Organ removal ? Warning Graphic Photos

[John Wheat]

You keep going on about organs being taken away at mortuaries in the Whitechapel murders but you show no proof. Then you berate other posters for disagreeing with you.

[Trevor Marriott]

You keep going on about organs being taken away at mortuaries in the Whitechapel murders but you show no proof. Then you berate other posters for disagreeing with you.

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

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

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

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

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

[Fleetwood Mac]

I disagree I have already highligted the bodies being obtained by the hospitals acquiring the full intact bodies and somewhere she cleary states that female organs were preferred

Trevor,

I don't discount your theory, and I've found the reading around this to be fascinating. For one, I had no idea that when people died in a lodging house or on the street, there were other people around willing and able to conceal those bodies and sell them. What a world eh.

I think the strengths of your argument are as follows:

1) The timeframe involved in Catherine's murder. Even in the event the couple seen by Lawende and associates were not Catherine and the WM, this doesn't raise the time allowed by any significant degree. Add in that we have Morris opening a door across the small square 2 to 3 minutes prior to the arrival of PC Watkins, and the uncertainty in terms of when PC Watkins turned into the square (he worked backwards from looking at his watch when Morris went to look for his lamp). The time remains around 11/12 minutes from when PC Watkins left Mitre Square on his 1.30am beat to the WM leaving the square, and that time assumes the WM was not fazed by Morris opening the door across a small square nor PC Harvey walking down Church Passage and that PC Watkins discovered Catherine's body at 1.44am. I'm highly sceptical this took place in that timeframe, and I'm considering a few things such as PC Watkins skipping a beat due to the rain.

2) Professor Hurren has comprehensively demonstrated that there was an illegal trade in bodies in the East End of London at that time, which of course would include a desire for the body parts.

3) Prosector points out that surgical operations on the internal organs within the abdomen area were rare in 1888. He goes onto say that of the 4 doctors/surgeons, only Dr Phillips would have the slightest idea of what was involved. You would have to conclude that there were few people running around the streets of Whitechapel with the necessary knowledge to be able to extract those organs, particularly in the dark and lacking an assistant.

The weak links in your argument, and in fairness all of the theories being put forward have weak links, otherwise a particular theory would be established wisdom, are as follows:

1) There was a sanctioned, established supply of bodies, e.g. the unclaimed poor dying in asylums and workhouses and families who sold the bodies of their loved ones out of desperation.

2) Professor Hurren's research has established an illegal trade in dead bodies being sold to the big London hospitals. What Professor Hurren does not establish is particular organs being harvested at mortuaries, although she does posit evidence that mortuaries were involved in the transactions.

I have re-read Professor Hurren's article and the best I can come up with to support the organ harvesting at the mortuary are the following:

Body parts were in fact highly profitable transactions. Breaking up a body generated more sales, compared to trading a complete cadaver for a single fee.

By way of example when a body dealer named ‘Ward’ posing as an ‘undertaker’ traded the corpse of “Patrick O’Brian, male, aged 66, who died in St. Giles and Bloomsbury Workhouse on 27th October 1887” the deal was made with a nod and handshake at “7pm on the 29th of October” in person with mortuary staff.20 On arrival at the back of St. Bartholomew’s Hospital later that night, the body was found to be missing a limb – “1 leg amputation, left” wrote the anatomist on duty.

So, we do have reference to a body part being removed at the mortuary prior to being taken to one of the big London hospitals for dissection and that the sale of separate parts of the body were more profitable than a whole body.

The main obstacle is that we remain absent of any evidence of organs being harvested at a mortuary prior to the body being shipped to one of London's big hospitals for dissection. Given the extensive research undertaken by Professor Hurren, I think she would have found reference to this. In addition, a limb being removed is not the same as the organs being removed given that operations inside the abdomen were rare at that time and someone at the mortuary would have needed the necessary experience.

In the end, I think you have an interesting theory worthy of consideration. You will of course receive criticism that involves personal attacks because that is the nature of some human beings and their use of social media. It's a shame that Professor Hurren didn't find reference to organs being removed at a mortuary prior to transiting a body to one of the big London hospitals because in that event I would be inclined to agree that this is the most solid theory of all of them (given the timeframe of the murder and the necessary skills to be able to do this in an age when exploring the abdomen was new in the medical world).

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,

I don't discount your theory, and I've found the reading around this to be fascinating. For one, I had no idea that when people died in a lodging house or on the street, there were other people around willing and able to conceal those bodies and sell them. What a world eh.

I think the strengths of your argument are as follows:

1) The timeframe involved in Catherine's murder. Even in the event the couple seen by Lawende and associates were not Catherine and the WM, this doesn't raise the time allowed by any significant degree. Add in that we have Morris opening a door across the small square 2 to 3 minutes prior to the arrival of PC Watkins, and the uncertainty in terms of when PC Watkins turned into the square (he worked backwards from looking at his watch when Morris went to look for his lamp). The time remains around 11/12 minutes from when PC Watkins left Mitre Square on his 1.30am beat to the WM leaving the square, and that time assumes the WM was not fazed by Morris opening the door across a small square nor PC Harvey walking down Church Passage and that PC Watkins discovered Catherine's body at 1.44am. I'm highly sceptical this took place in that timeframe, and I'm considering a few things such as PC Watkins skipping a beat due to the rain.

2) Professor Hurren has comprehensively demonstrated that there was an illegal trade in bodies in the East End of London at that time, which of course would include a desire for the body parts.

3) Prosector points out that surgical operations on the internal organs within the abdomen area were rare in 1888. He goes onto say that of the 4 doctors/surgeons, only Dr Phillips would have the slightest idea of what was involved. You would have to conclude that there were few people running around the streets of Whitechapel with the necessary knowledge to be able to extract those organs, particularly in the dark and lacking an assistant.

The weak links in your argument, and in fairness all of the theories being put forward have weak links, otherwise a particular theory would be established wisdom, are as follows:

1) There was a sanctioned, established supply of bodies, e.g. the unclaimed poor dying in asylums and workhouses and families who sold the bodies of their loved ones out of desperation.

2) Professor Hurren's research has established an illegal trade in dead bodies being sold to the big London hospitals. What Professor Hurren does not establish is particular organs being harvested at mortuaries, although she does posit evidence that mortuaries were involved in the transactions.

I have re-read Professor Hurren's article and the best I can come up with to support the organ harvesting at the mortuary are the following:

Body parts were in fact highly profitable transactions. Breaking up a body generated more sales, compared to trading a complete cadaver for a single fee.

By way of example when a body dealer named ‘Ward’ posing as an ‘undertaker’ traded the corpse of “Patrick O’Brian, male, aged 66, who died in St. Giles and Bloomsbury Workhouse on 27th October 1887” the deal was made with a nod and handshake at “7pm on the 29th of October” in person with mortuary staff.20 On arrival at the back of St. Bartholomew’s Hospital later that night, the body was found to be missing a limb – “1 leg amputation, left” wrote the anatomist on duty.

So, we do have reference to a body part being removed at the mortuary prior to being taken to one of the big London hospitals for dissection and that the sale of separate parts of the body were more profitable than a whole body.

The main obstacle is that we remain absent of any evidence of organs being harvested at a mortuary prior to the body being shipped to one of London's big hospitals for dissection. Given the extensive research undertaken by Professor Hurren, I think she would have found reference to this. In addition, a limb being removed is not the same as the organs being removed given that operations inside the abdomen were rare at that time and someone at the mortuary would have needed the necessary experience.

In the end, I think you have an interesting theory worthy of consideration. You will of course receive criticism that involves personal attacks because that is the nature of some human beings and their use of social media. It's a shame that Professor Hurren didn't find reference to organs being removed at a mortuary prior to transiting a body to one of the big London hospitals because in that event I would be inclined to agree that this is the most solid theory of all of them (given the timeframe of the murder and the necessary skills to be able to do this in an age when exploring the abdomen was new in the medical world).

That a fair assessment although what i would say and I have said this before is that where a teachng hospital acquired a body it was there responsiblity to dispose of the body when they finished with it, that was at their own expense so therefore body parts and organs were much sought after especially female body parts.

Under the terms of the Anatomy Act bona fide medical could go to mortauries and claim body parts so it is not beyond the realms of possibilty that the organs were taken in that way, and i do accept that the bodies of Chapman and Eddowes shoud not have been tampered with but this was a lucrative trade in organs back then

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FISHY1118]

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

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

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

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

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

So before i go on Trevor, was Mary Kelly killed by the same person that killed Chapman and Eddowes ? Yes/No

[Trevor Marriott]

So before i go on Trevor, was Mary Kelly killed by the same person that killed Chapman and Eddowes ? Yes/No

I have no definitive answer to that

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fleetwood Mac]

That a fair assessment although what i would say and I have said this before is that where a teachng hospital acquired a body it was there responsiblity to dispose of the body when they finished with it, that was at their own expense so therefore body parts and organs were much sought after especially female body parts.

Under the terms of the Anatomy Act bona fide medical could go to mortauries and claim body parts so it is not beyond the realms of possibilty that the organs were taken in that way, and i do accept that the bodies of Chapman and Eddowes shoud not have been tampered with but this was a lucrative trade in organs back then

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

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.

[FISHY1118]

I have no definitive answer to that

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Do you have an ''Opinion'' on wether she was or she wasnt ? , or can i assume the same answer ? its ok i just want to know either way.

[milchmanuk]

hi
how comes i ask myself or has this been answered in another thread.
that docters ,surgeon's & other workers in the PM.and all the professionals Inservice of care & work of these victims' bodies
did not recognize body parts taken for resale ,
from murder site to mortuary or from mortuary.
or is there evidence from then that there that their was complaints of tampering from those involved.
i understand the professor Hurren.
but she was not involved then in this crime case.!
she shows there was a business so it be then.

[John Wheat]

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

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

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

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

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

None of that is evidence it's all opinion and conjecture.

[Trevor Marriott]

None of that is evidence it's all opinion and conjecture.

So is the sugestion that the killer removed the organs

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

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Do you have an ''Opinion'' on wether she was or she wasnt ? , or can i assume the same answer ? its ok i just want to know either way.

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

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[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? .

[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.

[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?