Did The Ripper Remove Organs?

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Fiver,

Absolutely correct and relevant. At inquests, Brown and Phillips made it clear to the coroners, and everyone else prepared to listen, that they thought the killer was someone like a butcher/slaughterer who had knife skills, used a sharp pointed knife 6 -8 inches long, had anatomical knowledge as to the position of organs, and was accustomed to removing innards with one sweep of the knife. Conan Doyle was told that JtR used the cuts of a butcher.

This is why the police checked out 76 butchers and slaughterers as Swanson advised the Home Office on 19th Oct 1888.

So what did they ask these butchers " Are you Jack the Ripper"

In pursuit of further corroborative evidence, I obtained an additional statement from a master Butcher. Many people still suggest that the killer could have been a butcher or slaughterman despite this theory being negated in the murder of Annie Chapman. I, therefore, interviewed Paul Langford a master butcher whose statement is set out below.

I am a master butcher having worked in the meat and butchery trade for 35 years. In my early years, I worked in abattoirs where I was involved in the removal of the internal organs from the carcasses of recently killed cattle, sheep and pigs. There is a direct comparison between a human and a pig whereby the organs of a pig are almost identical in size to human organs.
In abattoirs very little care is taken in removing the internal organs from animals, it is very much what is called “cut and slash” The dead carcass is hung upside down by the legs and then slit from top to bottom allowing full access to the animal's internal organs making it easier to remove the various organs by the “cut and slash” process.

I have been asked if I could remove a uterus and a kidney from a recently deceased human body “carefully” having regard to my experience in removing the same organs from animals.
I would probably be able to facilitate the removal of the organs but I would need there to be sufficient light and it would need to be a controlled situation and time would be needed to complete the removal. In removing a uterus from a human body I would not need to take out the intestines, as I know the uterus sits in the lower abdomen. I would not be able to use a six-inch bladed knife to remove the kidney.

I have also been asked whether I could carefully remove these same organs in almost total darkness using a six-inch sharp-bladed knife. If I were to attempt these removals from a human body in almost total darkness I would encounter many problems. The first would be the need for a big enough incision for me to be able to gain access to the stomach. The second would be trying to locate the organs, which would be wet and slippery and covered with blood from the abdomen.
This in itself would cause great difficulty in gripping them sufficiently to be able to remove them carefully. I would also not want to be working with a sharp knife in an abdomen not being able to see what I was doing or where my fingers were with where I was attempting to cut. I would also say that I would find it difficult to work with a long-bladed knife and could not remove a kidney using a six-inch bladed knife. If I were in a hurry to remove a kidney and were able to find the renal fat, which encases the kidney, then I would be able to grip it and rip it out by hand.

The new evidence obtained from the aforementioned expert and the experimental removals Dr Browns expert performed together with photographic evidence supports and adds even more weight to my original theory that the killer did not remove the organs from the victims, and in the case of Eddowes did not take away those organs

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

How long might the killer have had - I’d say that it’s impossible to reach a consensus on the time available to the killer but I’d say that it could have been anything from 8 to 18 minutes. As we can’t check how the clocks were synchronised we have no way of knowing.

How long would the killer have required - I have no way of knowing and it appears that experts can come up with no certain answer either.

Did the killer have enough light to do what he did - Well he managed to nick the eyelids and carve those v’s in her cheek so I don’t think that we can use light as an issue as we have no way of assessing it. Sequeira specifically mentions that the light wouldn’t have been a problem and was in situ.


Trevor mentions the difficulty of handling a kidney due to its slipperiness and I wouldn’t doubt this but this wasn’t a live eel. It was tricky to pick up. So what? He pulled it out and possibly grabbed it with a piece of cloth in his hand. If organ thieves could have done it then so could the killer,


For me though we have to look at the suggestion of organ thieves. One thing that we can surely all agree on is that it would have been normal ‘procedure’ for them to take body part after an autopsy if one was planned for very obvious reasons. So why would these organ thieves have taken the risk of stealing before an autopsy. The mortuary attendants/staff would no doubt have been told when an autopsy would have been planned and if they were ‘in on it’ then this information would have been available to the thieves. Why the rush that would have made them take such a massive risk of discovery? No one could have failed to have heard of the ripper so everyone (including the thieves) would have known that this wasn’t just any old corpse. It was about as high profile a corpse as there could be. They would have known of the police and the doctors interest and so could never have been sure that at any point the mortuary could have had visitors. They would have waited until all interest in the corpse was over and the mortuary was closed up and gone in under cover of darkness.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi Fiver,

Absolutely correct and relevant. At inquests, Brown and Phillips made it clear to the coroners, and everyone else prepared to listen, that they thought the killer was someone like a butcher/slaughterer who had knife skills, used a sharp pointed knife 6 -8 inches long, had anatomical knowledge as to the position of organs, and was accustomed to removing innards with one sweep of the knife. Conan Doyle was told that JtR used the cuts of a butcher.

This is why the police checked out 76 butchers and slaughterers as Swanson advised the Home Office on 19th Oct 1888.

[Fiver]

You presumably believe the killer had time to kill and remove the organs, despite there being no evidence to show what time the killer entered the square with Eddowes

[Coroner] Have you been able to form any opinion as to whether the perpetrator of this act was disturbed?
[Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown] I think he had sufficient time, but it was in all probability done in a hurry.
[Coroner] How long would it take to make the wounds?
[Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown] It might be done in five minutes. It might take him longer; but that is the least time it could be done in.

You totally ignore Dr Browns testimony regarding questioning the skill of the killer

[Coroner] Would you consider that the person who inflicted the wounds possessed anatomical skill?
[Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown] He must have had a good deal of knowledge as to the position of the abdominal organs, and the way to remove them.
[Coroner] Would the parts removed be of any use for professional purposes?
[Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown] None whatever.
[Coroner] Would the removal of the kidney, for example, require special knowledge?
[Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown] It would require a good deal of knowledge as to its position, because it is apt to be overlooked, being covered by a membrane.
[Coroner] Would such a knowledge be likely to be possessed by some one accustomed to cutting up animals?
[Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown] Yes.

[Fiver]

Let me ask you, do you accept that there were body dealers active in Victorian times who acquired body parts and in some cases bodies from mortuaries via corrupt mortuary attendants? Because I can provide many examples.

[Coroner] Would the parts removed be of any use for professional purposes?
[Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown] - None whatever.

[Tom_Wescott]

yes. thanks George I meant to say about fifteen not fifty.

Following on with this, let me ask if there is a consensus among us that 15 minutes is the time the Ripper had available to him. If not, what is the precise number of minutes that there is a consensus on. By 'consensus' I mean something that Sam Flynn and Trevor Marriott agree upon.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

hi tom
Three minutes probably not. five minutes possibly yes but i think maybe a couple minutes longer. remember by the time of eddowes the ripper has had real life experience subduing, cutting and or mutilating in similar circs at least three women (nichols, chapman, stride) but imho five (millwood, tabram, nichols, chapman, stride) and those are just the ones we know of. And the ripper at least probably had alot of experience using the knife and some anatomical experience. so theres that base experience too.

put it all together and seven to eight minutes seems reasonable to me. plus he had about fifty minutes from the lawende sighting till the discovery of her body so alot of wiggle room in there too.

the ripper cut up her face, slit her throat, gutted her and pulled her intestines out, so imho cutting out her organs and taking them after all that does not seem all that extra.

so for me trevors points are all bathwater and no baby.

That is indeed a s*** ton of wiggle room. Have a drink or two for me, Abby, and hand someone those keys.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. Eight minutes is starting to sound a LITTLE more reasonable.
P.S.S. I know you meant to say 'fifteen'. Just having some fun in my response. As you know, I recently had Joseph Lawende making use of Albert Cadosch's toilet. It happens.
P.P.P.S. Editing because I just noticed I wrote 'P.S.S.' above instead of 'P.P.S.' I'm now handing over my keys and retiring to bed.

[Abby Normal]

I think you meant fifteen, didn't you?

My understanding is that the Lawende sighting was about 1:35 and the body was discovered at 1:44. About nine minutes. Of course clock syncs and time estimates also play a part.

yes. thanks George I meant to say about fifteen not fifty.

[GBinOz]

put it all together and seven to eight minutes seems reasonable to me. plus he had about fifty minutes from the lawende sighting till the discovery of her body so alot of wiggle room in there too.

I think you meant fifteen, didn't you?

My understanding is that the Lawende sighting was about 1:35 and the body was discovered at 1:44. About nine minutes. Of course clock syncs and time estimates also play a part.

[GBinOz]

Could Trevor have posed a legitimate problem but offered the wrong solution?

If we assume the perspective (whether we hold it or not) that the Ripper needed more than 5 minutes - maybe several more than 5 - to do everything he did (not just the medical stuff!), then how does that impact the timeline as structured by Lawende/Harvey Watkins? Or does it impact it?

I'm not asking these questions to then hoist my answer on you. I don't have one. Yet. I would love others to think on this and provide your considered response. I'm going to keep reading posts old and new and thinking on it myself. All I can think now is if Brown's estimate is too conservative then maybe the problem is the timeline imposed on the Ripper by other witnesses.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hi Tom,

It should be that Brown's "expert practitioner" failed to avoid nicking the bladder.

There is an old thread titled "Did he have anatomical knowledge?" by Prosector, a surgeon and teacher. It is 72 pages, but about the first five are most interesting. Prosector is not flattering in his opinion of Sequeira.

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

I also found some of the opinions in Trevor's video between about 16 minute mark and the 24 minute mark to be particularly interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpQqMtVVkzY&t=965s&ab_channel=dickcopy

Cheers, George

[Abby Normal]

hi tom
Three minutes probably not. five minutes possibly yes but i think maybe a couple minutes longer. remember by the time of eddowes the ripper has had real life experience subduing, cutting and or mutilating in similar circs at least three women (nichols, chapman, stride) but imho five (millwood, tabram, nichols, chapman, stride) and those are just the ones we know of. And the ripper at least probably had alot of experience using the knife and some anatomical experience. so theres that base experience too.

put it all together and seven to eight minutes seems reasonable to me. plus he had about fifty minutes from the lawende sighting till the discovery of her body so alot of wiggle room in there too.

the ripper cut up her face, slit her throat, gutted her and pulled her intestines out, so imho cutting out her organs and taking them after all that does not seem all that extra.

so for me trevors points are all bathwater and no baby.

[Tom_Wescott]

I'm going through an old thread called Jack's Escape from Mitre Square. I'm on page 31 of 113, so you can imagine my current mood. It's fascinating Herlock should happen to open two similar threads! But reading Trevor's old posts and the responses to him, something occurs to me. Two separate points are being argued as one. The First Point is Trevor's opinion that Sequeira was bonkers for suggesting 3 minutes for everything we see in the square and that Brown was too conservative for suggesting 'at least 5 minutes'. First thing I want to say is that Trevor's point is valid and he doesn't appear to have a suspect-based agenda. He's genuinely perplexed by how SO MUCH could have taken place in the darkest corner of Mitre Square in such a short amount of time and he's asking us to challenge accepted wisdom. I totally champion that. And I don't disagree with him.

I'm not as dogged as Trevor in insisting it couldn't have all taken place in that time, but I'm suspicious. One of Trevor's old posts brought up a point I hadn't considered before. Tons of sources point out Sequeira's '3 minutes' and Brown's 'At least 5 minutes'. But Trevor provided context by printing the question asked by the Star reporter. Here's Trevor's post: 'In the final edition there are the two interesting quotes, from Dr Brown, and Sequeira. Brown was asked a specific question by the reporter “How long would it have taken him (the killer) to mutilate the body as you found it” Brown replied “At least five minutes” Sequeira when asked the same question and states “three minutes”.'

I've never dug into this question until now so this was eye-opening to me. The question was '...as you found it'. As Trevor points out, when they found it, they didn't know any organs were missing.

Joshua Rogan and others point out that the Star interview was published 24 hours following the autopsy, so it's certainly possible the autopsy had already occurred. Trevor argues it had not happened yet at the time the interview occurred. I don't know. Rogan offers this excerpt from The Daily News (Oct. 5th): "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." This is interesting! The timing falls in line with what Sequeira said. But does that mean the Ripper was also an 'expert practiitioner'? Should Brown have asked a butcher or fish porter to participate? Did they turn the lights off first? Was the body on the ground? You know, control methods. We'll never know. But if the Ripper wasn't an 'expert practitioner' then we might perhaps conclude it would take him longer than 3 1/2 minutes. Another factor to consider is that the doctors only offered estimates on the injuries. Not the walk to the corner, any conversation that took place, rendering Kate unconscious, pilfering her pockets, cutting off half a large apron, maneuvering her skirts, and his escape. All of these things add time and have to be figured in by us. Is it possible the Ripper did all this AND inflicted the injuries he did in Sequeira's 3 minutes? Not a chance. What about in Brown's 'at least five minutes'? We're getting a bit closer to possibility.

Trevor has identified what he considers to be a problem with accepted wisdom and he's presented contemporary documentation and modern research to back his argument. This is argument number one. Convinced all this couldn't have happened in the time allowed by Lawende/Harvey/Watkins, Trevor offers his solution - that the Ripper didn't take the organs. They were removed at the mortuary. This is argument number two.

Argument #1 - Baby

Argument #2 - Bathwater

I can honestly say I see no merit in the argument that the Ripper didn't take the organs. This has been around for years (Bob Hinton) and I have considered it before and it just doesn't fly. One body, maybe. Three? Come on. But in throwing out this dirty bathwater, are we also throwing out the baby?

Could Trevor have posed a legitimate problem but offered the wrong solution?

If we assume the perspective (whether we hold it or not) that the Ripper needed more than 5 minutes - maybe several more than 5 - to do everything he did (not just the medical stuff!), then how does that impact the timeline as structured by Lawende/Harvey Watkins? Or does it impact it?

I'm not asking these questions to then hoist my answer on you. I don't have one. Yet. I would love others to think on this and provide your considered response. I'm going to keep reading posts old and new and thinking on it myself. All I can think now is if Brown's estimate is too conservative then maybe the problem is the timeline imposed on the Ripper by other witnesses.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Sam Flynn]

Also, Gareth, why would organ robbers/traders be interested in a piece of belly wall?

Exactly, especially since the victims were taken to different mortuaries, staffed by different personnel, who ALL happened to be into selling the odd organ now and then. "Here's a left kidney... come back next week and I'll sell you the other one".

The whole idea is utterly preposterous.

[The Rookie Detective]

You appear to be applying modern and professional standards to a historical situation where none of your assumptions may reasonably be applied.
For all you know, outside the border of the City of London, there may have been a number of informal backyard slaughterhouses, which by necessity conducted their business haphazardly in darkness.

Fred Gehringer's brother was a butcher who ran a dodgy slaughterhouse just off Cable Street that was raided by Met Police.

It was reported at the time that the quality of the meat was the worst that had been seen.

Fred's social status as a man of influence and power, his previous address in Mitre Street, his brother being a dodgy butcher, and the fact that Fred's 3rd wife/common law wife had a penchant for aggressively assaulting people and cutting them with a knife, lends to Fred needing a closer look.

I submitted the data on Fred's dodgy brother on a separate thread.



The Ripper was used to cutting things up.

[Trevor Marriott]

Terrible points Trevor.


Anyway, the poll….lets see….15 people have voted…..how many agree with you…..ZERO, ZILCH, NOT ONE

but as ever, you are right and everyone else is an idiot because Marriott of the Yard has spoken.

Yes, I couldn't be more right

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk