Tweet
What we’re faced with on this issue can be narrowed down to two questions. 1. Can we show that the killer wouldn’t have had time, capability or conditions to kill and mutilate Catherine Eddowes and then remove her organs before exiting Mitre Square by one of the three exits? And 2. Do we have evidence that those organs weren’t taken by the killer but were taken at the morgue to be sold on (which is Trevor’s theory/suggestion)
To prove the second suggestion we would have to be able to show beyond all reasonable doubt that the killer couldn't have done what he is considered to have done (although it could be said that even if the killer had time it still doesn’t prove that he did it) .For various reasons it is absolutely impossible to prove this. We know that the times cannot be considered as set-in-stone so a reasonable margin for error has to be allowed for as long as we don’t take unlikely liberties. This could take us either way of course, + or -. We can’t be certain for example what time the couple could have reached the murder site because we can’t know how accurate were the times given by the three witnesses and we can’t know how soon after the witnesses passed they walked into Mitre Square. As Trevor points out, the later the time the less time the killer would have therefore the less likely it would have been but as none of the three witnesses looked back we don’t know. We we can say for certain though is that they could have moved on immediately after the witnesses passed.
Because of the above it’s impossible to answer the question - did the killer have time? We don’t know how long he had and we don’t know how long he would have needed (or what level of anatomical knowledge he would have required for that matter?) The Doctors who were there at the time expressed no doubts about the possibility. On the level of light available for example, Dr. Sequiera felt that the killer would have had sufficient light and so his opinion on the conditions at the time surely must trump any doubts that we might have 134 years later. Some modern experts express doubts about how long the whole ‘operation’ would have taken but some modern experts don’t, so we have divided opinion, but it has to be remembered that we don’t know how long the killer had available to him.
So we don’t know how long the killer had available to him (as little as 3 or 4 minutes or as long as 9 or 10 minutes or anywhere in between) And we are nowhere near to a definitive conclusion on that point. This is a long winded way of course of saying that we just cannot prove anything either way. And no amount of debate (without new and accurate information) will alter that.
Apart from the above do we have independent evidence that the organs were taken at the mortuary? We know that there was a trade in organs but the existence of a trade is not evidence that it was in operation on this occasion. These theft’s took place after a post mortem so we have to ask why a thief would, on this occasion, steal organs before a post mortem. An open abdomen can’t be a reasonable suggestion. Why would the killer risk removing organs whilst investigations were going on, risking their operation being uncovered (and all just to avoid having to cut open some stitches) Also we have to consider how ‘high profile’ this murder was with the corpse attracting far more interest from the authorities than most other corpses. There’s also evidence that an officer was left guarding a body at morgue for one of the previous victims so this introduces the possibility that Eddowes body might also have been guarded. For me this makes organ removal at the mortuary unlikely in the extreme.
So to sum up - we can’t prove that the organs weren’t taken at the mortuary and we can’t prove that the killer had the time or capability to have removed them in-situ. What we can show is that it was entirely possible that the killer could have had 8 or 9 minutes available to him. We can show that the Doctors at the time expressed no doubt that the killer took the organs and no doubt that the conditions were sufficient for him to have done so. We have modern experts expressing doubts but also modern experts that don’t. We have no evidence of anything illegal or underhand occurring at Golden Lane Mortuary and there were certainly no suspicions expressed at the time. And if we consider the canonical 5 we can see that (apart from Stride for obvious reasons) the only one where organs weren’t removed was Nichols in Bucks Row (yes, Trevor disagrees on Kelly’s heart) and she is the only one where the killer could have been interrupted (by Lechmere) So it appears that if the killer had the opportunity to do so he removed organs.
We can’t prove anything but for me, taking everything into consideration, I’d say that it’s overwhelmingly likely (to a near certainty in my opinion) that the killer took Catherine Eddowes kidney and uterus in Mitre Square. There’s just no evidence for anything else.
To prove the second suggestion we would have to be able to show beyond all reasonable doubt that the killer couldn't have done what he is considered to have done (although it could be said that even if the killer had time it still doesn’t prove that he did it) .For various reasons it is absolutely impossible to prove this. We know that the times cannot be considered as set-in-stone so a reasonable margin for error has to be allowed for as long as we don’t take unlikely liberties. This could take us either way of course, + or -. We can’t be certain for example what time the couple could have reached the murder site because we can’t know how accurate were the times given by the three witnesses and we can’t know how soon after the witnesses passed they walked into Mitre Square. As Trevor points out, the later the time the less time the killer would have therefore the less likely it would have been but as none of the three witnesses looked back we don’t know. We we can say for certain though is that they could have moved on immediately after the witnesses passed.
Because of the above it’s impossible to answer the question - did the killer have time? We don’t know how long he had and we don’t know how long he would have needed (or what level of anatomical knowledge he would have required for that matter?) The Doctors who were there at the time expressed no doubts about the possibility. On the level of light available for example, Dr. Sequiera felt that the killer would have had sufficient light and so his opinion on the conditions at the time surely must trump any doubts that we might have 134 years later. Some modern experts express doubts about how long the whole ‘operation’ would have taken but some modern experts don’t, so we have divided opinion, but it has to be remembered that we don’t know how long the killer had available to him.
So we don’t know how long the killer had available to him (as little as 3 or 4 minutes or as long as 9 or 10 minutes or anywhere in between) And we are nowhere near to a definitive conclusion on that point. This is a long winded way of course of saying that we just cannot prove anything either way. And no amount of debate (without new and accurate information) will alter that.
Apart from the above do we have independent evidence that the organs were taken at the mortuary? We know that there was a trade in organs but the existence of a trade is not evidence that it was in operation on this occasion. These theft’s took place after a post mortem so we have to ask why a thief would, on this occasion, steal organs before a post mortem. An open abdomen can’t be a reasonable suggestion. Why would the killer risk removing organs whilst investigations were going on, risking their operation being uncovered (and all just to avoid having to cut open some stitches) Also we have to consider how ‘high profile’ this murder was with the corpse attracting far more interest from the authorities than most other corpses. There’s also evidence that an officer was left guarding a body at morgue for one of the previous victims so this introduces the possibility that Eddowes body might also have been guarded. For me this makes organ removal at the mortuary unlikely in the extreme.
So to sum up - we can’t prove that the organs weren’t taken at the mortuary and we can’t prove that the killer had the time or capability to have removed them in-situ. What we can show is that it was entirely possible that the killer could have had 8 or 9 minutes available to him. We can show that the Doctors at the time expressed no doubt that the killer took the organs and no doubt that the conditions were sufficient for him to have done so. We have modern experts expressing doubts but also modern experts that don’t. We have no evidence of anything illegal or underhand occurring at Golden Lane Mortuary and there were certainly no suspicions expressed at the time. And if we consider the canonical 5 we can see that (apart from Stride for obvious reasons) the only one where organs weren’t removed was Nichols in Bucks Row (yes, Trevor disagrees on Kelly’s heart) and she is the only one where the killer could have been interrupted (by Lechmere) So it appears that if the killer had the opportunity to do so he removed organs.
We can’t prove anything but for me, taking everything into consideration, I’d say that it’s overwhelmingly likely (to a near certainty in my opinion) that the killer took Catherine Eddowes kidney and uterus in Mitre Square. There’s just no evidence for anything else.
Comment