Organ removal ? Warning Graphic Photos

[FISHY1118]

As a relative newbie to all things casebook this thread seems to have become somewhat convoluted. As such please bear with me.
This is just me trying to make sense of the basics.
(Deep breath)
Soooooo...just for clarification is Trevor (Hi Trevor) positing that certain victims of the C5 had their uteri and/or kidney removed from there bodies not by JTR /their killer but by a hitherto "randomer" (that is my daughter's expression)? And that said unknown person took advantage of the serial killers mutilations whilst the bodies of the deceased were in the mortuary under the protectorate of the police and/or legal system. I'm saying this as I assume in 1888 there would have been (even if basic) protocols for dealing with a murder victim which the post mortem evidence and inventory of belongings lends credence to. If this is the case then are we talking just Chapman and Eddowes and if I've got Trevor's theory completely wrong then I stand by to repel borders for the wrath I am about to incur.

Helen x

You should know by now Helen, everyones theory is the correct one . They just have trouble proving and convincing everybody else that it actually is.

[Fleetwood Mac]

So folks, here is the story so far:

Three modern day experts in forensics and pathology have stated that the organ extractions would be very difficult technically under the prevailing conditions, and not in the realms of possibility.

Dr Phillips, the only doctor that saw the bodies of both Chapman and Eddowes, was of the opinion that their injuries were by a different hand.

There were questions raised by Baxter as to whether organs could have been lost between the discovery of Chapman's body and the autopsy. Baxter concluded in his summary that the aim of the murder was the procurement of body parts. The nurses found the body where it should not have been, so it must be conceded that the provenance of the body was not secure, and there could have been time for interference with the organs.

The news report shows that Eddowes body was secure until Phillips arrived sometime after 5:20, but the fact that organs were missing was not established until after 2:30pm as a result of the autopsy. This provides a time gap were the organs could have been harvested.

What I hope for is that research will provide evidence for discussion, rather than just opinion.

Cheers, George

That's a good summary, George.

And, as you insinuated in an earlier post, the standard of challenging leaves a lot to be desired, chiefly the petty and childish ad hominem attacks on Trevor. I agree, they should start another thread and have a fight with one another on that thread, it seems that's what they're here for: to argue with strangers on a message board.

In the end, the timings involved suggest that it is unlikely that everything involved in that murder took place in such a short timeframe (assuming the couple seen by Lawende and associates were Catherine and the WM).

So, it leaves a problem that isn't easily explained away. Trevor's theory is worth consideration in this context. It might not be the answer, I don't know as it's not something I've looked at, but whatever the answer it's going to involve a surprise.

[Fleetwood Mac]

There was enough time between the 2 events ,that's it.

I don't think "that's it".

Dr Brown did not state: "my opinion is the murderer did this is in 5 minutes".

He gave an entirely different statement: It might be done in five minutes. It might take him longer; but that is the least time it could be done in.

So, let's not claim Dr Brown was confident the murderer did all of this in 5 minutes. He felt 5 minutes was one possibility.

PC Watkins was up at the inquest before Dr Brown, and so Dr Brown knew PC Watkins fixed finding Catherine's body at 1.44am.

Dr Brown believed Catherine was murdered at 1.40am at the earliest.

This is a 4 minutes timeframe.

So, when Dr Brown went on to state: I think he had sufficient time, but it was in all probability done in a hurry, what timings was he using? 4 minutes is less than Dr Brown's least time it could be done in.

And then we have PC Watkins' timings. He looked at his watch when Morris went to look for his lamp. That was 1.45am. Working backwards, PC Watkins judged that he found Catherine's body at 1.44am. PC Watkins stumbled upon Catherine's body, looked at the wounds, was taken aback, went for Morris, they had a brief conversation and Morris went to look for his lamp, PC Watkins looked at his watch. PC Watkins estimated that all of this took 1 minute, it could quite conceivably have taken 2 or 3 minutes.

PC Watkins tells us he entered Mitre Square from Mitre Street at 1.30am. He tells us his beat took 12-14 minutes. He tells us he saw nothing unusual and one plausible conclusion is that his beat took 12 minutes on that particular occasion. Quite conceivably, he could have entered Mitre Square at 1.42am and by the time he looked at his watch, while Morris went to find his lamp, it was 1.45am.

It's certainly not a case of "that's it". As with many areas of this case: 'lots of unanswered questions.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Hi all,

Some interesting points being raised. The time available for the act of murder, mutilation, removal of organs and gratuitous disfigurement of Kate's face is pretty slim, but, that's all based on the assumption that the couple seen by Lawende were Kate and her killer. If not, the timing issue disappears. We then have to assume that Watkins and Harvey were being vigilant and made proper checks, which is unknowable. I recall Wickerman finding a press cutting where a PC states that his beat varies depending on whether he checked a particular alleyway, and there were others that show that beats weren't as clockwork as we might like. Add in stopping for chats and teas with ex coppers.

If the couple were Kate and the killer, we can confidently say that the time to get into position and then carry out the acts is tight. Add in the conditions, even someone with skill in anatomy is going to have a tough time, and to get a clean getaway. We can also confidently say that security of bodies was slack at best, so the idea of the organs being removed at the mortuary isn't pie in the sky, but we need to factor in the risk of tampering with a body in such a high profile case, particularly after Chapman. Getting caught, you could send yourself to the gallows as prime suspect. Or worse, Australia

If the couple weren't Kate and her killer, well, she could have been dead already. All we really need to explain is why the PC's missed it all. And that's not pie in the sky either. Lawende wasn't a confident witness. Lave ran a mile effectively. (Insert conspiracy theory here. I do miss Andrew).

My summing up is that the potential to remove the organs at the mortuary is probably realistic in practical terms, but not so in the broader aspect of the nature of the case, it's profile, public opinion and the very real threat of mob justice and that if there was the tiniest suspicion after Chapman, the police wouldn't let it happen twice. I also think that although the window of opportunity for the killer was small, it was there none the less. It may have been more than we believe. And the killer took risks. Massive risks. The possibility of being caught in the act didn't exactly deter him.

On top of all that, you chuck in the "From Hell" letter.

[GBinOz]

PC Watkins tells us he entered Mitre Square from Mitre Street at 1.30am. He tells us his beat took 12-14 minutes. He tells us he saw nothing unusual and one plausible conclusion is that his beat took 12 minutes on that particular occasion. Quite conceivably, he could have entered Mitre Square at 1.42am and by the time he looked at his watch, while Morris went to find his lamp, it was 1.45am.

Hi FM

The Lawende and associates siting was of a woman dressed in dark clothing talking to a man near the murder site just before the murder. It may or may not have been Eddowes.

Watkins time intervals are the key. Police times are considered to be the most accurate. The average of thirteen minutes seems a reasonable estimate, from which has to be subtracted the interval at each end required to avoid the scrutiny of Watkins. It could be assumed that Cathy and Jack would have waited for Watkins to leave the square before moving into place, and Jack would have left the square before Watkins actually re-entered. Say two to three minutes? So perhaps Jack had 10-11 minutes maximum. The three modern day experts were using 9 minutes when they stated it was not in the realms of possibility.

The night watchman, George Morris, was adamant that the murder could not have taken place where the body was found. Dave has a theory on this possibility, but the weakness in that argument is the lack of evidence for how the body could have been moved leaving no trace.

Phillips was the only doctor to see both Chapman and Eddowes bodies, so his opinion cannot be dismissed out of hand. If his opinion is to be given any credence, there were either two killers or two different people harvesting the organs after the fact.

At this point I have not formed an opinion either way. Hopefully we can have further productive debate, but realistically the answer is probably lost in time.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Hi all,
Getting caught, you could send yourself to the gallows as prime suspect. Or worse, Australia
.

Good one Al. Many of my ancestors were transported to Australia, for which they were eternally grateful.

Cheers, George

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi FM

The Lawende and associates siting was of a woman dressed in dark clothing talking to a man near the murder site just before the murder. It may or may not have been Eddowes.

Watkins time intervals are the key. Police times are considered to be the most accurate. The average of thirteen minutes seems a reasonable estimate, from which has to be subtracted the interval at each end required to avoid the scrutiny of Watkins. It could be assumed that Cathy and Jack would have waited for Watkins to leave the square before moving into place, and Jack would have left the square before Watkins actually re-entered. Say two to three minutes? So perhaps Jack had 10-11 minutes maximum. The three modern day experts were using 9 minutes when they stated it was not in the realms of possibility.

The night watchman, George Morris, was adamant that the murder could not have taken place where the body was found. Dave has a theory on this possibility, but the weakness in that argument is the lack of evidence for how the body could have been moved leaving no trace.

Phillips was the only doctor to see both Chapman and Eddowes bodies, so his opinion cannot be dismissed out of hand. If his opinion is to be given any credence, there were either two killers or two different people harvesting the organs after the fact.

At this point I have not formed an opinion either way. Hopefully we can have further productive debate, but realistically the answer is probably lost in time.

Cheers, George

Hi George

The other issue is not forgetting that the bodies of Chapman and Eddowes were taken to two different mortuaries and with that the uterus from both victims were removed using differnet two methods indicating two different persons responsible.

If one killer, how likely is it that the killer would have had sufficient anatomical knowledge to effect two different methods of extraction to do that in my opinion he would have to have been highly skilled?

I have set out below an extract from a consultant gynecolgist who reviewed the post mortem report in this one it refers to Chapman and the removal of her uterus with the fallopian tubes attcahed

"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.!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GBinOz]

Hi George

The other issue is not forgetting that the bodies of Chapman and Eddowes were taken to two different mortuaries and with that the uterus from both victims were removed using differnet two methods indicating two different persons responsible.

If one killer, how likely is it that the killer would have had sufficient anatomical knowledge to effect two different methods of extraction to do that in my opinion he would have to have been highly skilled?

I have set out below an extract from a consultant gynecolgist who reviewed the post mortem report in this one it refers to Chapman and the removal of her uterus with the fallopian tubes attcahed

"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.!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

I quite agree. This thread is important to discuss both the level of anatomical knowledge and the surgical skill attributable to the perpetrator. A doctor would normally have the body on a slab, and a butcher would have the carcass hanging. Both would have adequate light and neither had the imperative of looking over their shoulder for witnesses. Were the organ extractions made after the event, the killer would have required no medical skills whatsoever. The difficulty with every hypothesis is providing the proof for a logical possibility.

Cheers, George

Edit: You've added a bit to your post since I read it.

[FISHY1118]

Hi George

The other issue is not forgetting that the bodies of Chapman and Eddowes were taken to two different mortuaries and with that the uterus from both victims were removed using differnet two methods indicating two different persons responsible.

If one killer, how likely is it that the killer would have had sufficient anatomical knowledge to effect two different methods of extraction to do that in my opinion he would have to have been highly skilled?

I have set out below an extract from a consultant gynecolgist who reviewed the post mortem report in this one it refers to Chapman and the removal of her uterus with the fallopian tubes attcahed

"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.!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor, it might indicate two different persons responsible, or that one killer used two different methods of his own choosing.

We can't rule that out..

[GBinOz]

I have set out below an extract from a consultant gynecolgist who reviewed the post mortem report in this one it refers to Chapman and the removal of her uterus with the fallopian tubes attcahed

"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.!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

Interesting to note that Eddowes bladder was intact. I didn't understand the last sentence, but a search gave the Mayo clinic as saying " Nephrectomy (nuh-FREK-tuh-me) is a surgical procedure to remove all or part of a kidney: Radical (complete) nephrectomy." Is he referring to Eddowes in this statement?

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Trevor, it might indicate two different persons responsible, or that one killer used two different methods of his own choosing.

We can't rule that out..

Hi Fishy,

I would think the former, which is what Phillips was intimating.

Cheers, George

[Kattrup]

I'd like to chime in with the viewpoint that the time needed to perform the mutilations is not accurately assessed if one takes the starting point that the killer wanted the specific organs he took.
Trevor Marriott's belief is that the killer wanted a specific organ, and by extension the various experts he consulted gave their opinion on how difficult it would be to locate and excise that organ. For instance, the kidney.

However, we do not know that the killer wanted any particular organ. So the question is not "How much anatomical knowledge is needed and how long would it take to open the abdomen and locate and cut out the kidney?". Rather, it's "How long would it take to open the abdomen and locate anything organlike - uterus or kidney - and cut it out?"

I've participated in oldfashioned pig-slaughtering and I've no doubt it's possible to locate an organ inside of four minutes. I suggest Trevor Marriott's next experiment be not with doctors but with a butcher and a freshly-slaughtered pig. Then he could time how long it would take for the butcher to cut out a kidney, liver, lung, heart or similar. It won't take five minutes, that's for sure.

To repeat: if we start with the assumption that the killer wanted the kidney, I'm sure we can find obstacles and layers of fat that would render it difficult. However, we do not know that the killer wanted a kidney. So we cannot assume those difficulties would apply.

[Trevor Marriott]

I'd like to chime in with the viewpoint that the time needed to perform the mutilations is not accurately assessed if one takes the starting point that the killer wanted the specific organs he took.
Trevor Marriott's belief is that the killer wanted a specific organ, and by extension the various experts he consulted gave their opinion on how difficult it would be to locate and excise that organ. For instance, the kidney.

However, we do not know that the killer wanted any particular organ. So the question is not "How much anatomical knowledge is needed and how long would it take to open the abdomen and locate and cut out the kidney?". Rather, it's "How long would it take to open the abdomen and locate anything organlike - uterus or kidney - and cut it out?"

I've participated in oldfashioned pig-slaughtering and I've no doubt it's possible to locate an organ inside of four minutes. I suggest Trevor Marriott's next experiment be not with doctors but with a butcher and a freshly-slaughtered pig. Then he could time how long it would take for the butcher to cut out a kidney, liver, lung, heart or similar. It won't take five minutes, that's for sure.

To repeat: if we start with the assumption that the killer wanted the kidney, I'm sure we can find obstacles and layers of fat that would render it difficult. However, we do not know that the killer wanted a kidney. So we cannot assume those difficulties would apply.

But of all the organs taken the kidney is the most difficult to locate and remove as is shown by the pic I posted at the start of this thread, you cannot put your hand into the abdomen and take hold of it, it has to be cut from the renal fat that surrounds it.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor Marriott's belief is that the killer wanted a specific organ, and by extension the various experts he consulted gave their opinion on how difficult it would be to locate and excise that organ. For instance, the kidney. .

My belief if that the killer did not take the organs

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Kattrup]

But of all the organs taken the kidney is the most difficult to locate and remove as is shown by the pic I posted at the start of this thread, you cannot put your hand into the abdomen and take hold of it, it has to be cut from the renal fat that surrounds it.

as said, you should try getting a butcher to show you how long it takes.