Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Organ removal ? Warning Graphic Photos

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

    I think that's a reasonable conclusion, although I would like to ask Prosector the question: let's assume Catherine was murdered not long after she left the police station, what are your thoughts on the possibility of this happening in a significantly wider timeframe? Unfortunately, there isn't the option for more details from Prosector.

    I do think that while it can be demonstrated there was a thriving illegal trade in bodies in the East End, we're a bit short on evidence of organs being removed at a mortuary. There is always the chance I missed it in Professor Hurren's article, but she makes reference only to limbs going missing, and in the event she had found instances of organs going missing she would have included this in her article.
    Medical research cannot be done simply on limbs whereas bodies could be obtained and lawfully it would have been easier simplt to remove organs and not take the body because a body woud need to be disposed of at an extra cost. so where would bodies have been disposed of without having to incur costs- now let me see oh yes The River Thames of which we have evidnce of that do we not

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk



    Comment


    • She wrote this one about the period in question so Trevor might have this one. I can’t find a copy going for cheaper than 48 though.

      https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B01DHEVV...&condition=new
      Regards

      Sir Herlock Sholmes

      “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

      Comment


      • It looks like you can download the book as a pdf here I think.

        https://journals.openedition.org/miranda/4586

        Theres also an article from her in History Extra which I saw yesterday. I’m sure that the whole article was there but I’ve just clicked on it again and you need to subscribe to get the whole thing.
        Regards

        Sir Herlock Sholmes

        “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

          The quote from Prosector is intersting and I refer to the last line

          "To me and to other surgeons that I have discussed it with like Professor Harold Ellis, it is absolutely staggering that he did what he did to Chapman and Eddowes in such a short time - or at all.

          By that comment I take that to suggest that the killer did not remove the organs at the crime scene !

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
          Thats not what it means Trevor. That’s what you’re inferring. He is just expressing his surprise that this was done in such a short time. Nowhere does he say that it couldn’t have been done. For a start he didn’t know how long the killer had available.
          Regards

          Sir Herlock Sholmes

          “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
            Ok, so this is not the book.

            A point on the book you mention, British medical research post WW2, it seems to me Professor Hurren is talking of sanctioned medical research, i.e. more than a few criminals running 'round removing organs and selling them to some back street operation, and you'd have to assume that sanctioned medical research means right to the very top of medicine. 'Something to consider in relation to your mortuary theory, perhaps.

            That being the case, who would have sanctioned it in Whitechapel in 1888? I know you can't possibly just pull a name out of thin air, I'm just thinking out loud that in the event you're correct, then for the book you mention to have relevance somebody within British medicine sanctioned organ harvesting in 1888.

            In terms of the journal, I can't access the link.

            Can you post the extract where Professor Hurren has evidence of organs being removed at a mortuary, please, or anywhere else for that matter.

            I ask this because in her article specifically on East London in 1888 and the illegal trade in bodies, this article Dissecting Jack-the-Ripper : An Anatomy of Murder in the Metropolis (openedition.org), there is no mention of organs being removed at a mortuary. Professor Hurren has primary source evidence for much of the illegal body trade, including limbs being dissected at a mortuary; and one conclusion is that organ removal wasn't included in that evidence because she didn't have any and nor does anyone else.

            I'm not saying that evidence isn't there, but I don't think it's been put forward on this thread.

            It would be interesting to see it and read it.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

              At the risk of opening another can of worms which might force herlock into meltdown she mentions brains that might explain why the torsos were all found minus their heads bearing in mind I dont believe they were the victim of a killer.

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
              Nope. Take a deep breath and take a seat Trevor. I agree with you on the Torso/Ripper issue. I can’t be certain about it of course but I don’t see them as connected although there’s a new book out on the subject at some point which might change my mind. I can’t see it though.
              Regards

              Sir Herlock Sholmes

              “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                It looks like you can download the book as a pdf here I think.

                https://journals.openedition.org/miranda/4586

                Theres also an article from her in History Extra which I saw yesterday. I’m sure that the whole article was there but I’ve just clicked on it again and you need to subscribe to get the whole thing.
                I should have known better really. It’s not the whole book. Only what appears on screen.

                Regards

                Sir Herlock Sholmes

                “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                  I suggest you read one of Professor Hurrens books on the activites of body and organ dealers in Whitechapel in 1888 there you will find many examples of corrupt mortuary attendants and the illict trade in bodies and organs from mortuaries.

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                  Yes but how did that relate to ,in particular, Whitechapel, Golden Lane and Shoreditch mortuaries.If for example,there is an 1884 newspaper report or a complaint that organs were being taken from one of the 3 mortuaries above then one can conjecture it also might have happened in 1888,at least a basis or something.The illegal trade might not have occured in these mortuaries,at least in 1888.
                  As such there is no basis for this theory in regards to the JTR murders,and it was because what happened was simple and true,JTR took the organs including the heart in MJK's case.
                  Last edited by Varqm; 09-24-2022, 12:32 PM.
                  Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced,it started civil society).
                  M. Pacana

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                    Nope. Take a deep breath and take a seat Trevor. I agree with you on the Torso/Ripper issue. I can’t be certain about it of course but I don’t see them as connected although there’s a new book out on the subject at some point which might change my mind. I can’t see it though.
                    hi
                    can you share the link for new book Herlock plz.
                    or info and i investigate google !

                    sorry but obviouslydible .
                    from outside in view it can be hilariously funny.

                    Comment


                    • Trevor,

                      Following the Anatomy Act of 1832 (Anonymous, 1832), body snatching from graves became unnecessary, as the dead bodies of all unclaimed poor from workhouses and charitable hospitals could legally undergo dissection. In fact, one of the principal reasons for introducing the Act was to prevent body snatching from graves. This practice continued throughout the century, and even in the late 19th century those running poor houses could sell corpses of their unclaimed inmates after death to teaching hospitals to recoup the expenses of poor relief in their parish (Hurren, 2007, p. 192). Other corpses were sold directly by desperately poor and grieving relatives to corpse dealers who worked in deprived areas of cities. Some corpses were sold on whole to the anatomy schools, but a higher price could be obtained by dividing up the body into its constituent parts to sell separately. Attitudes to the practice of dissection varied significantly between the rich and the poor. The wealthy who determined the law were happy for dissection to continue because scientific research was regarded as worthy at that time. Furthermore, it was not the rich who were dissected but the poor, either voluntarily when a corpse was sold by a desperately poor family, or against their wishes when death occurred in the workhouse or a charitable hospital and the body was unclaimed (Richardson, 2001, p. 221)

                      The study of anatomy in England from 1700 to the early 20th century - PMC (nih.gov)

                      In this context, I reckon organ removal at the mortuary was more likely to have been sanctioned by the medical authorities rather than being done by some small criminal syndicate.

                      It appears that it was deemed to be morally appropriate to dissect the bodies of the poor (unclaimed and sold), and sell their body parts, in the name of progress. You could argue that a 'fallen woman' on a mortuary slab isn't removed from the 'unclaimed poor'.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                        It cannot be ruled out that Kelly was killed by another and the murder made to look like the work of JTR. equally if it was the same killer who was responsible and his motive was simply murder and mutilation then that explains it. After all if it was the same killer and he was alleged to have taken organs from the previous victims he could have in the case of Kelly removed and took away almost every organ in her body but he didnt take any organ despite having the time to do so!

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                        If the murder was made to look like the work of JTR, why did the killer mutilate more than necessary and not steal any of the organs previously reported?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                          Nope. Take a deep breath and take a seat Trevor. I agree with you on the Torso/Ripper issue. I can’t be certain about it of course but I don’t see them as connected although there’s a new book out on the subject at some point which might change my mind. I can’t see it though.
                          The odds of two serial killers overlapping like that in a small geographical area must be remarkable, and they both had a macabre taste for deconstructing women. Also, consider the fact that the murders went cold until 1889, then we had Elizabeth Jackson, Alice McKenzie, and the Pinchin St torso within a matter of months, only for both series to ostensibly end for good thereafter.

                          Comment


                          • Dissecting Jack-the-Ripper : An Anatomy of Murder in the Metropolis
                            by
                            Elizabeth Hurren
                            is available here:
                            https://journals.openedition.org/chs/1667?lang=en

                            Just prepare yourself for part 5 that suggests MJK may have been a body dealer.

                            Cheers, George
                            “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

                            “Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.” “How do you know I'm mad?” said Alice. “You must be,” said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.”

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Harry D View Post

                              The odds of two serial killers overlapping like that in a small geographical area must be remarkable, and they both had a macabre taste for deconstructing women. Also, consider the fact that the murders went cold until 1889, then we had Elizabeth Jackson, Alice McKenzie, and the Pinchin St torso within a matter of months, only for both series to ostensibly end for good thereafter.
                              amen brother. your last point is something ive banged on about forever..they both end at the same time. whats the chances of that?

                              were dealing with post mortem mutilating serial killer/s here who covet body parts, not sell them.
                              "Is all that we see or seem
                              but a dream within a dream?"

                              -Edgar Allan Poe


                              "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                              quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                              -Frederick G. Abberline

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                                amen brother. your last point is something ive banged on about forever..they both end at the same time. whats the chances of that?

                                were dealing with post mortem mutilating serial killer/s here who covet body parts, not sell them.
                                But the Torso Murders started in 1873 not 1888 so if your theory is correct why weren't they Ripper style murders in the early 1870's?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X