Did The Ripper Remove Organs?

[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.

[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

[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 ?

[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…

[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 .

[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

[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?

[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.