Tweet
The title says it all. Did the killer removed organs? Trevor has a theory which you can check out on the thread below.
This is my summary of the opposing viewpoint…
Trevor’s theory is that the killer didn’t remove any organs from his victims and that any missing organs were removed at the mortuary by organ thieves seeking to profit from them. He arrives at this conclusion because he is convinced that the killer didn’t have enough time, or the correct conditions in Mitre Square, to have removed them. Of course we can’t know exactly how long the killer actually had but this appears not to concern Trevor. He proceeds with his theory from this assumption. We know that the Doctors at the time saw no issue with the killer removing organs. No one at the time, whether Doctor or surgeon, ever said “hold on, our killer couldn’t possibly have done this.” Not one. Also, the police and the medical profession at the time would have been fully aware of any trade in organs and that they were being stolen from mortuaries so that we can’t accuse them of being unaware of any possibility of this having occurred. The removal of a victims organs is hardly an everyday occurrence so they would have been aware of alternative possibilities. Not one single person spoke about the possibility of this happening. The police and doctors all accepted that the killer had taken organs. They were there and they weren’t idiots. So what other points can be made?
1. The theory is based around the killer having around 8 minutes or so to complete his work. Some knowledgeable people with medical knowledge have certainly doubted that it was possible but equally some have said that it wasn’t. It seems impossible to come up with a definitive minimum time required though which makes it impossible to show anything like conclusively that this couldn’t have been achieved.
2. We can’t assume that the killer had only 8 minutes or less. We need to ask if it’s reasonably possible that the killer might have had more time? We know from other threads that the poor synchronisation of clocks was an issue for Victorians. It’s been stated that it wasn’t unknown to see different times on the different faces of some tower clocks. Even in 2025 our clocks, watches, mobile phones and laptops aren’t always synchronised. This isn’t a theory; it’s a fact. So we have to face the very real possibility of poor synchronisation having an important effect. Let’s just pick 3-5 minutes as an example (it could have been more, it could have been less) We cannot assume that Bishopsgate Police Station clock, Lawende’s watch, the clock that Harvey used and the clock that Watkins used were synchronised. In fact the likelihood is that they weren’t. So if Lawende and co thought that it was around 1.35 when they saw Eddowes, what if it was actually 1.30 GMT? And when Watkins believed that it was 1.44 when he discovered the body what if it was 1.48 GMT? Trevor makes a point that if there was a delay between Lawende passing and the couple entering the square it would have reduced the time available. This is obviously true but we can’t state it as a fact. I’m not stating as a fact that they could have entered straight away but it’s just as likely. So let’s suggest that they entered after a minute, meaning that Eddowes was killed at 1.31/1.32. If Watkins found her at 1.48 and we allow a minute for the killer to escape this would have meant that he’d had 16 or 17 minutes to do what he did. This is reasonably possible. It could have been less; it could even have been a little more. So we cannot say that the killer had just 8 minutes and so we certainly can’t say that he didn’t have enough time. This is just a fact.
3. Although it’s debatable as to whether Stride was actually a ripper victim and accepting that Trevor disputes the Kelly’s heart was taken away, isn’t it at least suggestive that the two canonical victims that certainly didn’t have organs removed were the two where it can reasonably be suggested that the killer could have been interrupted?
4. Why would organ thieves have removed organs before the autopsy? This can’t have been their usual method of course because corpses generally didn’t arrive at the mortuary with their abdomen’s already opened. There can’t have been any desperate time issues forcing these thieves to change their usual methods. So why would we think that they did on these occasions?
5. Why would they have removed organs prior to the autopsy when staff at the mortuary (at least one of whom had to have been in on it) would have known that doctors had already examined the body in the mortuary. Yes, they can’t have been certain that those doctors had looked inside the opened abdomen but why would they have risked it? Phillips had been brought in specifically because he could compare Eddowes to Chapman. So the thieves would have been aware of the possibility that the doctors had noted the presence of one or both of the organs which were now mysteriously absent at the autopsy.
Why would they have risked not being able to take organs again from that mortuary.
6. Why operate during daylight hours with people coming and going (especially with such a high profile corpse) when they could have waited until after dark with far less chance of being disturbed?
7. As we know that a part of the uterus was missing from the whole we might ask how this could have occurred while the body was lying on a slab with a light? Surely this kind of thing was more likely to have occurred if organs were being removed under more difficult circumstances?
8. It’s suggested that no organ was removed from Kelly despite the doctor saying that the heart was absent after he’d listed all of the other organs found in the room. He couldn’t have mislaid the heart so why didn’t he state whereabout in the room that it was? Unless it had been taken away?
Also, the issue of the heart is based on the assumption that we know why the killer removed organs. That he collected them as souvenirs is a possibility of course but might it not have been just to add to the shock/horror value? Maybe even a suggestion of cannibalism? The bodies were clearly displayed to shock after all. But in Miller’s Court the killer had time to make a scene about as shocking as it possible could have been so perhaps he just didn’t feel the need to remove organs? Or perhaps his destination after the murder was different for that night for whatever reason and he knew that he had nowhere to stash an organ?
For me there’s no reason to doubt that the killer took organs away. There is no evidence for it and the reasons for assuming it just don’t add up.
This is my summary of the opposing viewpoint…
Trevor’s theory is that the killer didn’t remove any organs from his victims and that any missing organs were removed at the mortuary by organ thieves seeking to profit from them. He arrives at this conclusion because he is convinced that the killer didn’t have enough time, or the correct conditions in Mitre Square, to have removed them. Of course we can’t know exactly how long the killer actually had but this appears not to concern Trevor. He proceeds with his theory from this assumption. We know that the Doctors at the time saw no issue with the killer removing organs. No one at the time, whether Doctor or surgeon, ever said “hold on, our killer couldn’t possibly have done this.” Not one. Also, the police and the medical profession at the time would have been fully aware of any trade in organs and that they were being stolen from mortuaries so that we can’t accuse them of being unaware of any possibility of this having occurred. The removal of a victims organs is hardly an everyday occurrence so they would have been aware of alternative possibilities. Not one single person spoke about the possibility of this happening. The police and doctors all accepted that the killer had taken organs. They were there and they weren’t idiots. So what other points can be made?
1. The theory is based around the killer having around 8 minutes or so to complete his work. Some knowledgeable people with medical knowledge have certainly doubted that it was possible but equally some have said that it wasn’t. It seems impossible to come up with a definitive minimum time required though which makes it impossible to show anything like conclusively that this couldn’t have been achieved.
2. We can’t assume that the killer had only 8 minutes or less. We need to ask if it’s reasonably possible that the killer might have had more time? We know from other threads that the poor synchronisation of clocks was an issue for Victorians. It’s been stated that it wasn’t unknown to see different times on the different faces of some tower clocks. Even in 2025 our clocks, watches, mobile phones and laptops aren’t always synchronised. This isn’t a theory; it’s a fact. So we have to face the very real possibility of poor synchronisation having an important effect. Let’s just pick 3-5 minutes as an example (it could have been more, it could have been less) We cannot assume that Bishopsgate Police Station clock, Lawende’s watch, the clock that Harvey used and the clock that Watkins used were synchronised. In fact the likelihood is that they weren’t. So if Lawende and co thought that it was around 1.35 when they saw Eddowes, what if it was actually 1.30 GMT? And when Watkins believed that it was 1.44 when he discovered the body what if it was 1.48 GMT? Trevor makes a point that if there was a delay between Lawende passing and the couple entering the square it would have reduced the time available. This is obviously true but we can’t state it as a fact. I’m not stating as a fact that they could have entered straight away but it’s just as likely. So let’s suggest that they entered after a minute, meaning that Eddowes was killed at 1.31/1.32. If Watkins found her at 1.48 and we allow a minute for the killer to escape this would have meant that he’d had 16 or 17 minutes to do what he did. This is reasonably possible. It could have been less; it could even have been a little more. So we cannot say that the killer had just 8 minutes and so we certainly can’t say that he didn’t have enough time. This is just a fact.
3. Although it’s debatable as to whether Stride was actually a ripper victim and accepting that Trevor disputes the Kelly’s heart was taken away, isn’t it at least suggestive that the two canonical victims that certainly didn’t have organs removed were the two where it can reasonably be suggested that the killer could have been interrupted?
4. Why would organ thieves have removed organs before the autopsy? This can’t have been their usual method of course because corpses generally didn’t arrive at the mortuary with their abdomen’s already opened. There can’t have been any desperate time issues forcing these thieves to change their usual methods. So why would we think that they did on these occasions?
5. Why would they have removed organs prior to the autopsy when staff at the mortuary (at least one of whom had to have been in on it) would have known that doctors had already examined the body in the mortuary. Yes, they can’t have been certain that those doctors had looked inside the opened abdomen but why would they have risked it? Phillips had been brought in specifically because he could compare Eddowes to Chapman. So the thieves would have been aware of the possibility that the doctors had noted the presence of one or both of the organs which were now mysteriously absent at the autopsy.
Why would they have risked not being able to take organs again from that mortuary.
6. Why operate during daylight hours with people coming and going (especially with such a high profile corpse) when they could have waited until after dark with far less chance of being disturbed?
7. As we know that a part of the uterus was missing from the whole we might ask how this could have occurred while the body was lying on a slab with a light? Surely this kind of thing was more likely to have occurred if organs were being removed under more difficult circumstances?
8. It’s suggested that no organ was removed from Kelly despite the doctor saying that the heart was absent after he’d listed all of the other organs found in the room. He couldn’t have mislaid the heart so why didn’t he state whereabout in the room that it was? Unless it had been taken away?
Also, the issue of the heart is based on the assumption that we know why the killer removed organs. That he collected them as souvenirs is a possibility of course but might it not have been just to add to the shock/horror value? Maybe even a suggestion of cannibalism? The bodies were clearly displayed to shock after all. But in Miller’s Court the killer had time to make a scene about as shocking as it possible could have been so perhaps he just didn’t feel the need to remove organs? Or perhaps his destination after the murder was different for that night for whatever reason and he knew that he had nowhere to stash an organ?
For me there’s no reason to doubt that the killer took organs away. There is no evidence for it and the reasons for assuming it just don’t add up.
Comment