Poll: Organs/body parts removed or not?

[Trevor Marriott]

A pity your experts didn't conduct the experiment in poor light, with a corpse well-blooded after a sudden vicious cut to the throat, as that would have been a more valid test, Trev. It would also have been even better if you'd instructed them to remove the kidney as quickly as possible, without worrying about the collateral damage inflicted on the rest of the cadaver.

Sam you are supposed to have some medical knowledge then you will know that you cannot reach into a an abdomen and physically take hold of a kidney for a start. In fact you would have a job to even see it in the dark

Sometimes I think some on here argue for the sake of arguing !

[lynn cates]

3/5

Hello MB.

"Yes .. organs were taken from at least 4/5."

Surely not Polly and Liz?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

compromise

Hello Trevor. Hope you are well.

Would you be satisfied if the kidney were extracted later but the uteri taken in situ?

Cheers.
LC

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Lynn
I dont have any reason to believe that to be the case

[Trevor Marriott]

"The peritoneal lining was cut through on the left side and the left kidney carefully taken out and removed... The womb was cut through horizontally, leaving a stump of three quarters of an inch. The rest of the womb had been taken away with some of the ligaments." (Dr Brown, documented in the official Inquest records.)

Brown's opinion of how long it would have taken:

"Dr. Brown added that for the purpose of practically testing the time required for what had been done to this unfortunate woman, an expert practitioner had actually performed the operation, and found that it took three minutes and a half" (Daily News, 5 October 1888)

"I think the perpetrator of this act had sufficient time, or he would not have nicked the lower eyelids. It would take at least five minutes." (Dr Brown, documented in the official Inquest records.)

"[Coroner] How long would it take to make the wounds? - [Brown] It might be done in five minutes. It might take him longer; but that is the least time it could be done in." (Daily Telegraph, 5 October 1888.)

I also forgot to mention to you as you are being pedantic
That the newspaper article you cited the daily new if you takes browns evidence he is being asked about the kidney. He the goes onto talk about the removal of that organ and this is the point he cites three and a half minutes add all the other times to that you are getting nearer 10 mins

[pinkmoon]

Just because this theory about the organs not been removed by our killer challenges what we have all believed for years dosnt mean we should dismiss it so lightly.

[moonbegger]

Hello MB.

"Yes .. organs were taken from at least 4/5."

Surely not Polly and Liz?

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn ,

Thanks for pointing that out .. its been a long couple of days ..
should have read 3/5 , although Kelly's heart still being questionable .

moonbegger

[moonbegger]

Did he ?

again you fall into the trap of reading something and interpreting to your own end.

Dr Brown talks about the wounds he mentions nothing about the removal of the organs to think that is pure conjecture

Also Baxter Phillips , seems to suggest , Organs were removed in situ ...

I carefully closed up the clothes of the woman. Some portions had been excised.

Another thing is Trevor , after the Coroner at the Chapman inquest connects the dots with the Nichols murder , claiming that the killer had been disturbed before having the chance to take Polly's uterus away as well ..
Surely someone in the know would have come forward to put him and the rest of the world in the picture , let alone do the same again weeks later on Eddows ! And why not on Stride & Nichols ? or any of the other non canonical victims . was Chapman & Eddows just in the wrong place at the wrong time twice in 24 hours ?

Having said that , I do like your organ theory . may have to take a closer boo

cheers ,

moonbegger

[Wickerman]

My problem with that , is the ramifications and retributions that would be handed down to a poorly paid mortuary assistant , if he got caught , especially in the light of such a high profile case .. but I am open to persuasion !

cheers , moonbegger

I sense another complication. There were no organized mortuaries in the Met. area of the East End. So, no staff, no attendants. What passed for mortuaries were sheds attached to a Workhouse, or something of that nature.
I believe it was Workhouse personnel who were told to go help the doctor.
So, no regular staff.

On the other hand, with respect to Eddowes, the City had a permanent mortuary, and I believe, it was staffed.

[Trevor Marriott]

Also Baxter Phillips , seems to suggest , Organs were removed in situ ...


Another thing is Trevor , after the Coroner at the Chapman inquest connects the dots with the Nichols murder , claiming that the killer had been disturbed before having the chance to take Polly's uterus away as well ..
Surely someone in the know would have come forward to put him and the rest of the world in the picture , let alone do the same again weeks later on Eddows ! And why not on Stride & Nichols ? or any of the other non canonical victims . was Chapman & Eddows just in the wrong place at the wrong time twice in 24 hours ?

Having said that , I do like your organ theory . may have to take a closer boo

cheers ,

moonbegger

Hi
You refer to the comment excised well with Chapman we know that the organs were out of the body so it comes down to interpretation and a much closer look at the facts relative to the spoken words. I can fully understand how some of the spoken words by the doctors have come to be mis interpreted.

I came into this in an un biased fashion with no hidden agenda so I was able to look at in a different light

The question has been asked why no organs removed from the other victims. I believe that question is easily answered. None of the other victims had their abdomens ripped open to the degree of Eddowes and Chapman in these two case by reason of that, it would be much easier for someone at the mortuary to quickly remove the organs. Where as with the other victims additional surgery may have been needed which may have been noticed.

One final point to mention is in relation to the post mortem reports which depict the internal injuries. If I am right I suspect some of those were not caused at the crime scene by the killer but by the organ remover when removing them in a hurry.

It should also be noted that the abdomens of the two victims were opened in two different ways and the uteri removed also in two different ways. Now that indicates two different removers. Surely not two different killers on the loose both removing organs ?

Also both bodies were left at the mortuaries for some 12 hours before the doctors came back to carry out the post postmortems. It is documented that Chapmans body was left outside on a cart

[lynn cates]

different

Hello Trevor. Thanks.

"It should also be noted that the abdomens of the two victims were opened in two different ways and the uteri removed also in two different ways. Now that indicates two different removers."

Entirely agree.

"Surely not two different killers on the loose both removing organs?"

Why "surely"? If I wished to kill in another's shadow, surely taking the same organ would help "convince"?

Cheers.
LC

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Trevor. Thanks.

"It should also be noted that the abdomens of the two victims were opened in two different ways and the uteri removed also in two different ways. Now that indicates two different removers."

Entirely agree.

"Surely not two different killers on the loose both removing organs?"

Why "surely"? If I wished to kill in another's shadow, surely taking the same organ would help "convince"?

Cheers.
LC

But if you took the same organ but it in a different way surely someone would twig that fact if it happened today?

But not so in 1888 it seems

As you know I don't subscribe to one lone killer in any event.

[El White Chap]

Looks like this half assed poll has people talking. Good.

Something that has been making me ponder is why would anyone want the organs from a bunch of rather unhealthy women from the east end?

If it was a mortuary attendant or someone from the medical profession, why take what are more than likely to be deceased and "imperfect" specimens.

I'm struggling to see the value they would offer someone other than our killer.

Would be interesting to hear what others think on that topic.

[Hunter]

Looks like this half assed poll has people talkin.

Yeah, people like to do that.

Most of the members who would actually post information or at least some semblance of a reasonable perspective have about quit posting anymore. I can see why.

Its more like the drunk who walked into a bar and rudely announced that he could sing through his arse. The bartender offered him a beer to prove it. The drunk climbed up on the bar, dropped his pants, then shite all over it. "What did you do that for," the barkeep raged.

"I was just clearing my throat," answered the drunk.

[El White Chap]

Yeah, people like to do that.

Most of the members who would actually post information or at least some semblance of a reasonable perspective have about quit posting anymore. I can see why.

Its more like the drunk who walked into a bar and rudely announced that he could sing through his arse. The bartender offered him a beer to prove it. The drunk climbed up on the bar, dropped his pants, then shite all over it. "What did you do that for," the barkeep raged.

"I was just clearing my throat," answered the drunk.

Nice analogy