Did The Ripper Remove Organs?

[Scott Nelson]

The city police thought (via the press) that Eddowes and the Ripper entered the square right after they saw Watkins leave. If Watkins encountered the Ripper in St. James Place 7 minutes later, it would have left roughly 5 or 6 minutes to murder and mutilate her.

[Abby Normal]

In your dreams Trevor

20-0

"Deliberate mistake" lol. classic

[Trevor Marriott]

In your dreams Trevor

20-0

And I noticed you ducked out on answering the following question, I presume it was because you don't have an answer and the purpose of the question was to show that the killer did not remove the organs

And one question for you how can you explain the fact that the bodies of Chapman and Eddowes were taken to 2 different mortuaries yet we see two different methods of extracting of the uterus. Surely if the killer had removed the organs with precison and undamaged from Chapman in the same circumstances, why did he not show the same level of skill with Eddowes, and if the killer was harvesting organs why take a uterus from Eddowes when he had a perfect specimen from Chapman?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

And I noticed you ducked out on answering the following question, I presume it was because you don't have an answer and the purpose of the question was to show that the killer did not remove the organs

And one question for you how can you explain the fact that the bodies of Chapman and Eddowes were taken to 2 different mortuaries yet we see two different methods of extracting of the uterus. Surely if the killer had removed the organs with precison and undamaged from Chapman in the same circumstances, why did he not show the same level of skill with Eddowes, and if the killer was harvesting organs why take a uterus from Eddowes when he had a perfect specimen from Chapman?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I’ve answered it. Why would a killer have to have used exact same methods every time? He wasn’t following a rule book. If someone makes an error (like damaging an organ) it doesn’t follow that they should do it every time. You are floundering around trying to find things to prop up a discredited theory.

21-0

[bonestrewn]

Trevor, I'm curious about your theory. I will admit that I'm not convinced by it, but I find myself wondering: do we see a similar pattern of missing organs in other deaths at the time? Was there any contemporary scandal about this, or any documentation that mortuary attendants or others were caught making these thefts, etc? Excuse me if I'm betraying any ignorance as this is not my area of expertise.

[seanr]

Sean, you seem to suggest that BOTH parties (witness and police) would need to be massaged or dismissed altogether to open the Ripper's window. Did I misunderstand that?

Of all the times related to this, the one about which we can have most confidence is 1:44am when the body of Catherine Eddowes was found. For the simple reason that the alarm was sounded and then several witnesses arrive each with their own corroborating estimate of the time. If any of the beat officer were being economical with the truth or order to hide that they had perhaps been less than diligent about their duties, they would use the the time the alarm was raised and this would be certain and they'd be caught out.

Lawende et al, witnessed a man and woman in Church Passage at a time estimated to be 1:35am. If they did indeed witness Kate with her murderer, that gives nine minutes to enter Church Passage and the attack to take place, give or take a few minutes each way because the timings are estimates and clocks may not be in sync. It is not a given that the woman they saw was Kate.

Watkins says he passed through Mitre Square at approximately 1:30am and saw nothing. If that's accurate, that gives a maximum of 14 minutes to enter the Square and an attack to take place. The 1:30am time was an estimate so could easily flex to give a few more minutes, perhaps. It's possible that Harvey would see nothing, so you don't have to massage or dismiss his testimony. If anyone had been about at 1:30am, when Watkins testified he was in Mitre Square, he would surely have seen them.

If Kate was waiting with a man to enter the Square immediately after Watkins had left, then that gives the full 14 minutes available for the attack, but would tend to mean Lawende's party of witnesses either did not see Kate or their timings are inaccurate.

To give a timing longer than 15 minutes, I think you have to assume Watkins 1:30am visit to Mitre Square was inaccurate AND that the witnesses leaving the Imperial Club at around 1:35am, saw someone other than Catherine Eddowes in Church Passage.

[Herlock Sholmes]

All that we have to accept is the fact of poor clock synchronisation. It happens today with all of our technology. I did a bit of an experiment on here around a year ago when I had a couple of family members visiting - we had my iPad, smart phones, one iPhone (I think) living room clock, kitchen clock, landline and microwave clock. I believe there was an 8 minute range. So if that can happen in 2025?

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, I'm curious about your theory. I will admit that I'm not convinced by it, but I find myself wondering: do we see a similar pattern of missing organs in other deaths at the time? Was there any contemporary scandal about this, or any documentation that mortuary attendants or others were caught making these thefts, etc? Excuse me if I'm betraying any ignorance as this is not my area of expertise.

I hope this helps for further reading Prof Elizabeth Hurren for Leiceester Uni has published several books on the topc

Despite the anatomy act 1832 being in place in 1888, there was still a demand that exceeded the availability of bodies and body parts. This gave rise to a network of body dealers across London who was tasked with supplying medical schools to obtain bodies and body parts. They targeted areas of destitution where the poorest resided. As a result, The East-End became the centre of many-body dealing businesses that could supply bodies and body parts. For, whilst it was legal to supply a body for anatomy it was illegal to profit personally from a body transaction, but that was no deterrent to these unscrupulous people who traded in the dead.
As well as claiming dead bodies from the streets, body dealers would also purchase dead bodies from the back doors of doss houses, brothels and lodging houses, night refuges, and convents making a quick profit for the owners of these premises with Dorset Street in Whitechapel being regarded as the epicentre for the body dealing business.
Female body parts were highly prized and fetched a high price on the black market. This led to a rise in female body dealers and so the removal of the uterus from Chapman and Eddowes for research makes every sense.
The dealing in bodies and body parts involved a complex supply chain starting with undertakers, mortuary attendants, infirmary porters, and nurses who would all alert a body dealer of a death, and then they would be paid by the body dealer for that information, or in the case of a mortuary attendant allowing access to a mortuary to simply remove body parts from a dead body, as body parts were more lucrative acquisitions than a whole body.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[bonestrewn]

Trevor, thank you for the recommendation for further reading! I've found Prof. Hurren's article "Dissecting Jack-the-Ripper: An Anatomy of Murder in the Metropolis" on JSTOR and will give it a look. I'm curious how this approach to JTR alters your opinion of his motives. My understanding is that most people assume he was a misogynist who targeted the female organs and genitals specifically. Do you think this is still true, and that the uterus, etc. just happened to be the target of the organ thieves for separate reasons?

[Trevor Marriott]

I’ve answered it. Why would a killer have to have used exact same methods every time? He wasn’t following a rule book. If someone makes an error (like damaging an organ) it doesn’t follow that they should do it every time. You are floundering around trying to find things to prop up a discredited theory.

21-0

I think it is you that is floundering

But if the killer had removed a uterus intact by one method from Chapman which was a more intricate removal than Eddowes, why did he not use the same method of extraction with Eddowes or was he highly skilled anatomist which would indicate a medical man, but even that falls flat because under the anatomy act medical persons could go to mortuaries and obtain organs lawfully

Two different methods of extraction from two different mortuaries = The organs were removed not by the killer

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

See below

ORGAN PRICES.doc

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think it is you that is floundering

But if the killer had removed a uterus intact by one method from Chapman which was a more intricate removal than Eddowes, why did he not use the same method of extraction with Eddowes or was he highly skilled anatomist which would indicate a medical man, but even that falls flat because under the anatomy act medical persons could go to mortuaries and obtain organs lawfully

Two different methods of extraction from two different mortuaries = The organs were removed not by the killer

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

See below

[ATTACH]n854287[/ATTACH]

I don’t know why he did what he did. But you can’t assume that if he did something one way once then he’d have done it the same every time. Human beings aren’t robots. Different factors come into play. Maybe he tried one method with Chapman then thought that another method might be quicker or easier. Who knows.

21 people think you are totally wrong and not one single person has stood up and said that they agree with you. Not one. You need to reassess because you are doing what you always do Trevor. You have an idea - you believe that it must be true because you came up with it - then you defend it at all costs in the teeth of all of the evidence.

Organ thieves wouldn’t have stolen organs before a post Mortem was to take place. That fact alone kicks your theory into the long grass. Break out the white flag Trevor and give us all a rest.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I hope this helps for further reading Prof Elizabeth Hurren for Leiceester Uni has published several books on the topc

Despite the anatomy act 1832 being in place in 1888, there was still a demand that exceeded the availability of bodies and body parts. This gave rise to a network of body dealers across London who was tasked with supplying medical schools to obtain bodies and body parts. They targeted areas of destitution where the poorest resided. As a result, The East-End became the centre of many-body dealing businesses that could supply bodies and body parts. For, whilst it was legal to supply a body for anatomy it was illegal to profit personally from a body transaction, but that was no deterrent to these unscrupulous people who traded in the dead.
As well as claiming dead bodies from the streets, body dealers would also purchase dead bodies from the back doors of doss houses, brothels and lodging houses, night refuges, and convents making a quick profit for the owners of these premises with Dorset Street in Whitechapel being regarded as the epicentre for the body dealing business.
Female body parts were highly prized and fetched a high price on the black market. This led to a rise in female body dealers and so the removal of the uterus from Chapman and Eddowes for research makes every sense.
The dealing in bodies and body parts involved a complex supply chain starting with undertakers, mortuary attendants, infirmary porters, and nurses who would all alert a body dealer of a death, and then they would be paid by the body dealer for that information, or in the case of a mortuary attendant allowing access to a mortuary to simply remove body parts from a dead body, as body parts were more lucrative acquisitions than a whole body.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It’s noticeable that at no time does she mention the possibility of organs being taken at the mortuary. She wonders if Kelly might have been involved in the body-dealing business.

Nothing to see here.

[Herlock Sholmes]

22-0

It’s a close call Trevor.

[Lewis C]

I think it is you that is floundering

But if the killer had removed a uterus intact by one method from Chapman which was a more intricate removal than Eddowes, why did he not use the same method of extraction with Eddowes or was he highly skilled anatomist which would indicate a medical man, but even that falls flat because under the anatomy act medical persons could go to mortuaries and obtain organs lawfully

Two different methods of extraction from two different mortuaries = The organs were removed not by the killer

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

See below

[ATTACH]n854287[/ATTACH]

That the lighting was much better at the Chapman murder than at the Eddowes murder could account for differences in how the organ removal was done.

[bonestrewn]

Having just finished the article, I concur with Detective Sholmes, and have to add that I find the overall article quite thin on the ground. Prof. Hurren doesnt seem to have much reading in JTR matters (her sources are almost exclusively the work of Paul Begg, and while I have the utmost respect for him, he is not the only Ripperologist working!) and she makes no argument about the theft of organs. Moreover, her case that Mary Kelly may have been involved in the body trade is purely circumstantial, with little to ground it. I must agree with the current scorecard of 22-0 on this point.

That said, I am very curious about Hurren's other work and would like to explore it, so still very much appreciate what it adds to our understanding of the time and of Dorset St.