Organ removal ? Warning Graphic Photos

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes/no ?

If you work on the premise that the killers motive for murder was to harvest organs then you to have to ask why did he not take away any organs from Kelly when he had the time and the opportunity to take away almost every organ.

If the killers motive was simply to murder and mutilate then that is what he achieved with all the victims, and he therfore did not remove organs at the crime scenes from Chapman and Eddowes

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Perhaps the NHS should start employing butchers to perform hysterectomies and kidney removals to ease their backlog

I have consulted a master butcher who states he coud not accomplish it and cites a number of reasons the full account can be found in my book "Jack the Ripper The Real Truth as can a full medical anaylsis of all the murders by a team of modern day medical experts here is an extract

I would probably be able to facilitate the removal of the organs but I would need there to be sufficient light and it would need to be a controlled situation and time would be needed to complete the removal. In removing a uterus from a human body I would not need to take out the intestines, as I know the uterus sits in the lower abdomen. I would not be able to use a six-inch bladed knife to remove a kidney.

I have also been asked whether I could carefully remove these same organs in almost total darkness using a six-inch sharp-bladed knife. If I were to attempt these removals from a human body in almost total darkness I would encounter many problems. The first would be the need for a big enough incision for me to be able to gain access to the stomach. The second would be trying to locate the organs, which would be wet and slippery and covered with blood from the abdomen.
This in itself would cause great difficulty in gripping them sufficiently to be able to remove them carefully. I would also not want to be working with a sharp knife in an abdomen not being able to see what I was doing or where my fingers were with where I was attempting to cut. I would also say that I would find it difficult to work with a long-bladed knife and could not remove a kidney using a six-inch bladed knife. If I were in a hurry to remove a kidney and were able to find the renal fat, which encases the kidney, then I would be able to grip it and rip it out by hand.

Lets put this butcher theory to bed once and for all !!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The theory that you want to 'put to bed' with your usual overconfidence is the theory that the vast majority believe because it's the one supported by the facts. All that you're doing is looking at those that have been asked and then cherry picking the ones that you like.

I'll ask you again Trevor - time and again on here you quote Dr. Biggs as your 'go to' man on medical issues. Why is it that when he says that he has no issue with Dr Brown's assessment you airbrush him from the thread?

As Kjab has said, this wasn't a surgeon following strict rules of method. He wasn't concerned about Eddowes. This was a maniac with a knife. He slashed open the abdomen and hacked out 2 chunks of meat. He'd have had ample time.

The mortuary theory was in tatters years ago Trevor and it remains in tatters but you will continue with it of course.

Let's put this mortuary theory to bed once and for all.

[milchmanuk]

perhaps killer cut round navel as it was exciting to view while he was at work ?
there has to be a measure of pleasure.
and how much time does a killer want with his victim,
to pursue his pleasure's,
although It is senseless to us surely, he did not just cut up and leave, the question's here how much time do we know of killers and how much time do they spend with a victim, this may or not narrow the theories but is the killers motive yes.
i believe my question is in line with organ removal ,
at mortuary on street or at another location as theories abound.
thx.

[FISHY1118]

So your saying because the killer decided not to take the organs from Kellys murder scene, that the Chapman and Eddoews organs must then have been taken after the murder at post mortem ,because technically the same killer should have left their organs at the murder scene like he did at kellys? , Is that how im reading it? .

Yes/no ?

[Trevor Marriott]

A butcher or slaughterer with some human anatomical knowledge could do it.A combination of both.

Perhaps the NHS should start employing butchers to perform hysterectomies and kidney removals to ease their backlog

I have consulted a master butcher who states he coud not accomplish it and cites a number of reasons the full account can be found in my book "Jack the Ripper The Real Truth as can a full medical anaylsis of all the murders by a team of modern day medical experts here is an extract

I would probably be able to facilitate the removal of the organs but I would need there to be sufficient light and it would need to be a controlled situation and time would be needed to complete the removal. In removing a uterus from a human body I would not need to take out the intestines, as I know the uterus sits in the lower abdomen. I would not be able to use a six-inch bladed knife to remove a kidney.

I have also been asked whether I could carefully remove these same organs in almost total darkness using a six-inch sharp-bladed knife. If I were to attempt these removals from a human body in almost total darkness I would encounter many problems. The first would be the need for a big enough incision for me to be able to gain access to the stomach. The second would be trying to locate the organs, which would be wet and slippery and covered with blood from the abdomen.
This in itself would cause great difficulty in gripping them sufficiently to be able to remove them carefully. I would also not want to be working with a sharp knife in an abdomen not being able to see what I was doing or where my fingers were with where I was attempting to cut. I would also say that I would find it difficult to work with a long-bladed knife and could not remove a kidney using a six-inch bladed knife. If I were in a hurry to remove a kidney and were able to find the renal fat, which encases the kidney, then I would be able to grip it and rip it out by hand.

Lets put this butcher theory to bed once and for all !!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Varqm]

A butcher or slaughterer with some human anatomical knowledge could do it.A combination of both.

[GBinOz]

Having not undertaken ripping personally, I only provide an estimate.

Strangulation with bilateral carotid pressure to loss of conscious - under 30 seconds (probably under 10)
Cut throat 10 seconds (see a halal butcher at work)
Open abdomen - well under 30 seconds (you literally cut down the middle, remember he’s not bothered about hitting anything)
Remove uterus - a bulky uterus is straight in front if the bladder is empty. A butcher would know to take whole, let’s say a minute

We’ve still 80+ seconds to find a kidney and cut (again look at the speed of a skilled butcher) and add the fun (for him) bits to be at 3.5 minutes (or give him 90 seconds more still only 5 minutes). Let’s not forget he wasn’t being pretty or worrying about scars and blood loss, this was butchery pure and simple

Interesting estimate, but I'm having trouble getting past Prosector's comment, from a surgeon's point of view, that it is one thing to do this with the body on a slab in good light, quite another crouching over the body in the dark. After discussions with Harold Ellis (surgeon) he expressed some doubt as to whether he could do it himself under the conditions. That reservation was also expressed by Duncan Lees, Ian Calder and Phil Harrison.

My opinion at present is either we should look for a Ripper with surgical or dissection skills, or a skilled butcher, or if not, then the organ removals were done after the fact. The fact that the abdominal cut went around the naval persuades me to lean slightly towards the former.

Cheer, George

[kjab3112]

Hello George,

I don’t have much of an answer apart from an echo of what Debra Arif said - why would the Press invent something as specific as this if there wasn’t some truth to it. We know that the Press can get stuff wrong, even jazz things up to sell a few extra copies, but these explanations don’t ring true to me for these.

I can’t really answer on the details or to what extent they recreated the conditions. I accept of course that they couldn’t have recreated it exactly unless they’d grabbed a corpse that had died a few minutes ago which of course isn’t plausible. It appears to have satisfied Brown though.

Having not undertaken ripping personally, I only provide an estimate.

Strangulation with bilateral carotid pressure to loss of conscious - under 30 seconds (probably under 10)
Cut throat 10 seconds (see a halal butcher at work)
Open abdomen - well under 30 seconds (you literally cut down the middle, remember he’s not bothered about hitting anything)
Remove uterus - a bulky uterus is straight in front if the bladder is empty. A butcher would know to take whole, let’s say a minute

We’ve still 80+ seconds to find a kidney and cut (again look at the speed of a skilled butcher) and add the fun (for him) bits to be at 3.5 minutes (or give him 90 seconds more still only 5 minutes). Let’s not forget he wasn’t being pretty or worrying about scars and blood loss, this was butchery pure and simple

[Trevor Marriott]

You must know that what you're saying doesn't add up Trevor.

We know that the killer Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly wasn't disturbed. So we know that in every case when the killer couldn't have been disturbed he took organs. Nothing you can say can o secure that fact.

And simple repeating the fallacy that the killer didn't have time just makes you look silly I'm afraid Trevor. You even said in your post that we don't know how long the killer had with Eddowes. So if we don't know how long he had how can we know that he didn't have time. You're tying yourself up in knots Trevor. It's the simplest thing in the world to pick your arguments apart because you even contradict yourself.

There's not a smidgeon of evidence for your body stealer theory. Just like your apron theory. Both non-starters.

Well you keeping believing that

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

You must know that what you're saying doesn't add up Trevor.

We know that the killer Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly wasn't disturbed. So we know that in every case when the killer couldn't have been disturbed he took organs. Nothing you can say can o secure that fact.

And simple repeating the fallacy that the killer didn't have time just makes you look silly I'm afraid Trevor. You even said in your post that we don't know how long the killer had with Eddowes. So if we don't know how long he had how can we know that he didn't have time. You're tying yourself up in knots Trevor. It's the simplest thing in the world to pick your arguments apart because you even contradict yourself.

There's not a smidgeon of evidence for your body stealer theory. Just like your apron theory. Both non-starters.

[Trevor Marriott]

I had to quote using numbers because I'm on my phone in a hotel in London with dodgy wi-fi and my phone won't let me embolden individual paragraphs for some reason.

You just can't keep getting away with posts like that Trevor. Come on.

1. Well Eddowes had a kidney and a uterus then she was brutally murdered with her abdomen cut open. Then she didn't have a kidney and a uterus. That's evidence and it's stronger than your theory by a mile.

So what happened to them because the killer woulnnt have had the time to remove them

2. This disproves your theory. Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly were the only victims where the killer couldn't have been disturbed. Smith was the victim of a gang, Tabram was stabbed, Nichols killer was probably disturbed by Lechmere, Stride either wasn't a victim or the killer was disturbed, Mackenzie is a disputed victim as is Coles whose killer was disturbed by Thompson. What a coincidence eh. The definite victims who weren't disturbed all had parts missing. In your eyes simply a massive coincidence.

Thats a cop out answer you dont not know the killler of those other victims was disturbed

3. Only the experts that you selectively pick. Actually more experts have no issues. Strange isn't it Trevor, how quick you usually are to quote Dr Biggs but because he sees no issues with the killer taking the parts you fall strangely silent about him.

I am aware of what Dr Biggs stated but I return to the statement that we do not know how long the killer had with Eddowes

4. Hurren's research show that body dealers existed. That's all. And we already knew that.

Yes, but after they had removed the organs the bodies had to be disposed at their own expense,so far better to select organs than to take a whole body, and I am not saying that they didnt take bodies but Hurren does mention the taking of organs

5. I genuinely can't believe that anyone, especially an ex-copper said that. You do know that organs are found inside the body? So if they took a body the organs were part of the deal so the students would still get them.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

1. Well conversley you and others seem to want to suggest the killer remvoved them at the crime scene despite next to no evidnence to support that suggestion
You clearly dont read the posts from myslef and others let me put you right briefely

2. No organs removed from any of the other victims and no attempts made to remove organs

Eddowes and Chapman were the ony two victims who were missing organs at the PM

They were the only two victims who had their abdomens ripped open to the extent that easy acccess to intermal organs could have been gained

Two different methods of extraction of the uterus from Chapman and Eddowes suggest two differnet persons
The bodies were taken to two different mortuaries

3. The medical experts do not beleive the killer could have removed the organs from Eddowes in the suggested time frame in fact we do not have a specific time frame because if the couple seen by Lawende were Eddowes and her killer we do not know what time they entered the square the later they moved off the less time the killer had with the victim

4. Professsor Hurren has done an extensive study inot the activities of body dealers in 1888

5 Some have suggested that her research simply cover bodies and limbs and not organs what a ridiculous line to adopt how were trainee doctors going to be able to study internal organs?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I had to quote using numbers because I'm on my phone in a hotel in London with dodgy wi-fi and my phone won't let me embolden individual paragraphs for some reason.

You just can't keep getting away with posts like that Trevor. Come on.

1. Well Eddowes had a kidney and a uterus then she was brutally murdered with her abdomen cut open. Then she didn't have a kidney and a uterus. That's evidence and it's stronger than your theory by a mile.

2. This disproves your theory. Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly were the only victims where the killer couldn't have been disturbed. Smith was the victim of a gang, Tabram was stabbed, Nichols killer was probably disturbed by Lechmere, Stride either wasn't a victim or the killer was disturbed, Mackenzie is a disputed victim as is Coles whose killer was disturbed by Thompson. What a coincidence eh. The definite victims who weren't disturbed all had parts missing. In your eyes simply a massive coincidence.

3. Only the experts that you selectively pick. Actually more experts have no issues. Strange isn't it Trevor, how quick you usually are to quote Dr Biggs but because he sees no issues with the killer taking the parts you fall strangely silent about him.

4. Hurren's research show that body dealers existed. That's all. And we already knew that.

5. I genuinely can't believe that anyone, especially an ex-copper said that. You do know that organs are found inside the body? So if they took a body the organs were part of the deal so the students would still get them.

[Abby Normal]

Well, Professor Hurren suggests that the women were killed in the street by a body dealer. She states this:

If a body dealer lacked physical strength then they might compensate for this by developing dexterity with the lancet. The most skilled could cut up each corpse with a sharp knife very quickly on the street-scene : again something that Jack seems to have been well-practiced at.

Given Professor Hurren demonstrates that mortuaries were involved in the illegal trade, then a reasonable twist on her theory is that a body dealer was called into the mortuary to extract the organs.

The same obstacles remain, however:

1) Professor Hurren provides no evidence that body dealers extracted organs from dead bodies.
2) The apparent rarity of abdominal operations in the medical world in 1888.

Still, as I say, not a bad theory at all. 'Just lacking that final link in the chain.

lol you guys are unbeleiveable. final link?!? how about any link?

[John Wheat]

So is the sugestion that the killer removed the organs

and it is not all conjecture most of it is fact !!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It's not fact though.

[FISHY1118]

There are a number of ways of assessing the Kelly murder the first is that if the killer didnt remove the organs from Chapman and Eddowes then the kelly murder adds weigh to that because with Kelly he could have taken almost all of the internal organs but he took none.

If Kelly was murdered by the same hand as the rest of the victims then i would suggest that the only motive for the killings was nothing more than murder and mutilation

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So your saying because the killer decided not to take the organs from Kellys murder scene, that the Chapman and Eddoews organs must then have been taken after the murder at post mortem ,because technically the same killer should have left their organs at the murder scene like he did at kellys? , Is that how im reading it? .