything like certain what motivated him? What if he heard voices? Would those voices have followed a method? So we just can’t know what was going through the killers mind at the time of the murders? We can’t know what was happening in his life? Maybe outside influences had an effect on his thought processes which therefore his actions from murder to murder?

To say that “It didn’t happen” is complete nonsense Trevor and you do yourself or your argument no favours by taking the approach of claiming your opinion as fact. You have to rely on obvious waffle such as ‘well they might have walked away later?’

You are impervious to reason in the defence of your theory Trevor. It’s your baby. Sadly though it was stillborn. It’s no more than a ‘what if’ to add to the 1000 other ‘what if’s’ in this case. The evidence overwhelmingly points to Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly being killed by the same hand. Stride is up for debate of course.

You for one need to take the blinkers off and start to look at these murders and all that surrounds them in a new light becasue you have become blinded by the old accepted theories you post if full of whats if`s which you use to try to negate what are clear differneces in the killers MO with some of the victims, now to me that either points to more than one killer, or the same killer using one MO that being to simply kill and murder and mutilate, with the side issue of not removing organs and the organs of Eddowes and Chapam removed at the mortuary

I can say what I like, and I accept that what I say is not going to go down well with those who still try to prop up the old theories and use whatever means they can to not accept new ideas and new research which you clearly resort to time and time again with the excuse that the killer might have been disturbed but that doesnt wash does it for the reasons I have previouylsy stated.

Now this post has gone of track from the research Prof Hurren conducted into the illicit trade in bodies and body parts in the LVP from among other place mortuaries with the help of corrupt mortuary attendants which has a bearing on what happened to the organs of the only two victims out of possibly 9 victims, so much for the killer killing to acquire organs he cleary wasnt that successful

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Operating surgeons did not use surgical gloves in 1888.
First introduced in 1889. USA.
Get a grip Trev

I know that I was making a point as to how difficult it would have been to hold any slippery organs.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[DJA]

I know that I was making a point as to how difficult it would have been to hold any slippery organs.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Surgical gloves were about hygiene not slippery organs.

[rjpalmer]

Had Kate Eddowes died in the American South in the 1900s, rather than London in the 1880s, some may have pondered a different explanation for her death.