Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kidney Extraction

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

  • Kidney Extraction

    Hi All

    I know the kidney has been discussed quite alot but anyway.
    When removing/operating on the kidney, is it not performed from the back? If the ripper was specifically out to get the kidney would it not be easier to get at it from the back? I guess what I'm suggesting is that the ripper was perhaps not experienced with medical procedures. If he was he would have known it it would be less messy to perform the extraction from behind.

  • #2
    It's done from the side/back with the person lying on their side. Kidney extraction was already possible by 1888 and they where doing early experiments with transplanation.

    It was the removal of the fatty membrane and cutting of the renal artery that indicated some degree of medical skill/knowledge.
    Bona fide canonical and then some.

    Comment


    • #3
      There is somewhere an item in which Dr Phillips is rather disdainful of the Eddowes mutilations - 'the work of a mere imitator' or some such phrase.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Batman View Post
        It's done from the side/back with the person lying on their side. Kidney extraction was already possible by 1888 and they where doing early experiments with transplanation.

        It was the removal of the fatty membrane and cutting of the renal artery that indicated some degree of medical skill/knowledge.
        I know it was cut quite delicately, but the ripper could have avoided getting poo on his hands if he approached the kidney from behind.

        I don't think he needn't be someone strictly from the medical profession.

        The Lusk letter indicates that the sender knew what a kidney looked like doesn't mean he was a medical man.

        As mad as it sounds it has crossed my mind that someone else may have sent the kidney to Lusk, maybe an official who was tired of Lusk & co.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Robert View Post
          There is somewhere an item in which Dr Phillips is rather disdainful of the Eddowes mutilations - 'the work of a mere imitator' or some such phrase.
          Yeah I read that somewhere on ere as well. Judging by the poo getting everywhere and all that, and the fact that that wasn't the case with the other victims.

          The kidney was the only organ that was cut with care in contrast to the reproductive organs. We know that these organs were the target for the ripper and were taken from some of the other victims, so why did the ripper suddenly want to take a kidney and cut it out delicately and hack the womb of this victim, something doesn't add up.

          Comment


          • #6
            Hi Natasha

            He was a strange one, to put it mildly. In the three cases of organ theft, he took a womb plus part of a bladder, then he stuck with the womb but added a kidney, and finally spurned the womb and took the heart.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Natasha View Post
              As mad as it sounds it has crossed my mind that someone else may have sent the kidney to Lusk, maybe an official who was tired of Lusk & co.
              Just to add when I say someone else may have sent it, I mean that someone else cut out Eddowes's kidney and sent it.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Robert View Post
                Hi Natasha

                He was a strange one, to put it mildly. In the three cases of organ theft, he took a womb plus part of a bladder, then he stuck with the womb but added a kidney, and finally spurned the womb and took the heart.
                Hi Robert,

                I agree. I'm not sure what to believe with the heart though as some papers suggest that it was still in the room. I know Bond's report said the heart was missing, but perhaps he meant from the body.

                I have a theory that perhaps the kidney was removed by someone else.

                I guess that if the reproduction organs were taken and sold for medical purposes, the only thing I can think of that makes sense to use what could have been perceived as diseased organs, was to try and experiment with finding a cure for syphilis and/or other venereal diseases.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Renal arteries are within the fatty membrane which was cut through. The heart was extracted from under the ribcage and top sliced through.

                  The medical skill claim is one that there is evidence that the mutilations where not just smash and grab but showed, at times, anatomical knowledge and medical skill.

                  It was Bond who denounced this. Brown thought JtR a medical student. Philips seemed convinced of medical skill.
                  Bona fide canonical and then some.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I don't think knowledge of how to extract organs necessitates that the killer was medically aware.

                    As it's been suggested before a slaughterman could have been capable of this. As many people ate offal, liver and the like, a butcher would be able to extract organs from animals carefully.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Is it possible that "Jack" didn't take any of her internal organs at all, but they were in fact removed by someone at a later date before or part of her post mortem?

                      This theory would certainly in my mind add more to the 9 minutes to do the deed theory?

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X