Did The Ripper Remove Organs?

[seanr]

I have always found it odd that there are literally scores of suspects and persons of interest in this case; yet only a handful of them would have had the necessary skill to use a knife and remove a left kidney in the dark in a matter of minutes.

Individuals like Maybrick, Kosminski, Bury, Lechmere... none of them had the ability to achieve what the Ripper did.

That's not me being controversial; it's just a definitely ascertained fact.

Now when we look at the likes of Levy, Klosowski and Thompson, we can see that any or all of these did possess at the very least some very basic skill with how to use a knife and/or where to find organs in the human body.

Kosminski and Klosowski become of interest because local barbers are among the professions which it is thought may have picked up the skills to do this. Economically at the time people would take work where they could get it and a barber might take an ad hoc job for few extra shillings.
That Kosminski was described as a not working barber and quite young (so inexperienced) seems a point against him. But then the contemporary police may have known things that we don’t know about his employments.

The killer had done it all before, time and time again.

That was certainly the conclusion and the focus of the City police.

[GBinOz]

It is interesting that many here that would not have even cut the head off a chicken and dressed it for the table are offering opinions on surgical and butchering techniques. When a butcher is eviscerating a pig carcass it is suspended by the legs and gravity does most of the work. There is no concern as to avoiding the nicking of the bladder, and the process is not conducted in the dark with the carcass lying flat and the abdomen filling with blood. A couple of strokes with the knife and the organs fall out of the suspended pig. There is no comparison with what took place in Mitre Square. Prosector (a surgeon and teacher) had a thread on this subject which was plagued with with the opinions of self professed experts with no practical experience to the point where he gave up in despair.

Brown commissioned an experienced colleague to conduct an experiment on the timing, but that was unlikely to have been conducted in the dark with the surgeon kneeling over a cadaver, and the cadaver would not have had an abdomen full of blood. Even so, the experiment failed to avoid nicking the bladder, and was focussed on organ removal without stating whether the stated time included the delicate cuts to the eyelids.

[Trevor Marriott]

The title says it all. Did the killer removed organs? Trevor has a theory which you can check out on the thread below.

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/victims/catherine-eddowes/795569-organ-removal-warning-graphic-photos#post795569

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.

Your poll is flawed because we know from Insp Reid that no organs were taken from Kelly and whose evidence is prime evidence

If it is accepted that the same killer killed Stride.Mckenzie,Coles and Chapman and as some suggest the killers motive other than murder and mutilation was to harvest body parts, in the aforementioned victims we see no attempt by the killer to harvest organs. Please don't say he was disturbed or he didn't have time, that old chestnut is wearing thin now

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.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[seanr]

It is interesting that many here that would not have even cut the head off a chicken and dressed it for the table are offering opinions on surgical and butchering techniques. When a butcher is eviscerating a pig carcass it is suspended by the legs and gravity does most of the work. There is no concern as to avoiding the nicking of the bladder, and the process is not conducted in the dark with the carcass lying flat and the abdomen filling with blood. A couple of strokes with the knife and the organs fall out of the suspended pig. There is no comparison with what took place in Mitre Square. Prosector (a surgeon and teacher) had a thread on this subject which was plagued with with the opinions of self professed experts with no practical experience to the point where he gave up in despair.

Brown commissioned an experienced colleague to conduct an experiment on the timing, but that was unlikely to have been conducted in the dark with the surgeon kneeling over a cadaver, and the cadaver would not have had an abdomen full of blood. Even so, the experiment failed to avoid nicking the bladder, and was focussed on organ removal without stating whether the stated time included the delicate cuts to the eyelids.

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.

[Sam Flynn]

Your poll is flawed because we know from Insp Reid that no organs were taken from Kelly

That's a disingenuous way of putting it. The killer might not have taken any organs away from Kelly's room, but he almost entirely emptied her abdomen of its organs at the scene.

whose evidence is prime evidence

No better prime evidence than a crime-scene photograph, Trev.

[FrankO]

That's a disingenuous way of putting it. The killer might not have taken any organs away from Kelly's room, but he almost entirely emptied her abdomen of its organs at the scene.

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

Your poll is flawed because we know from Insp Reid that no organs were taken from Kelly and whose evidence is prime evidence

Nope. You are assuming that he was correct. Was he infallible?

If it is accepted that the same killer killed Stride.Mckenzie,Coles and Chapman and as some suggest the killers motive other than murder and mutilation was to harvest body parts, in the aforementioned victims we see no attempt by the killer to harvest organs. Please don't say he was disturbed or he didn't have time, that old chestnut is wearing thin now

Just because something is believed by ‘some’ it doesn’t make it a fact. Can you find someone that thinks that Coles was a victim? And if you can I’d suggest that it will be a vanishingly small amount. As for Mackenzie, opinion is massively divided on whether she was a victim or not. And, as we can see from the recent Stride poll, opinion is divided on her as a victim too. So your point is invalid.

It is a possibility that the killer of Stride was interrupted. But I suppose that because you don’t think so we should all simply fall in and accept your opinion as gospel (strange how very few tend to accept your opinions though Trevor isn’t it?)

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.

Yes I do.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But I also accept that chimpanzees existed at the time but that doesn’t prove that one took the body parts.

Everything that you say is flawed. It’s staggering that you don’t see it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Or a damaged uterus Frank?

”The uterus was cut away with the exception of a small portion.”

[Trevor Marriott]

But I also accept that chimpanzees existed at the time but that doesn’t prove that one took the body parts.

Everything that you say is flawed. It’s staggering that you don’t see it.

And I could say the same to you

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

You seem to believe that the killer had anatomical knowledge, and after stabbing the victim in the abdomen, causing the abdomen to fill with blood was able to locate these organs in almost total darkness, be able to take hold of them despite them being slippery and remove them in a very short period of time.

You question Insp Reids interview

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

I have attached a photo taken in a mortuary of a female this shows the abdomen held open with clamps and it shows the location to the uterus from that picture, can you not see the degree of difficulty involved in just removing a uterus in the dark and the killer did not have access to any clamps nor any form of lighting, and the removal of the kidney would been even more of a problem as the kidneys are located towards the back of the abomen.. In today's world Doctors have access to surgical gloves to make it easier for them to grip the organs they are working with, These were not available back then.

I have also attached an image of the kidney which is also difficult to locate and remove as its covered by renal fat

Warning graphic images

I wish you would wake up to reality

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

And I could say the same to you

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

You fail to read properly as ever. I presume nothing. What I have done, and what anyone with common sense and reason has to do, is took look at how much time it was POSSIBLE for the killer to have had and if he POSSIBLY had enough time then there would be no reason for doubting that the killer took away organs.

You can’t even give a minimum time that he would have required because you don’t know. No one does. You are simply flailing around in the dark defending another one of your theories at all cost

You seem to believe that the killer had anatomical knowledge,

I don’t know if the killer had medical knowledge but he might have had. He might been a doctor for all that we know. He might have been a surgeon for all that we know. He might have been a doctor who had been struck off for all that we know. He might have been a man with no legitimate training but had spent his life educating himself for all that we know. I assume nothing. It’s you, as usual, who is doing all of the assuming.

and after stabbing the victim in the abdomen, causing the abdomen to fill with blood was able to locate these organs in almost total darkness, be able to take hold of them despite them being slippery and remove them in a very short period of time.

I can’t recall the detail but hadn’t someone taken you to task about this idea of the abdomen filling with blood? (I may be misremembering this)

How long is a short period of time Trevor. I know what the score is….if someone told you that it would have taken 10 minutes you would be arguing like mad that the killer could only have had 8 minutes just to back up your theory.

You question Insp Reids interview

I don’t assume infallibility. Strange isn’t it…Macnaghten is wrong and a liar, Anderson is wrong and a liar, someone faked the marginalia, but could Inspector Reid have made an error…no, because he supports your theory.

And even if the killer didn’t take the heart it STILL comes nowhere near proving your theory. He might have had a reason for not taking the heart that we are aware of. Or do you claim to know the thoughts of the killer too?

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

An invention on your part. I have no set opinion on the skill of the killer. If medical/anatomical knowledge was required then he must have possessed it.

Again…..name one single doctor (or just anyone) at the time who claimed or even suspected that the killer didn’t remove organs. It’s another mystery Trevor. Reid said that no parts were missing and he must be correct according to you. But when the doctors believed that the killer removed body parts they must have been wrong.

You are on your usual cherrypicking exercise.

I have attached a photo taken in a mortuary of a female this shows the abdomen held open with clamps and it shows the location to the uterus from that picture, can you not see the degree of difficulty involved in just removing a uterus in the dark and the killer did not have access to any clamps nor any form of lighting, and the removal of the kidney would been even more of a problem as the kidneys are located towards the back of the abomen.. In today's world Doctors have access to surgical gloves to make it easier for them to grip the organs they are working with, These were not available back then.

I have also attached an image of the kidney which is also difficult to locate and remove as its covered by renal fat

Ive seen the photos. Showing them to a non-medical person is pointless.

Warning graphic images

I wish you would wake up to reality

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

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.

[Lewis C]

Excellent thread Herlock, and very thought provoking.


I have always found it odd that there are literally scores of suspects and persons of interest in this case; yet only a handful of them would have had the necessary skill to use a knife and remove a left kidney in the dark in a matter of minutes.

Individuals like Maybrick, Kosminski, Bury, Lechmere... none of them had the ability to achieve what the Ripper did.

That's not me being controversial; it's just a definitely ascertained fact.




What is the overriding aspect of the murders that is often overlooked?


That the killer had done this before.


Now when we look at the likes of Levy, Klosowski and Thompson, we can see that any or all of these did possess at the very least some very basic skill with how to use a knife and/or where to find organs in the human body.


It seems almost too obvious to suggest that the Ripper treated his victim's bodies exactly how a pig butcher would treat a pig.

He cut their throats, bled them out, eviscerated them, removed their innards and then displayed them like a butchered animal.


IMO, the killer was a pig butcher.


It's interesting that a pig is anatomically and physiologically similar to a human; relatively speaking.

It could also be suggested that the Ripper tried to make some of his victims look like a pig; Eddowes face being the prime example.

Clipping off the ears and nose is also indicative of a killer removing pieces of an animal.

And of course; in reference to the double event, the author of one of the main correspondences uses the term "Squealed a bit" when referring almost certainly to Stride.


The idea that a suspect with no experience of using a knife, no experience with cutting things up, and no basic understanding of anatomy, was able to do what he did in the dark and within a very limited time frame, is simply ridiculous.


The killer had done it all before, time and time again.

HI Rd,

There are some very well-informed people on the case that believe that the killer wouldn't have had to have had much anatomical knowledge, so I wouldn't call it a definite fact. And maybe there are suspects that had knowledge that we aren't aware of. Thomas Cutbush comes to mind. There are stores of him spending many hour studying anatomy books, but I don't know how well-documented that is. So maybe he didn't, but that's just it - maybe we don't know, and there may be others as well.

[Tom_Wescott]

Message for Jon Menges

Jon whenever I create a poll I always click on the ‘show voters names’ part but this time it looks like I forgot to do that. Is it possible for you to change that retrospectively? Maybe it isn’t?

Thanks either way.

He lets you call him 'Jon'? He makes me call him 'Mr. Menges, sir.' Ironically, Ally insists I call her 'Jon'.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. The Ripper took the organs.