Did The Killer Remove Organs?

[Michael W Richards]

Personally, the second uterus at Mitre Square (and like I say this is just me...) rules out random selection in terms of that organ. As to the kidney... yeah, possibly. But according to the repoirts and folk I've spoken to over the years, it would be an absolute bugger to find the kidney by feeling for it evenif you were looking for it,underthe conditions the killer was proceeding.

It's certainly possible, but it would take a lot to convince me that he wasn't at the very least after the uterus.

As to an actual reason to take the Kidney? Anyone's guess.
Here's a very left field one I thought of last night, when pondering this very question. I don't by any means think it is the solution to "why take the kidney" but it could be...

The term "Piss Proud" comes from around the early 1700's and was used for someone who was overblown with self esteem... and the term used to remove some of that dignity by mockery is still used today.
One nickname among the working class for the kidney in the late Victorian era was "Piss cushion". My grandad would eat all manner of offal and tripe like it was the food of the Gods, but wouldn't touch kidneys...(He was also terrified of eating anything with seeds; particularly strawberries and tomatoes, because he honestly believed a seed would get "stuck" and a plant would grow inside him! All because of HIS parents and grand parents being part of the poorly educated Victorian working class.)

Maybe the killer was simply and figuratively... in a pretty literal way... attempting to... "Take The Piss" out of the Police or the victims?

I believe that the taking of the kidney might be representative of someone trying to offset the clear interest in uteri demonstrated in Annies killing, as youve observed. Or perhaps the killer of Kate didnt know exactly what was taken from Annie, only that a uterus was a part of it. Maybe he took more from Kate presuming that abdominal organs themselves were the target. Obviously if Im correct, then Kates killer didnt kill Annie. He did to Kate what he presumed Annies killer would have done.

[A P Tomlinson]

Maybe he wasn't searching for something specific, but he didn't want something long and narrow like intestines.

Personally, the second uterus at Mitre Square (and like I say this is just me...) rules out random selection in terms of that organ. As to the kidney... yeah, possibly. But according to the repoirts and folk I've spoken to over the years, it would be an absolute bugger to find the kidney by feeling for it evenif you were looking for it,underthe conditions the killer was proceeding.

It's certainly possible, but it would take a lot to convince me that he wasn't at the very least after the uterus.

As to an actual reason to take the Kidney? Anyone's guess.
Here's a very left field one I thought of last night, when pondering this very question. I don't by any means think it is the solution to "why take the kidney" but it could be...

The term "Piss Proud" comes from around the early 1700's and was used for someone who was overblown with self esteem... and the term used to remove some of that dignity by mockery is still used today.
One nickname among the working class for the kidney in the late Victorian era was "Piss cushion". My grandad would eat all manner of offal and tripe like it was the food of the Gods, but wouldn't touch kidneys...(He was also terrified of eating anything with seeds; particularly strawberries and tomatoes, because he honestly believed a seed would get "stuck" and a plant would grow inside him! All because of HIS parents and grand parents being part of the poorly educated Victorian working class.)

Maybe the killer was simply and figuratively... in a pretty literal way... attempting to... "Take The Piss" out of the Police or the victims?

[Lewis C]

I think that if he's not searching for something specific, then why remove the intestines and throw them out of the way?
They were obviously impeding some part of his process.

And it's not like he could see what he was doing, so this was all done from either memory and by touch, or good luck.

Maybe he wasn't searching for something specific, but he didn't want something long and narrow like intestines.

[Michael W Richards]

I think that if he's not searching for something specific, then why remove the intestines and throw them out of the way?
They were obviously impeding some part of his process.

And it's not like he could see what he was doing, so this was all done from either memory and by touch, or good luck.

Interesting you latched on to the fact he places the "non-essential" impediments aside. Mitre Square I think based on the time of night and the location is by far the darkest alleged Ripper kill site, but there was some available light in the backyard at 29 Hanbury. Maybe thats why we see more precision there.

[A P Tomlinson]

For the thread premise, its not a certainty that Mary Anns, Annies, Kate or Marys organs were actually cut out by the killer himself, but its is the opinion of the cheif examiner in the case of Chapman and of Eddowes that the cuts that were seen as the body was viewed in situ indicated a specific interest in specific organs. And a knowledge of where and how to access them. That we find these same organs missing, along with the empirical evidence of the cuts themselves, its hard to imagine the killer cut into the abdomen with the types of cuts indicating a knowledge and interest in specific organs and accessing them, but leaving them in there anyway. Dr Phillips believed all the abdominal cuts he saw on Annie were to achieve the specific goal that was eventually determined to have been achieved, accessing and extracting her uterus. The partial bladder may just have been collateral to that.

When you dont have a crime scene declaration of organs absolutely taken by the killer at the time of the murder, you still have the knife use evidence that suggests that the cuts were made to access the organs that were, eventually, determined to be absent. Why make those cuts if not to do what was indicated by them?

I think that if he's not searching for something specific, then why remove the intestines and throw them out of the way?
They were obviously impeding some part of his process.

And it's not like he could see what he was doing, so this was all done from either memory and by touch, or good luck.

[Michael W Richards]

For the thread premise, its not a certainty that Mary Anns, Annies, Kate or Marys organs were actually cut out by the killer himself, but its is the opinion of the cheif examiner in the case of Chapman and of Eddowes that the cuts that were seen as the body was viewed in situ indicated a specific interest in specific organs. And a knowledge of where and how to access them. That we find these same organs missing, along with the empirical evidence of the cuts themselves, its hard to imagine the killer cut into the abdomen with the types of cuts indicating a knowledge and interest in specific organs and accessing them, but leaving them in there anyway. Dr Phillips believed all the abdominal cuts he saw on Annie were to achieve the specific goal that was eventually determined to have been achieved, accessing and extracting her uterus. The partial bladder may just have been collateral to that.

When you dont have a crime scene declaration of organs absolutely taken by the killer at the time of the murder, you still have the knife use evidence that suggests that the cuts were made to access the organs that were, eventually, determined to be absent. Why make those cuts if not to do what was indicated by them?

[Herlock Sholmes]

If you like Laphroiag, Lidl, (of all places) do a remarkable single malt from Islay in their "Ben Bracken" range.
You want the Green Tube.
Not as peaty as a Laphroiag, but for 18 quid a bottle... it's VERY good value for money!

Back to the OP... I'm still in two minds over how much time the killer had, and for me that has to be the divider into when the organs were removed.
One of the reasons we stopped going to my wife's works Christmas Parties, when she was working in A&E, was my inability to keep my gob shut once I'd had a few libations. And I would invariably corner some poor trauma surgeon and start with the, "So... just out of interest... how long do you reckon it would it take YOU, with no assistance, to remove the uterus and kidney of a fully clothed woman in pitch darkness at night, in the open air, with... say... a Victorian scalpel?"

Cheers AP

[A P Tomlinson]

Couldn’t agree more George. It was my birthday on Saturday so I have a bottle of Laphroaig and a bottle of Talisker for purely medicinal purposes of course. I think they were bought so I could drown my sorrows at England’s recent 50 over performances. Congratulations to Oz by the way.

If you like Laphroiag, Lidl, (of all places) do a remarkable single malt from Islay in their "Ben Bracken" range.
You want the Green Tube.
Not as peaty as a Laphroiag, but for 18 quid a bottle... it's VERY good value for money!

Back to the OP... I'm still in two minds over how much time the killer had, and for me that has to be the divider into when the organs were removed.
One of the reasons we stopped going to my wife's works Christmas Parties, when she was working in A&E, was my inability to keep my gob shut once I'd had a few libations. And I would invariably corner some poor trauma surgeon and start with the, "So... just out of interest... how long do you reckon it would it take YOU, with no assistance, to remove the uterus and kidney of a fully clothed woman in pitch darkness at night, in the open air, with... say... a Victorian scalpel?"

[Fleetwood Mac]

As an Australian of Celtic origin, my preference would be a good single malt, or a drop of the Irish.

Cheers, George

Most of us in England are of Celtic origin also, George, in so far as the Celts were a loose association of tribes sharing a similar language and customs. In fact, there is as much Celtic DNA in Northern England as there is in Scotland or Ireland (Wales has a higher incidence of Celtic DNA than all of them); and, even in Southern England, Anglo-Saxon DNA is a minority in every area.

In terms of what this has to do with 1888 Whitechapel, well, you get an insight into the collective mind of Victorian high society, people such as Anderson; who propagated the 'Anglo-Saxon' myth with no evidential basis whatsoever, in order to promote themselves as something different from, and more importantly better than, everyone else around them.

In that context: "a lower class Polish Jewish" was useful.

Did he take the organs? Most likely.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Belated congratulations for your birthday, 39 again? Laphroaig is one of my favourites. Commiserations on England's surprising performance, but I think Australia was lucky to have snatched the title after their dismal start. Glen Maxwell's innings seemed to have boosted their morale, but the T20 team crashed and burned to a 4-1 loss to India. Every dog has it's day.

Cheers, George

Cheers George.

[GBinOz]

Couldn’t agree more George. It was my birthday on Saturday so I have a bottle of Laphroaig and a bottle of Talisker for purely medicinal purposes of course. I think they were bought so I could drown my sorrows at England’s recent 50 over performances. Congratulations to Oz by the way.

Belated congratulations for your birthday, 39 again? Laphroaig is one of my favourites. Commiserations on England's surprising performance, but I think Australia was lucky to have snatched the title after their dismal start. Glen Maxwell's innings seemed to have boosted their morale, but the T20 team crashed and burned to a 4-1 loss to India. Every dog has it's day.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

As an Australian of Celtic origin, my preference would be a good single malt, or a drop of the Irish.

Cheers, George

Couldn’t agree more George. It was my birthday on Saturday so I have a bottle of Laphroaig and a bottle of Talisker for purely medicinal purposes of course. I think they were bought so I could drown my sorrows at England’s recent 50 over performances. Congratulations to Oz by the way.

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

Thanks for that information. I tend to try and view the situation from the potential organ thief’s perspective so I can’t avoid the question: “why would they have taken organs before the post mortem had taken place?” My apologies for re-stating the obvious George but post PM = abdomen already opened, no risk of interruptions by doctors or police officers, no possibility of interference with the body being noticed and the ripper victims were certainly more high profile and so subject to greater attention than the average corpse.
Your question is valid, and I don't have an answer that would refute your contention. However, Baxter was asking questions relating to the loss of organs between the crime scene and the autopsy, so I will have to content myself with that period.

That said, we can’t avoid that doubt has been voiced about the time required and by people who are undoubtedly experts on the subject. I think it’s worth pointing out though the potential difference between the estimations of Brown and Sequeira and the actual time that the killer could have had available to him. Phillips estimation in regard to Chapman is further ‘out’ of course (though I could say that Phillips had form for being wrong but I won’t go there) So I tend to come down strongly on the ‘killer must have had sufficient time’ side.
If we are to accept the modern opinions in the case of ToDs, the same may need to be applied to the acceptance of modern opinion on the times required to achieve the injuries visited upon Eddowes. According to Prosector, Sequeira was newly qualified at the lowest achievement level and may not have had any surgical experience worth mentioning. I accept your opinion, but with the note that I respectfully disagree, preferring to accept the modern experts opinion of the unlikelihood of the timings.

The quote is an interesting one and I can’t help imagining Watkins being none too pleased at Morris blabbing. It wouldn’t be too surprising if it was true. If I recall correctly George, Watkins got in trouble a few times and was demoted to a lower pay grade for various things like having sex on duty…they had to find some way of keeping warm..tea…sex…take your pick. As an Englishman I’d go for the tea option of course.

As an Australian of Celtic origin, my preference would be a good single malt, or a drop of the Irish.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I've been doing a little research that I thought I'd share with you. Firstly, the definition of an autopsy:
What is done in an autopsy?
Definitions 2.1. 1. Complete autopsy is defined to include a detailed external examination of the entire body, and an internal examination to include the removal and dissection of all thoraco-abdominal and neck organs, opening the head with the removal and examination of the brain.

So there is a preliminary external examination followed by the internal examination. Looking at the record of the autopsies of the C5, it can be seen that they are divided into:
1. Observations made at the crime scene
2. Preliminary examination of the external injuries
3. Internal examination.

http://www.pathguy.com/jack.html

Looking at the observations at the crime scene there is no mention of organs being missing, or their possible absence even being considered or investigated.

I was looking for a thread to bump to avoid the derailing of the "Mitre Square to Goulston Street" thread, but you have saved me that trouble (thank you). While I was looking I came across this old thread:

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/doctors-and-coroners/11185-eddowes-gut-cut/page7

It contained some very interesting discussion on the actual cuts made to Eddowes abdomen. There was some consensus that many of the cuts were made inside out, as would be the case for gutting fish. This is contrary to the surgical method of applying pressure from the outside of the flesh to make the cut, and would tend to suggest that this part of the procedure may have been done by a non medical person. I have cleaned many fish and this is the method that I have used, and the same on the rabbits that I have shot. I'm not sure of the method used by butchers, bearing in mind that their carcasses are hanging, and their technique may need to be modified for a subject lying on the ground.

I find myself quite neutral on this subject, with points to be awarded to both sides. I find the opinions on times by Prosector and Trevor's video experts to be persuasive, and I value my daughter's opinion, bearing in mind that her hands-on experience was dedicated to the prospect that the subject was intended to survive. I also suspect that there was some behind the scenes discussion between Baxter and Phillips which led to the questions that were asked about when the organs went missing, and why they should have been taken. I also suspect that there would have been some reluctance on the part of the medicos to subscribe to the theory that the organs had escaped custody on their watch.

On the other hand, while there does appear to be some evidence of breaks in the chain of custody of the bodies in two cases, that does not in itself provide evidence that organ removal took place during those breaks. There is also the doctor's testimony that there was no professional use to be had from the organs removed, although there was apparently a black market for organs.

IMO much revolves around the time required, the nature of the cuts and the possibility that the assumed times available were inaccurate. I hesitate to include the following as it does smack of press sensationalism, but it may be an example of Watkins taking a tea break instead of his 1:30 round, the fact of which he would be unlikely to admit, and it would require the indulgence of Morris.

East London Advertiser 6 Oct:
The murder in Mitre-square is similar in its brutality to that of Annie Chapman. The victim was an unfortunate woman, so poor that robbery could not possibly be suggested as a motive. The scene of the crime - Mitre-square, Aldgate - is an essentially business place during the day, but during the night it may be described as secluded. The arrangements of the City Police at this point - and, perhaps, owing to the late murders - are said to be very precise, and the circuit of the beat would not extend over 11 minutes. On this occasion the officer on duty was Police-constable Watkins. At half-past 1 o'clock Watkins handed a can of tea to the watchman at Messrs. Kearley and Tongue's, tea merchants, named George James Morris, a naval pensioner, telling him to make it hot in 10 minutes' time, when he would then be round again. Having made the circuit of the square, Watkins left, paraded his beat, and returned at a quarter to 2.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

Thanks for that information. I tend to try and view the situation from the potential organ thief’s perspective so I can’t avoid the question: “why would they have taken organs before the post mortem had taken place?” My apologies for re-stating the obvious George but post PM = abdomen already opened, no risk of interruptions by doctors or police officers, no possibility of interference with the body being noticed and the ripper victims were certainly more high profile and so subject to greater attention than the average corpse.

That said, we can’t avoid that doubt has been voiced about the time required and by people who are undoubtedly experts on the subject. I think it’s worth pointing out though the potential difference between the estimations of Brown and Sequeira and the actual time that the killer could have had available to him. Phillips estimation in regard to Chapman is further ‘out’ of course (though I could say that Phillips had form for being wrong but I won’t go there) So I tend to come down strongly on the ‘killer must have had sufficient time’ side.

The quote is an interesting one and I can’t help imagining Watkins being none too pleased at Morris blabbing. It wouldn’t be too surprising if it was true. If I recall correctly George, Watkins got in trouble a few times and was demoted to a lower pay grade for various things like having sex on duty…they had to find some way of keeping warm..tea…sex…take your pick. As an Englishman I’d go for the tea option of course.

[GBinOz]

Hi Herlock,

I've been doing a little research that I thought I'd share with you. Firstly, the definition of an autopsy:
What is done in an autopsy?
Definitions 2.1. 1. Complete autopsy is defined to include a detailed external examination of the entire body, and an internal examination to include the removal and dissection of all thoraco-abdominal and neck organs, opening the head with the removal and examination of the brain.

So there is a preliminary external examination followed by the internal examination. Looking at the record of the autopsies of the C5, it can be seen that they are divided into:
1. Observations made at the crime scene
2. Preliminary examination of the external injuries
3. Internal examination.

http://www.pathguy.com/jack.html

Looking at the observations at the crime scene there is no mention of organs being missing, or their possible absence even being considered or investigated.

I was looking for a thread to bump to avoid the derailing of the "Mitre Square to Goulston Street" thread, but you have saved me that trouble (thank you). While I was looking I came across this old thread:

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/doctors-and-coroners/11185-eddowes-gut-cut/page7

It contained some very interesting discussion on the actual cuts made to Eddowes abdomen. There was some consensus that many of the cuts were made inside out, as would be the case for gutting fish. This is contrary to the surgical method of applying pressure from the outside of the flesh to make the cut, and would tend to suggest that this part of the procedure may have been done by a non medical person. I have cleaned many fish and this is the method that I have used, and the same on the rabbits that I have shot. I'm not sure of the method used by butchers, bearing in mind that their carcasses are hanging, and their technique may need to be modified for a subject lying on the ground.

I find myself quite neutral on this subject, with points to be awarded to both sides. I find the opinions on times by Prosector and Trevor's video experts to be persuasive, and I value my daughter's opinion, bearing in mind that her hands-on experience was dedicated to the prospect that the subject was intended to survive. I also suspect that there was some behind the scenes discussion between Baxter and Phillips which led to the questions that were asked about when the organs went missing, and why they should have been taken. I also suspect that there would have been some reluctance on the part of the medicos to subscribe to the theory that the organs had escaped custody on their watch.

On the other hand, while there does appear to be some evidence of breaks in the chain of custody of the bodies in two cases, that does not in itself provide evidence that organ removal took place during those breaks. There is also the doctor's testimony that there was no professional use to be had from the organs removed, although there was apparently a black market for organs.

IMO much revolves around the time required, the nature of the cuts and the possibility that the assumed times available were inaccurate. I hesitate to include the following as it does smack of press sensationalism, but it may be an example of Watkins taking a tea break instead of his 1:30 round, the fact of which he would be unlikely to admit, and it would require the indulgence of Morris.

East London Advertiser 6 Oct:
The murder in Mitre-square is similar in its brutality to that of Annie Chapman. The victim was an unfortunate woman, so poor that robbery could not possibly be suggested as a motive. The scene of the crime - Mitre-square, Aldgate - is an essentially business place during the day, but during the night it may be described as secluded. The arrangements of the City Police at this point - and, perhaps, owing to the late murders - are said to be very precise, and the circuit of the beat would not extend over 11 minutes. On this occasion the officer on duty was Police-constable Watkins. At half-past 1 o'clock Watkins handed a can of tea to the watchman at Messrs. Kearley and Tongue's, tea merchants, named George James Morris, a naval pensioner, telling him to make it hot in 10 minutes' time, when he would then be round again. Having made the circuit of the square, Watkins left, paraded his beat, and returned at a quarter to 2.

Cheers, George