Organ removal ? Warning Graphic Photos

[John Wheat]

hi john
i favor the 80s torsos and the ripper being the same man, and am not so sure about the 70s torso murders, but lean that they probably were also, so i dont want to argue too strongly re the 70s torsos.

but if they were, then i would say that the ripper murders were an escalation and or the torsoripper didnt have access to his chop shop, but the urge to post mortem mutilate and cut up a womens body and remove body parts is still there.

History of serial killers shows us the extreme lengths SKs will go to fullfill that urge.

but i would be remiss if i didnt say even though i think torsoman and the ripper were the same man, im not married to it, im at about 75% they were.

but whatever the case, in either series there is no evidence whatsoever they had body parts taken away and sold, and neither series did the police suspect it. were dealing with serial killers fullfilling sick fantasies here, not some burke and hare brained scheme.

Hi Abby
I don't agree that Jack the Ripper and The Torso Killer were one and the same for various reasons however I agree that the evidence that body parts were taken away at the mortuaries from either series and sold is non existent.

Cheers John

[Abby Normal]

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?

hi john
i favor the 80s torsos and the ripper being the same man, and am not so sure about the 70s torso murders, but lean that they probably were also, so i dont want to argue too strongly re the 70s torsos.

but if they were, then i would say that the ripper murders were an escalation and or the torsoripper didnt have access to his chop shop, but the urge to post mortem mutilate and cut up a womens body and remove body parts is still there.

History of serial killers shows us the extreme lengths SKs will go to fullfill that urge.

but i would be remiss if i didnt say even though i think torsoman and the ripper were the same man, im not married to it, im at about 75% they were.

but whatever the case, in either series there is no evidence whatsoever they had body parts taken away and sold, and neither series did the police suspect it. were dealing with serial killers fullfilling sick fantasies here, not some burke and hare brained scheme.

[Fleetwood Mac]

This is an interesting quote from Professor Hurren:

This gave rise to a network of body dealers across the capital city that staffed the business of anatomy in the larger medical schools. The majority of body dealers were paid by anatomists like those at St. Bartholomew’s Hospital, Guys Hospital and the London Hospital in the East-End. They all competed for body supplies and targeted areas of destitution where the poorest congregated in the biggest numbers.

What she's saying here, is that the illegal body trade involved bodies being sold to the big hospitals in London.

In other words, your average mortuary assistant in Whitechapel would not have been involved in this at all and given what Prosector tells us about the knowledge of the abdomen in 1888 it should be concluded that these assistants would not have had the experience to remove these organs.

So, in the event the argument goes that Catherine's and Annie's organs were removed at the mortuaries, then does it follow that it was done by one of the surgeons at the pre-examination?

A question rather than a statement.

[Fleetwood Mac]

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

I think Professor Hurren is talking of an illegal trade in dead bodies, i.e. people dying at a lodging house or in the street and their bodies quickly being concealed and sold.

As it stands, I don't think we have any evidence from the research of people such as Professor Hurren to show that organs were removed at a mortuary prior to a post-mortem.

I'm still reading. 'Would be interesting to see that evidence relating to just one person.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Well, I haven't found any evidence, Trevor, but I'll keep reading. Outside of that, someone else will post some evidence on this thread.

It's all very interesting.

'Most interesting to me are the following:

1) During the Victorian age, it was deemed to be morally right for the poor to be carved open in the name of progress (without consent). I should add that this was the unclaimed poor and families who sold their loved one's bodies out of desperation.

2) According to Prosector, there were very few people around in 1888 with the ability to remove those organs, on the grounds that venturing deep into the abdomen was a new phenomenon. I find this particularly enlightening.

When we consider that murder in London barely got into double figures during a year around that time, then there simply wasn't an availability of dead bodies to promote an illegal trade. From what I've read, it was sanctioned, i.e. the unclaimed poor from workhouses and asylums, and families selling the bodies of their loved ones.

With that in mind, any small criminal syndicate engaging in being passed dead bodies illegally and carving them up, would have had few bodies to go at and it follows the experience needed wouldn't have been there, i.e. the assumption that someone involved in a gang took advantage of Catherine's and Annie's open abdomen doesn't really work because that person wouldn't have had the experience: dead bodies claimed for the dissecting table were sanctioned.

That leads me to think that in the event you are correct in that the organs were removed at the mortuary it is likely to have been sanctioned and undertaken by an experienced surgeon.

Regarding the availability of dead bodies, I've found this from Professor Hurren:

The Anatomy Act stated that those who died in abject poverty in Poor Law institutions and whose families could not afford a pauper funeral must repay their welfare debt to society in death.14 The poorest thus became the staple fare of the dissection table. Their bodies were to be sold if ‘unclaimed’ for burial by guardians of the poor in places like the Holborn, Lambeth and Whitechapel infirmary-workhouses to supply the needs of medicine. As however the life expectancy of paupers in some parts of the capital started to improve because of better diets, state intervention in sanitation, and improved notification of infectious diseases, the medical profession had to widen its network of body suppliers across the very poorest parts of London. The East-End became then a body-broking business by the 1880s, and typically most dealers worked from three types of premises that feature along Dorset Street. Nightly, they bought bodies found dead in the street. These tended to be carried to local public houses to make a body deal. They were put inside a large wicker laundry basket with soiled linen on top and wheeled by morning to the back of a nearby hospital where it looked like clean bedclothes were being returned for fresh delivery. In reality, inside the basket was a valuable anatomical sale. Body dealers also on a regular basis purchased the dead at the back doors of doss, brothels and lodging houses, making a quick profit for the owner. Profitable sales were also transacted at Night Refuges and Convents where fallen women secured midwifery services for unwanted pregnancies, miscarriages and spontaneous abortions. If they were turned away from charitable care they generally went to workhouse-infirmaries as a last resort, having tried to avoid them because of the stigma of shame and resentful of being under official surveillance. In other words, Dorset Street, described as “the worst street in London” for crime and poverty – a place where you could “do as you please” – had fit-for-purpose premises to run an ideal body dealing business in 1888.15

So, there were dead bodies available, passed away from natural causes.

Still, we're not in the realms of demonstrating that removing organs in a mortuary prior to a post-mortem was part of this illegal trade. I'll keep reading, 'see what turns up in the way of evidence

[Fleetwood Mac]

The link I posted should open the document and whether the evidence is there or not there are those who will choose to find fault with it

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Well, I haven't found any evidence, Trevor, but I'll keep reading. Outside of that, someone else will post some evidence on this thread.

It's all very interesting.

'Most interesting to me are the following:

1) During the Victorian age, it was deemed to be morally right for the poor to be carved open in the name of progress (without consent). I should add that this was the unclaimed poor and families who sold their loved one's bodies out of desperation.

2) According to Prosector, there were very few people around in 1888 with the ability to remove those organs, on the grounds that venturing deep into the abdomen was a new phenomenon. I find this particularly enlightening.

When we consider that murder in London barely got into double figures during a year around that time, then there simply wasn't an availability of dead bodies to promote an illegal trade. From what I've read, it was sanctioned, i.e. the unclaimed poor from workhouses and asylums, and families selling the bodies of their loved ones.

With that in mind, any small criminal syndicate engaging in being passed dead bodies illegally and carving them up, would have had few bodies to go at and it follows the experience needed wouldn't have been there, i.e. the assumption that someone involved in a gang took advantage of Catherine's and Annie's open abdomen doesn't really work because that person wouldn't have had the experience: dead bodies claimed for the dissecting table were sanctioned.

That leads me to think that in the event you are correct in that the organs were removed at the mortuary it is likely to have been sanctioned and undertaken by an experienced surgeon.

[Herlock Sholmes]

A good question the same question I asked as to why if it was the same killer who killed Eddowes why did he take an organ when he had already taken the same organ from Chapman.

Staying with Chapman my consulatnat gynecologist make this observation on the removal of her uterus

"Anatomically the bladder is loosely attached in front of the cervix and must be reflected out of the way when performing a hysterectomy, (removing the uterus). In patients who have had a pelvic infection (as a prostitute may well have done), this attachment may be quite dense and tough. The removal of a portion of the bladder suggests to me that speed was important, but does not help determine where or when it was done. However, I note that in this case, it seems to have been important to remove the female pelvic organs intact (i.e. uterus, cervix, ovaries and fallopian tubes), which could, in conjunction with a nephrectomy suggest removal for experimentation.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Doesn’t the fact that it was damaged bother you?

[Trevor Marriott]

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?

A good question the same question I asked as to why if it was the same killer who killed Eddowes why did he take an organ when he had already taken the same organ from Chapman.

Staying with Chapman my consulatnat gynecologist make this observation on the removal of her uterus

"Anatomically the bladder is loosely attached in front of the cervix and must be reflected out of the way when performing a hysterectomy, (removing the uterus). In patients who have had a pelvic infection (as a prostitute may well have done), this attachment may be quite dense and tough. The removal of a portion of the bladder suggests to me that speed was important, but does not help determine where or when it was done. However, I note that in this case, it seems to have been important to remove the female pelvic organs intact (i.e. uterus, cervix, ovaries and fallopian tubes), which could, in conjunction with a nephrectomy suggest removal for experimentation.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

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?

I only put that forward as an alternative because there are differences in the Kelly murder to some of the other murders

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

But anyone is entitled to draw and inference

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

The link I posted should open the document and whether the evidence is there or not there are those who will choose to find fault with it

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Harry D]

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.

Hello Abby. Yeah, there are too many uncomfortable coincidences. The "Whitehall Mystery" occurred within days of Annie Chapman's murder. The Pinchin St victim may have been killed on the anniversary of Chapman's murder, and "Lipski" graffito was written nearby.

[John Wheat]

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?

[Abby Normal]

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.

[GBinOz]

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