Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim?

[DJA]

Unclaimed corpses were free.

Also relatives could donate corpses in exchange for burial afterwards.

London Hospital had one of the biggest collections of organs in the world.

[DJA]

One member several years ago posted a price list from some medical source for a variety of organs. I remember talking with Ivor Edwards about it, if anyone remembers who that was.

Ivor wrote a book claiming one of Jack the Ripper's inpatients,"Donston",was JtR.

Nichols and Eddowes/Conway were also his inpatients together in 1867.
Notice how Eddowes was tending her sister in Thrawl Street near where Nichols was residing for a short time.
Nichols moved next door to Eddowes just before the hopping season.
Eddowes returned for a reward .....

Same guy was Vestry Medical Officer at young Mary Ann Kelly's church.

Expertise extended to TB and hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia.

[Sam Flynn]

And as stated the female reproductive organ was one organ which would have been in short supply and in great demand

I'm not sure it would, though.

[Elamarna]

Steve
I fully agree that we can only work with the times we are left with and fully accept that we do not know if all the time pieces referred to were in sync.

However we have nothing to prove any of them were not and so we are left with them to use with any calculation we choose to make. They were stated in inquest testimony, and in my current calculations I have allowed for time discrepancies and still arrive at times which in my opinion as good as dam suggest that the killer could have not had time to do all that he is purported to have done.

But it’s nice to see you see some merit in the results

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

My current view, and it applies to all times in all murders in 1888, is that they should be treated as guides at best. To use the times, as many do, and that is not aimed at you, as set in stone, as absolute times, is in my opinion utterly unrealistic.



Steve

[Batman]

One member several years ago posted a price list from some medical source for a variety of organs. I remember talking with Ivor Edwards about it, if anyone remembers who that was.
It seemed clear that you had to be a member of the medical society to obtain those organs, yet some on Casebook were talking about how available organs were. They may have been available, but not to the general public.

Sure, not the general public, but how would a thief even begin to sell organs on the black market if they were robbing them from the morgue?

[Michael W Richards]

In the Chicago Tribune on October 7th the following was published;

"I learned today from a Scotland Yard man working on the case that the mysterious American who was here a few months ago offering money for specimens of the parts taken from the bodies of the victims has been discovered. He is a reputable physician in Philadelphia with a large practice, who was over here preparing a medical work on specific diseases. He went to King's College and Middlesex Hospitals and asked for specimens, and merely said he was willing to pay well if he could not get them otherwise. The statement that he offered £20 each or named any other large sum seems to be a delusion of the Coroner. These facts were given the police by an eminent London physician, who saw a great deal of the Philadelphian when he was here, but would only divulge the information on a written guarantee from Sir Charles Warren that neither his name nor the name of the physician in question should be given to the public. He said the doctor had gone back to America, and his mission here was purely legitimate.

An American who used to live in New York keeps a herb shop now in the Whitechapel district. A detective called at his place this week and asked him if he had sold any unusual compound of herbs to a customer since August. Similar inquiries were made at other shops in the neighborhood."

To me this sounds like a legitimate event. I also found it interesting that the police were looking at herb shops, perhaps to see if there were some that could subdue someone without leaving visible or scent traces.

I think the recent posts concerning the possibility of a black market willing to pay big for organs is unlikely, as has been mentioned there were lots of people dying each year without any traceable relatives. And burial space in London was scarce even then. Between Paris and London alone we have armies of the dead, centuries worth. Getting access to those organs had legal means.

I think this argument is one of the most reasonable when considering if the organs were actually removed at the mortuary Trevor, there was no great monetary value to any organs they might take, and, immense risks. That would return us to someone taking them as trophies, in which case I would think the murderer himself would be the most likely man to claim them.

The organs were reported to have been taken from the victims onsite, and I think that can give us some valuable information about the skill-sets of the killer, or just the knife skills perhaps. It would suggests someone very familiar with sharp knives, most likely, in their workplace. I wish they could have differentiated blood samples, even if he had such skills he may have slit himself accidentally. I wonder, do any "legitimate suspects" have injuries when they are detained?

[Elamarna]

One of the big issues here is one which pops up time and time again. It is the misuse and understanding of the term "Medical Research" , used so often by those who have no real understanding of what it means, or how it is and was conducted.

Time and time again it is used in terms that are closer to Mary Shelly, than to real medical research.
Let's be clear, damaged and decayed organs were of no use at all for any medical research, and would also be of limited use even in teaching.

However the mantra of medical research gets trotted out time after time, with no supporting evidence that any such research was taking place in the UK, which would required the uterus, in addition of course if we use the C5, that organ is only taken in 40% of cases. If we add Tabram and Mackenzie it is less than 30% .

There appears to be no provable argument that these organs were specifically targeted for research purposes.
Trevor who is the main supporter of this idea, is of course fully entitled to put the idea forward. However at present he has not been able to establish that a market for damaged uteri existed.

Steve

[etenguy]

One of the big issues here is one which pops up time and time again. It is the misuse and understanding of the term "Medical Research" , used so often by those who have no real understanding of what it means, or how it is and was conducted.

Time and time again it is used in terms that are closer to Mary Shelly, than to real medical research.
Let's be clear, damaged and decayed organs were of no use at all for any medical research, and would also be of limited use even in teaching.

However the mantra of medical research gets trotted out time after time, with no supporting evidence that any such research was taking place in the UK, which would required the uterus, in addition of course if we use the C5, that organ is only taken in 40% of cases. If we add Tabram and Mackenzie it is less than 30% .

There appears to be no provable argument that these organs were specifically targeted for research purposes.
Trevor who is the main supporter of this idea, is of course fully entitled to put the idea forward. However at present he has not been able to establish that a market for damaged uteri existed.

Steve

I agree. Though of course the bigger market would have been medical schools for teaching purposes and we do know that there was significant growth of medical schools in the nineteenth century and cadavers were in short supply. I don't think damaged organs would have been particularly useful, nor do I think the missing organs made their way to medical schools, but a better bet than medical research I think.

[Wickerman]

Sure, not the general public, but how would a thief even begin to sell organs on the black market if they were robbing them from the morgue?

In my case, it was the killer who took the organs.

My comment was with reference to a theory from around 2000, about 18 years ago. That the killer might be medically trained, but not licensed, so was not a member of the BMA.
Therefore, he would be unable to obtain organs for study.

I came across a few stories about European doctors who emigrated to England in the 19th century but could not obtain a license to practice.
I had to wonder if this obstacle could have lead to a motive.

[Trevor Marriott]

One of the big issues here is one which pops up time and time again. It is the misuse and understanding of the term "Medical Research" , used so often by those who have no real understanding of what it means, or how it is and was conducted.

Time and time again it is used in terms that are closer to Mary Shelly, than to real medical research.
Let's be clear, damaged and decayed organs were of no use at all for any medical research, and would also be of limited use even in teaching.

However the mantra of medical research gets trotted out time after time, with no supporting evidence that any such research was taking place in the UK, which would required the uterus, in addition of course if we use the C5, that organ is only taken in 40% of cases. If we add Tabram and Mackenzie it is less than 30% .

There appears to be no provable argument that these organs were specifically targeted for research purposes.
Trevor who is the main supporter of this idea, is of course fully entitled to put the idea forward. However at present he has not been able to establish that a market for damaged uteri existed.

Steve

Organs for Medical research includes medical schools for teaching purposes incorporates all organs as you would expect. I simply said that having regard to the uterus being common to females that would make it more of a valuable commodity.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[c.d.]

It's hard to imagine someone taking organs with the intent of selling them without a buyer already lined up. I just can't see a guy standing on the street saying "hey, I got organs here. Female organs." On the other hand, it would seem to me that if someone were smart enough to be a doctor that he would have realized that the police had considered this angle and that this probably was not a good time to be engaging in this practice. They would also be taking an enormous risk if the killer talked and spilled the beans on who he was working for. Still there are always people willing to take risks.

c.d.

[Trevor Marriott]

It's hard to imagine someone taking organs with the intent of selling them without a buyer already lined up. I just can't see a guy standing on the street saying "hey, I got organs here. Female organs." On the other hand, it would seem to me that if someone were smart enough to be a doctor that he would have realized that the police had considered this angle and that this probably was not a good time to be engaging in this practice. They would also be taking an enormous risk if the killer talked and spilled the beans on who he was working for. Still there are always people willing to take risks.

c.d.

I don’t know where this idea of A thief stealing organs to sell keeps
coming from.

Bona fide medical persons from bona fide medical facilities for bona fide reasons medical research and teaching medical students

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Let's be clear, damaged and decayed organs were of no use at all for any medical research, and would also be of limited use even in teaching.

Trevor who is the main supporter of this idea, is of course fully entitled to put the idea forward. However at present he has not been able to establish that a market for damaged uteri existed.

Steve

Chapman had her uterus with the fallopian tubes removed undamaged.

Eddowes had her kidney removed undamaged
Eddowes had her uterus fully removed with the exception of one small piece. I doubt that would have rendered that organ unfit for any research.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Batman]

Chapman had her uterus with the fallopian tubes removed undamaged.

Eddowes had her kidney removed undamaged
Eddowes had her uterus fully removed with the exception of one small piece. I doubt that would have rendered that organ unfit for any research.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

We don't know anything about the condition of the organs that were removed. Unless one believes the From Hell letter's contents.

The removed organs could have been slashed and punctured badly.

[Michael W Richards]

We don't know anything about the condition of the organs that were removed. Unless one believes the From Hell letter's contents.

The removed organs could have been slashed and punctured badly.

Dr Phillips observed.."the uterus and its appendages with the upper portion of the vagina and the posterior two thirds of the bladder, had been entirely removed. No trace of these parts could be found and the incisions were cleanly cut, avoiding the rectum, and dividing the vagina low enough to avoid injury to the cervix uteri. Obviously the work was that of an expert- of one, at least, who had such knowledge of anatomical or pathological examinations as to be enabled to secure the pelvic organs with one sweep of the knife".

The killer had some skills with a knife. Established point.

The latter point is often debated here, my personal take is that he had anatomical knowledge as well, as Phillips stated above. I think in Annies case we see the quintessential Ripper murder, and therefore the one with the most to teach us about the killer.

Its the reason that in September they adjusted their view towards people who had training, beyond that of a butcher, which is the highest skill designation one could see in the case of Mary Kelly. At best this guy was a butcher. And in Liz Strides case, all he needed was a knife and bad judgement.