Did The Ripper Remove Organs?

[Trevor Marriott]

I think the question should be when did the organ thief have the time or opportunity to take the organs from the mortuaries ?

Well the bodies were left at the mortuaries for up to 10 hours before the post-mortems were carried out, so plenty of time

The term organ thief is probably not the right terminology, body dealers is the correct term used who it is documented were active at mortuaries in the East End at that time. They operated along with corrupt mortuary attendants so easy access to bodies

For further reading, Professor Elizabeth Hurren a lecturer at Leicester, has published several books on the activities of Victorian Body Dealers

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think the question should be when did the organ thief have the time or opportunity to take the organs from the mortuaries ?

It’s an important question Jon.

At the inquest Dr Brown said: ”Before we removed the body Dr. Phillips was sent for, as I wished him to see the wounds, he having been engaged in a case of a similar kind previously. He saw the body at the mortuary.”

So Phillips saw the body in the mortuary before the autopsy. I’d say that it would be reasonable to assume (as Trevor does) that when organ thieves operated that had someone on the inside; some mortuary worker. That person would have known that doctors had been to the mortuary that morning and examined the body but they couldn’t have known to what extent. So all the information that prospective organ thieves would have had was that a body with an opened abdomen had been viewed (by more than one doctor who was specifically interested in the extent of the injuries) at the mortuary. They couldn’t possibly have known whether they had checked inside the abdomen but it’s something that they wouldn’t have been able to risk. They couldn’t have stepped in and removed organs only for Phillips or Brown to have found organs missing at the autopsy which were present earlier in the day.

This doesn’t prove that they didn’t take organs but it proves that for them to have done so would have been unbelievably stupid. A huge risk that they had absolutely no need to take because they could have stepped have removed organs at night, after the autopsy (with there being no further scrutiny of the body) under cover of darkness, with no one expected in an out.

[Kattrup]

I was hoping someone here could provide a quote. He was at the autopsy and I've never seen him express an opinion on how long the injuries might have taken. The reason his opinion is important is that he didn't work for the City Police and wouldn't feel obligated to provide a range that would fit with their movements.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Chapman inquest, Daily Telegraph, sept. 20

The Coroner: Can you give any idea how long it would take to perform the incisions found on the body?

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.

If I had done it in a deliberate way, such as would fall to the duties of a surgeon, it would probably have taken me the best part of an hour.

The whole inference seems to me that the operation was performed to enable the perpetrator to obtain possession of these parts of the body.

[Tom_Wescott]

Mr. Westcott, sir, he stated it was possible to inflict the injuries he saw?

If you have a specific quote in mind, feel free to add it. I cannot presently think of anything in his testimony that would preclude the killer from having done what he did?

I was hoping someone here could provide a quote. He was at the autopsy and I've never seen him express an opinion on how long the injuries might have taken. The reason his opinion is important is that he didn't work for the City Police and wouldn't feel obligated to provide a range that would fit with their movements.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Doctored Whatsit]

I suggest that you may care to read some of the initial pages of this post:

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/motive-method-and-madness/7907-did-he-have-anatomical-knowledge

In the case of Eddowes, the abdominal incision deviated, on the left side (never the right side), around the navel which was standard surgical practice. The uterus was extracted without damage to the bladder - this is not always achieved in a modern theatre with intensive lighting, on a surgical table with a full medical backup team. There may have been a "cut and slash" method for Chapman, but not for Eddowes. Read the autopsies and the comments of those experienced in the task.

Hi George, thanks for directing me to that thread. I'm sure you have noted that I think it is important to consider the level of kniife-skill possessed by JtR, because very few of the numerous suspects had any known expertise, and they should, perhaps, be rejected on that alone! So, although as always, modern experts can disagree, there is a belief that the skill levels necessary may have been even higher than those identified by Phillips and Brown.

When I wrote "cut and slash", I was quoting from the previous statement, and probably shouldn't have, because you are correct to point out that the cutting of Eddowes was more "clinical" than that - can I say this without implying anything unintended?

[Herlock Sholmes]

My apologies for sounding like a broken record by raising the same point over and over again but if…

A = the length of time required for the killer to have removed organs.
B = the length of time the killer had available to do what he did.
C = the killer couldn’t have had time to remove organs.

How can A + B = C when A and B are unknowns?

It really is that simple and yet Trevor claims to know. Not to suspect but to know and the fact that we cannot know means that we have absolutely no basis for suspecting that the killer didn’t remove organs. It’s a non-theory.

[Kattrup]

Did they? What did Dr. Phillips say?

Mr. Westcott, sir, he stated it was possible to inflict the injuries he saw?

If you have a specific quote in mind, feel free to add it. I cannot presently think of anything in his testimony that would preclude the killer from having done what he did?

[Tom_Wescott]

Trevor Marriott’s theory is ridiculous and it has been explained many times why.

All the experts at the time agreed that it could have been done.

Did they? What did Dr. Phillips say?

And is the agreed upon timeline in which the Ripper had to 'work in Mitre Square actually 15 minutes or something less?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Abby Normal]

Hello Gbinoz

I am not sure which question you’re talking about, something discussed in this thread or the nurse’s opinion.
The posts I referred to were you posting an opinion from a nurse experienced in modern-day hysterectomies that removing the uterus without damaging surrounding organs in the (as far as I know unspecified) time slot available, was impossible.
The problem is that there actually was damage to surrounding organs. So the nurse’s opinion is of zero value. This is besides the “hysterectomy “ - of course it was nothing of the kind, making the comparison moot - performed on Eddowes hardly conforming to modern, somewhat less intrusive methods than those employed by JtR.

Whatever the modernday nurse thinks at a remote of 135 years, and whatever Trevor’s unreliable video presentations might lead someone to believe, the experts at the time, who actually saw the body, the injuries and who knew the surroundings, all agreed that it could be done. They may have differed on the the number of minutes, but police, coroner and doctors had no problem with the simple fact that it happened.

The idea that people who agree with the actual experts that examined the body, are mere ‘armchair detectives ‘, while the opinion of a modern day expert, with limited understanding of the source material and historical context, should prevail, is completely unreasonable.


And to answer your question: I, like you, have no qualifications in abdominal surgery.
You refer to Prosector, who did, and it seems you defer to his opinion.
As I recall his argument, it was not that what happened was impossible in the time frame provided? But that it showed a much greater skill level than normally accepted.

Bingo Kattrup.
and that’s the bottom line which you concisely point out…all the experts believed it was done. Added to that there is zero evidence, zilch, nada that organs were stolen at the mortuary .

[Herlock Sholmes]

But the medical experts at the time were not as highly trained as our modern-day medical experts so their opinions have to be treated with caution and not treated as total fact as some posters seem to want to do here.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The irony…

[Jon Guy]

Theories should be supported by empirical evidence and not based on conjecture or personal opinions.

Saying that the killer might not have had time without actually knowing how long the act would have taken or how long the killer actually had to commit that act is not evidence and not the basis of a valid theory. And simply stating that organ thieves existed is also not evidence of anything but the existence of organ thieves.

I think the question should be when did the organ thief have the time or opportunity to take the organs from the mortuaries ?

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Gbinoz

I am not sure which question you’re talking about, something discussed in this thread or the nurse’s opinion.
The posts I referred to were you posting an opinion from a nurse experienced in modern-day hysterectomies that removing the uterus without damaging surrounding organs in the (as far as I know unspecified) time slot available, was impossible.
The problem is that there actually was damage to surrounding organs. So the nurse’s opinion is of zero value. This is besides the “hysterectomy “ - of course it was nothing of the kind, making the comparison moot - performed on Eddowes hardly conforming to modern, somewhat less intrusive methods than those employed by JtR.

Whatever the modernday nurse thinks at a remote of 135 years, and whatever Trevor’s unreliable video presentations might lead someone to believe, the experts at the time, who actually saw the body, the injuries and who knew the surroundings, all agreed that it could be done. They may have differed on the the number of minutes, but police, coroner and doctors had no problem with the simple fact that it happened.

The idea that people who agree with the actual experts that examined the body, are mere ‘armchair detectives ‘, while the opinion of a modern day expert, with limited understanding of the source material and historical context, should prevail, is completely unreasonable.


And to answer your question: I, like you, have no qualifications in abdominal surgery.
You refer to Prosector, who did, and it seems you defer to his opinion.
As I recall his argument, it was not that what happened was impossible in the time frame provided? But that it showed a much greater skill level than normally accepted.

But the medical experts at the time were not as highly trained as our modern-day medical experts so their opinions have to be treated with caution and not treated as total fact as some posters seem to want to do here.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[The Rookie Detective]

But it does matter whether the organs were removed in a slash and grab or using established medical technique and procedure.

When we consider that the killer placed Kelly's own severed breasts under her own head so she could feel more comfortable, tells you all you need to know about the kind of man the killer was.
He clearly thought he was being funny.

Everything with him was games, playfulness, experimentation, presentation, expression,...like a troubled teenager finding his way in the world.

The killer clearly had a thing for the Uterus.

Complete dominance over the precise area of the body required for a woman to hold life.

He was dehumanising and attacking the area he had no control over in real life.


On that basis, he probably wasn't thinking about how much money he could make from various bits of body parts, but rather whether Kelly could feel the partly digested food in her own stomach, by stuffing her left hand into her butchered torso.


The Ripper also loved to pull out the intestines and stretch them over the right shoulder, still partly attached.
It baffles me how nobody can see that he was using the intestines to look like an umbilical cord.

In his victims, he was crafting a literal picture to present and display to the world. A theatrical showman who thought he was the funniest man in the room.



The fundamental basis of the argument between Trevor/yourself and Herlock and Co. is completely missing the point entirely.

[Kattrup]

The question was whether this could have been done in the dark within the time available without nicking the bladder. The bladder was undamaged. The "qualified colleague" who did the procedure in 1888 was unable to do it (on a table with full lighting on a cadaver with no blood flow???) without nicking the bladder.

Could you remind us please of your qualifications and experience in abdominal surgery?

Hello Gbinoz

I am not sure which question you’re talking about, something discussed in this thread or the nurse’s opinion.
The posts I referred to were you posting an opinion from a nurse experienced in modern-day hysterectomies that removing the uterus without damaging surrounding organs in the (as far as I know unspecified) time slot available, was impossible.
The problem is that there actually was damage to surrounding organs. So the nurse’s opinion is of zero value. This is besides the “hysterectomy “ - of course it was nothing of the kind, making the comparison moot - performed on Eddowes hardly conforming to modern, somewhat less intrusive methods than those employed by JtR.

Whatever the modernday nurse thinks at a remote of 135 years, and whatever Trevor’s unreliable video presentations might lead someone to believe, the experts at the time, who actually saw the body, the injuries and who knew the surroundings, all agreed that it could be done. They may have differed on the the number of minutes, but police, coroner and doctors had no problem with the simple fact that it happened.

The idea that people who agree with the actual experts that examined the body, are mere ‘armchair detectives ‘, while the opinion of a modern day expert, with limited understanding of the source material and historical context, should prevail, is completely unreasonable.


And to answer your question: I, like you, have no qualifications in abdominal surgery.
You refer to Prosector, who did, and it seems you defer to his opinion.
As I recall his argument, it was not that what happened was impossible in the time frame provided? But that it showed a much greater skill level than normally accepted.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Theories should be supported by empirical evidence and not based on conjecture or personal opinions.

Saying that the killer might not have had time without actually knowing how long the act would have taken or how long the killer actually had to commit that act is not evidence and not the basis of a valid theory. And simply stating that organ thieves existed is also not evidence of anything but the existence of organ thieves.