A Theft At The Mortuary- Mr. Marriott's Talk at the WS1888 Meeting

[How Brown]

In the latest issue of the Whitechapel Society Journal, members were treated to a speech made by Mr. Trevor Marriott regarding the "organ removal" of the various Ripper victims.

Mr. Marriott,according to the author of the brief piece, Sue Parry, presented an "almost conclusive argument for the theory that the removal of the organs from Eddowes and Chapman was not done by the murderer but by mortuary attendants as these ladies' bodies lay on trolleys awaiting their post mortem examination" There was,of course, a most lucrative trade in the sale of fresh body parts for medical research at that time.."

I have no idea as to the basis for his theory, not having attended the WS1888 meeting... although I think it unlikely a mortuary attendant would do such a thing in these two instances...but perhaps other members would like to offer their views either supporting Mr. Marriott's premise or dismissing it.

Anyone care to offer their views?

In case any WS1888 members see this post, it might be a good idea to put the speeches in an audio format to sell to those of us who are interested in all things Ripper related.

[jmenges]

In case any WS1888 members see this post, it might be a good idea to put the speeches in an audio format to sell to those of us who are interested in all things Ripper related.

Or let's start putting things out for free, eh? :thumbsupbud:

We're (hopefully) going to be able to get Marriott on the podcast sometime post-USA conference. It's in the works, and looking good.

You just might be able to ask him yourself, Howard.

JM

[How Brown]

JM:

I hear you,pardner...

I would ask him...if I was on that specific program.

[Chris G.]

In the latest issue of the Whitechapel Society Journal, members were treated to a speech made by Mr. Trevor Marriott regarding the "organ removal" of the various Ripper victims.

Mr. Marriott,according to the author of the brief piece, Sue Parry, presented an "almost conclusive argument for the theory that the removal of the organs from Eddowes and Chapman was not done by the murderer but by mortuary attendants as these ladies' bodies lay on trolleys awaiting their post mortem examination" There was,of course, a most lucrative trade in the sale of fresh body parts for medical research at that time.."

I have no idea as to the basis for his theory, not having attended the WS1888 meeting... although I think it unlikely a mortuary attendant would do such a thing in these two instances...but perhaps other members would like to offer their views either supporting Mr. Marriott's premise or dismissing it.

Anyone care to offer their views?

In case any WS1888 members see this post, it might be a good idea to put the speeches in an audio format to sell to those of us who are interested in all things Ripper related.

Hi Howie

I find Marriott's contention that the organs could have been removed by a mortuary assistant a bizarre theory. Is he serious? Isn't Mr. Marriott the same guy who said that the Eddowes' apron could have been deposited in the doorway by a dog?

Chris

[Mike Covell]

Hi Chris, in "JTR The 21st Century Investigation" he proposes the theory that Eddowes had used the rag found in the doorway to wipe herself after taking "a toilet break", the blood was attributed to her being on her menstrual cycle!

He comes to the conclusion that the rag must there have been dropped prior to her arrest for drunken behaviour!

[Paul]

Didn't the Anatomy Act of 1844 kill of the trade? Are there any comparable examples of a trade in human organs? An 'almost conclusive argument' was presumably chock full of examples from c.1888 of organs being sold and organs being stolen. Does the article say what they were?

[Big Jon]

What I dislike about Marriots work is he slates Ripperologists for making assumptions without evidence and then goes on to do the exact same thing himself!

The organs, the rag and the occupation of his suspect are just a few examples!

[How Brown]

Bigness:

I agree with you 100 percent,sor.

Mr. B

No sir, it does not state anything in the Journal, other than Ms. Parry's few remarks on that he was queried at the meeting. Maybe Phil Hutchinson can pipe in here at a later date.

C.G.

No sir, that was Andrew Spallek who mentioned that a fox may have dragged the apron to the Wentworth.

Mike "Sube" Covell :

No woman would rip and rend her apron just to clean herself...especially a proletarian woman. Its not only ludicrous, but insulting. Its like saying a man would use his socks to clean himself after a bowel movement and being in the similar circumstances as Mrs. Eddowes. In addition, we do not know if Mrs. Eddowes was even capable of menstruation at that time.

[Big Jon]

Mike "Sube" Covell :

No woman would rip and rend her apron just to clean herself...especially a proletarian woman. Its not only ludicrous, but insulting. Its like saying a man would use his socks to clean himself after a bowel movement and being in the similar circumstances as Mrs. Eddowes. In addition, we do not know if Mrs. Eddowes was even capable of menstruation at that time.

Even if she would degrade herself to this level it wouldn't be at all practical. She'd run out of apron pretty quickly if she did this everytime she needed the loo.

[Mike Covell]

My thoughts exactly, I read a newspaper report from 1888 today where it mention an alleged bloody pile of papers was actually a pile of papers used for the wiping of fecal matter!

So why rip off your clothes when paper will do the trick!