Did The Ripper Remove Organs?

[Kattrup]

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.
Significant for Trevor’s method of arguing, he sets up false conditions for the experts, who then confirm Trevor’s “point”.
For instance, his butcher - I mean no disrespect to that accomplished professional, but by saying he could not remove a kidney carefully with a six inch knife in near total darkness he reveals that Trevor has no respect for his opinion and has fed him false information. Leading of course to a false conclusion.

I am reminded of Gbinoz, asking a nurse experienced in abdominal surgery, whether the killer could have removed the organs without damaging other organs - the answer was no, Gbinoz accepts this - forgetting that there WAS damage to other organs, so the nurse’s opinion is worthless.

Among the various arguments clearly showing that Trevor’s argument is false, one is perhaps neglected, even more so when looking at the doctors’ estimates of time and skill needed: we don’t know which organ the killer intended to take - did he perhaps just take the first he could get his hands on?
So the qualified colleague who in 1888 did the procedure in three and a half minutes did so targeting a specific organ. We don’t know that the killer did that.

[Trevor Marriott]

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.
Significant for Trevor’s method of arguing, he sets up false conditions for the experts, who then confirm Trevor’s “point”.
For instance, his butcher - I mean no disrespect to that accomplished professional, but by saying he could not remove a kidney carefully with a six inch knife in near total darkness he reveals that Trevor has no respect for his opinion and has fed him false information. Leading of course to a false conclusion.

I am reminded of Gbinoz, asking a nurse experienced in abdominal surgery, whether the killer could have removed the organs without damaging other organs - the answer was no, Gbinoz accepts this - forgetting that there WAS damage to other organs, so the nurse’s opinion is worthless.

Among the various arguments clearly showing that Trevor’s argument is false, one is perhaps neglected, even more so when looking at the doctors’ estimates of time and skill needed: we don’t know which organ the killer intended to take - did he perhaps just take the first he could get his hands on?
So the qualified colleague who in 1888 did the procedure in three and a half minutes did so targeting a specific organ. We don’t know that the killer did that.

So you are one of those who has swallowed the original belief hook line and sinker?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GBinOz]

I am reminded of Gbinoz, asking a nurse experienced in abdominal surgery, whether the killer could have removed the organs without damaging other organs - the answer was no, Gbinoz accepts this - forgetting that there WAS damage to other organs, so the nurse’s opinion is worthless.

So the qualified colleague who in 1888 did the procedure in three and a half minutes did so targeting a specific organ.

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?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.
Significant for Trevor’s method of arguing, he sets up false conditions for the experts, who then confirm Trevor’s “point”.
For instance, his butcher - I mean no disrespect to that accomplished professional, but by saying he could not remove a kidney carefully with a six inch knife in near total darkness he reveals that Trevor has no respect for his opinion and has fed him false information. Leading of course to a false conclusion.

I am reminded of Gbinoz, asking a nurse experienced in abdominal surgery, whether the killer could have removed the organs without damaging other organs - the answer was no, Gbinoz accepts this - forgetting that there WAS damage to other organs, so the nurse’s opinion is worthless.

Among the various arguments clearly showing that Trevor’s argument is false, one is perhaps neglected, even more so when looking at the doctors’ estimates of time and skill needed: we don’t know which organ the killer intended to take - did he perhaps just take the first he could get his hands on?
So the qualified colleague who in 1888 did the procedure in three and a half minutes did so targeting a specific organ. We don’t know that the killer did that.

Well said Kattrup. The theory falls flat. It can safely be dismissed.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The answer is quite clear, both bodies were left in the mortuaries overnight and the post mortems were not carried out for 8-10 hours later, so ample time for anyone to facilitate the removals. They would have known that organs were removed from Chapman and so they knew that an autopsy had not been carried out on Eddowes so they could take the organs knowing that at the post mortem the missing organs would be attributed to the killer, a belief which you and others have swallowed hook line and sinker.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I do wish you would learn to read properly Trevor.

The point is not how long the imaginary organ thieves had it’s the TIMING.

Can you really believe what you just said? You appear to be saying that because they knew that organs had been taken from Chapman, they could have removed Eddowes organs before the autopsy with impunity. The obvious question then would be “how could they have taken organs from Chapman before the autopsy as no organs would have been taken from a previous victim?”

17-0 by the way.

[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.

No answers to the above I see.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Great post Trevor. The voice of experience vs the speculations of arm chair experts.

Not quite true, George. It is the opinion of one modern expert, who never worked in Victorian times and conditions vs the opinions of experienced Victorian police surgeons and a Victorian butcher/slaughterer.

It is however, a generally very interesting and helpful statement. It confirms the similarity between the innards of a pig and a human, which Trevor doubted. It identifies some of the difficulties JtR would have had with blood etc, and therefore perhaps, the need for part of Eddowes' apron. There is no evidence that JtR ever sought a specific organ. I have always thought that he "cut and slashed", pulled the "loose bits" like intestines out of the way, and then cut himself a trophy.

[Trevor Marriott]

I do wish you would learn to read properly Trevor.

The point is not how long the imaginary organ thieves had it’s the TIMING.

Can you really believe what you just said? You appear to be saying that because they knew that organs had been taken from Chapman, they could have removed Eddowes organs before the autopsy with impunity. The obvious question then would be “how could they have taken organs from Chapman before the autopsy as no organs would have been taken from a previous victim?”

17-0 by the way.

The organs taken from Chapman were taken because those working for the body dealers seized the opportunity to take organs because of the long gap between the body arriving at the mortuary and the post mortem. In the case of Eddowes those who took the organs would have known that by taking the organs the missing organs would be attributed to the killer as was the case of Chapman

If you cannot understand, I will draw pictures for you

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[The Rookie Detective]

Ironically; it doesn't matter whether the killer took the organs or not.

If he did, then they were of no use to him outside of them being trophies; he couldn't have sold damaged goods.

If he didn't and they were taken at the mortuary, then this has no bearing on the fact that the killer wasn't focused on taking organs; he was interested in the idea of cutting, mutilating, exploring and displaying his work.


So the point as to whether the killer took or didn't take organs from his victims then becomes rather redundant.


It's like trying to work out if a football (soccer) player meant to score from an acute angle that looked like a pass...when his team lost 6-1.


In other words; it has no real impact on anything.


The Ripper mutilated because he got a thrill from controlling, dominating, cutting, stabbing and dehumanising "fallen" women. His primary focus was the uterus; but whether he left it, took it, ate it, juggled it, sang to it, or urinated on it...it really makes no difference in context of the bigger picture.

[GBinOz]

I have always thought that he "cut and slashed", pulled the "loose bits" like intestines out of the way, and then cut himself a trophy.

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.

[GBinOz]

Ironically; it doesn't matter whether the killer took the organs or not.

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

The organs taken from Chapman were taken because those working for the body dealers seized the opportunity to take organs because of the long gap between the body arriving at the mortuary and the post mortem. In the case of Eddowes those who took the organs would have known that by taking the organs the missing organs would be attributed to the killer as was the case of Chapman

If you cannot understand, I will draw pictures for you

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

With every post you weaken your position (if that’s possible) You are simply wriggling.

Firstly, you are again stating your opinion as a fact. You cannot know this.

And for the third time….its nothing to do with the duration of time before the autopsy took place. Organ thieves would, as a matter of certainty, taken organs AFTER an autopsy because even you could imagine their surprise when performing an autopsy on say a drowning victim or a possible poisoning to find that someone had opened the abdomen. It might have provided a clue that something wasn’t quite right don’t you think?

So why the rush? Why would they have changed their usual MO in this case and the Chapman case? Made even worse by the fact that they would have known how high profile this corpse was and that at any time some official might have showed up for a look.

Also, you yourself have suggested the likelihood (to a point of certainty) that some mortuary worker would have been in on it. Mortuary workers would have been informed as to when the autopsy was due to take place therefore it’s almost certain that potential organ thieves would also have known this. So why would they risk going in before the autopsy with the huge risks involved when they could have waited until the autopsy was done when they could have done their work with no fear of interruption or discovery.

No organ thieves (who weren’t complete dimwits) would have done this.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Coroner: “Would the parts removed be of any use for professional purposes?”

Dr. Brown: “None whatever.”

Did the ripper do a surprising perfect job?

No.

Dr. Brown: “The uterus was cut away with the exception of a small portion.”

So he missed a bit.

Question to Trevor - Do you have any evidence of an ongoing trade in partial or damaged organs?

Question to Trevor - Who would be the likeliest to remove an incomplete/damaged organ? An experienced organ thief wanting good specimens to sell or a serial killer working in the street?

[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.

[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.