Did The Ripper Remove Organs?

[Geddy2112]

There was no gangs as such but there were body dealers who were active in 1888 and these supplied organs and body parts to teaching hospitals and they worked with corrupt mortuary attendants

I asked why the thieves did not take the organs from Nichols, Stride and Kelly... NOT the killer. It's obvious why the killer did not although it seems he did in the case of Kelly's heart.

Okay so there were body dealers. How many other bodies did they plunder in the 1880s or 1890s? After all it seems they left 3 of the 5 C5 alone for some odd reason.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is, I think, a very important point. It is fine to propose new ideas as suggested alternatives, but obviously wrong to claim to know the unknowable.

We get this elsewhere, for example when we are told the "Mizen scam" is a fact, when even Mizen's colleagues in the police force didn't agree with him.

New ideas are welcome, but let's propose them as possibilities for discussion.

Personally, I value quite highly the views of the people who dealt with the matter at the time. Clearly they were not perfect, but they saw all of the evidence available, and knew what was going on in the Victorian East End. The police and the police surgeons knew of the existence of organ thieves, but not one police officer, nor one police surgeon considered the possibility that anyone except the killer took the organs. What did they know that we don't? Were they 100% certain because of security that there was no point in time when the organs could have been harvested by thieves? Did the police surgeons observe more than they took the trouble to record at the murder sites?

We don't know, but they were satisfied, and they knew a lot more than we do.

Hello Doc,

Trevor often makes the point that if the doctors had examined the corpse after they had followed it to the mortuary (therefore prior to the PM) he would have made notes but can’t see why he would think this. The police would have wanted to know of any possibly useful information that the doctors might have been able to pass on to them after looking at the body without having to wait hours for the PM. Anything they might have written down (as per Trevor’s question) would have been included in Brown’s post mortem report. Writing the same thing down twice would have served no point.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There was no gangs as such but there were body dealers who were active in 1888 and these supplied organs and body parts to teaching hospitals and they worked with corrupt mortuary attendants

And they would have always taken organs AFTER a post mortem and NOT before.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor you continually dodge the important questions.

Why did the thieves not take organs from Kelly? (Or Nichols, or Stride etc etc...)

Thats a question I have been asking for some time but it seems no one from the naysayers can give any plausible answer except the same old chesnut that he was disturbed

How did the thieves organ stealing business survive after the C5?

Do you have any evidence of organ stealing from the same gang after 9th Nov 1888?

There was no gangs as such but there were body dealers who were active in 1888 and these supplied organs and body parts to teaching hospitals and they worked with corrupt mortuary attendants

[Doctored Whatsit]

It wouldn’t be so bad if Trevor just ‘floated the suggestion’ but no…Trevor knows. Well I’m sorry but he doesn’t know. His thinking on this is poor to put it mildly. And to be honest, I’m pretty sick of his unfounded claims but Trevor has the hide of a rhino (which, in a way, I admire) and he’ll keep making them. If he would only ‘suggest’ instead of ‘stating.’ But he won’t.

This is, I think, a very important point. It is fine to propose new ideas as suggested alternatives, but obviously wrong to claim to know the unknowable.

We get this elsewhere, for example when we are told the "Mizen scam" is a fact, when even Mizen's colleagues in the police force didn't agree with him.

New ideas are welcome, but let's propose them as possibilities for discussion.

Personally, I value quite highly the views of the people who dealt with the matter at the time. Clearly they were not perfect, but they saw all of the evidence available, and knew what was going on in the Victorian East End. The police and the police surgeons knew of the existence of organ thieves, but not one police officer, nor one police surgeon considered the possibility that anyone except the killer took the organs. What did they know that we don't? Were they 100% certain because of security that there was no point in time when the organs could have been harvested by thieves? Did the police surgeons observe more than they took the trouble to record at the murder sites?

We don't know, but they were satisfied, and they knew a lot more than we do.

[Geddy2112]

The answer is quite clear the killer did not take and organs from any of the victims

Trevor you continually dodge the important questions.

Why did the thieves not take organs from Kelly? (Or Nichols, or Stride etc etc...)

How did the thieves organ stealing business survive after the C5?

Do you have any evidence of organ stealing from the same gang after 9th Nov 1888?

[Herlock Sholmes]

The whole theory is another waste of words. It begins with an appalling piece of thinking..

We don’t know how long the killers actions (including the removal of organs) would have taken and we don’t know how long the killer had available to him but he couldn’t have done it.

This is exactly what Trevor is saying. And he’s not ‘suggesting’ it or putting it out there for discussion. No, Trevor knows that the killer couldn’t have done it. And he berates others for daring to disagree with one of his pronunciations.

Then we have to accept that these thieves were in such a rush that they threw every ounce of caution and common sense to the wind in doing something that they could never, ever have done before…stolen organs from a corpse that was due for a PM.

And if matters couldn’t be made worse, this was a corpse where we know, without any doubt, that doctors had looked at well before the PM. And there’s just no way in the world that the organ thieves could possibly have known (or even had a level of confidence) that those doctors hadn’t noticed that the uterus was in place - in a body with an opened abdomen and intestines removed. So unless they had the intelligence of a pork pie they wouldn’t have done this under any circumstances.

We need to stop giving air time to silly ideas. It wouldn’t be so bad if Trevor just ‘floated the suggestion’ but no…Trevor knows. Well I’m sorry but he doesn’t know. His thinking on this is poor to put it mildly. And to be honest, I’m pretty sick of his unfounded claims but Trevor has the hide of a rhino (which, in a way, I admire) and he’ll keep making them. If he would only ‘suggest’ instead of ‘stating.’ But he won’t.

[Trevor Marriott]

The heart? Did the organ thieves steal from poor Mary? If not why not. What did they do for business after 9th Nov 1888?

The answer is quite clear the killer did not take and organs from any of the victims

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[The Rookie Detective]

Trevor I am not convinced that this killer wanted to harvest organs and in the case of Tabrum it's not clear he was there in his mind yet. All killers have some crossover event that turns them. I believe that was Tabrum. The other kills seem to be determined by time of interruption. It seems the Doctors thought almost unanimously that, with the exception of Kelly, these murders took less than 10 minutes. They also thought based on their own training and methods, it would have taken them longer. They never mentioned harvesting to my knowledge. They would be the most knowledgeable on that subject.

Trophies make more sense. Was the kidney Lusk received that of Eddowes? Dahmer ate organs and the BTK killer taunted authorities. The letter associated with the kidney looks contrived in order to throw off Authorities on who he was...uneducated and hockey? That's why I believe it could be authentic.

With the exception of pigs, most animal organs were used as feed for other animals. Where could the killer get rid of organs?? Would be relatively easy.

Excellent post.

The taking of trophies seems correct to me.


The Lusk kidney is IMO an authentic representation of what the killer actually did.

He cut the piece of apron, wrapped the piece of kidney in it...went home, got changed, changed his appearance, and then went back out and deliberately placed the piece of apron under the GSG.

I guess it all depends on the size of the apron piece.

Was it just the right size to cover a piece of kidney?

[Patrick Differ]

So if the killer was harvesting organs, why did he not take any organs or make any attempt to take organs from Tabram, Stride, Kelly, McKenzie and Coles?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor I am not convinced that this killer wanted to harvest organs and in the case of Tabrum it's not clear he was there in his mind yet. All killers have some crossover event that turns them. I believe that was Tabrum. The other kills seem to be determined by time of interruption. It seems the Doctors thought almost unanimously that, with the exception of Kelly, these murders took less than 10 minutes. They also thought based on their own training and methods, it would have taken them longer. They never mentioned harvesting to my knowledge. They would be the most knowledgeable on that subject.

Trophies make more sense. Was the kidney Lusk received that of Eddowes? Dahmer ate organs and the BTK killer taunted authorities. The letter associated with the kidney looks contrived in order to throw off Authorities on who he was...uneducated and hockey? That's why I believe it could be authentic.

With the exception of pigs, most animal organs were used as feed for other animals. Where could the killer get rid of organs?? Would be relatively easy.

[Geddy2112]

But no organs were taken from Kelly when the killer had the time to take many different organs from her body

The heart? Did the organ thieves steal from poor Mary? If not why not. What did they do for business after 9th Nov 1888?

[Fiver]

So if the killer was harvesting organs, why did he not take any organs or make any attempt to take organs from Tabram, Stride, Kelly, McKenzie and Coles?

Taking trophies is not harvesting organs.

Tabram - hadn't thought of it yet.
Stride - no time to take organs.
Kelly - heart was missing.
McKenzie - probably not a Ripper victim. If she was, the lesser mutilations show the thrill was gone and/or their health was failing.
Coles - not a Ripper victim.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Phillips was reported to have arrived sometime after 5:20pm.

So 3 hours into the PM Phillips shows up with the apron? That seems strange. The police would really have wanted to know if it matched up. Why would they have waited 14 hours to find out?

[Herlock Sholmes]

But no organs were taken from Kelly when the killer had the time to take many different organs from her body

The motive for these killings was nothing more than murder and mutilation

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You don’t know what you are talking about. Assumption after assumption. The killer took organs. Anyone who says that he didn’t is just talking nonsense. A triumph of ego. Your theory is a joke.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So if the killer was harvesting organs, why did he not take any organs or make any attempt to take organs from Tabram, Stride, Kelly, McKenzie and Coles?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You keep saying that he was ‘harvesting.’ You can’t just assume a point to make a point. You just never learn.

Tabram - not a ripper victim, Stride - not a ripper victim, Kelly - heart missing, Mackenzie - not a ripper victim, Coles - not a ripper victim.