Jack the Ripper: The Secret Police Files by Trevor Marriott Read Free Book Online Page B

hours and left unattended before the doctors returned to conduct the post-mortems. It is also a fact that every morning there would be a constant stream of medical personnel who would visit the mortuaries seeking out specimens to take away for research.
    By law of course the bodies of the victims should not have been touched or tampered with before the post-mortems, but in a mortuary containing many bodies some inside and some outside, it would not have been too difficult for someone with medical knowledge to quickly remove these organs, or to even perhaps pay the poor mortuary keeper to turn a blind eye in order to do so.
    In the cases of Eddowes and Chapman the task would have been much easier as the abdomens of both had already opened by the killer. The end result would have been that the findings of the post-mortem would, quite naturally, have left everyone thinking that the killer had removed the organs at the murder scene, coupled with the belief that the killer had done so with some anatomical knowledge.

    You may be asking why, if Chapman’s and Eddowes’ organs were removed, as I suggest, why weren’t any removed from the other victims? The answer is simple: these were the only two victims who were savagely mutilated to the extent that their abdomens were ripped open and their intestines removed. The other victims were not mutilated to this degree, so it would have been very difficult for anyone to remove the organs for fear of their absence being noted at the post-mortem. The bodies of Chapman and Eddowes were the only two bodies left unattended for long periods of time at the mortuaries.
    There is one final important point to be mentioned with regards to the suggestion that the killer did remove the organs from Chapman and Eddowes and that is, it is a fact that Eddowes and Chapman were subjected to ferocious acts of mutilation committed in a frenzied attack. Having said that it is not logical for the killer having done all of that and then to suddenly compose himself sufficiently to be able to suddenly switch off, calm down to be able to remove these vital organs with medical precision. Further medical evidence would later come to light, which showed that the removal of the uteri from both victims was carried out in different ways, adding more weight to my theory.
    The murder of Eddowes differs in a further respect from the previous murders discussed. After her body was discovered, just over an hour later there came to the notice of the police two pieces of what has been looked upon as “significant evidence”, which at the time was suggested as being material to the murder and has generally been accepted as so by many researchers up until the present day.
    This “evidence” was found by a Metropolitan police officer Pc Long in a stairwell leading to dwellings in Goulston Street, a nine-minute walk from the Eddowes crime scene. Having examined all of this evidence carefully, I now suggest that perhaps the police and other experts have been wrong all this time about this “significant evidence”.

    The first piece of “evidence” was a piece of apron, which was later matched to another piece of apron “found” on Eddowes. I use the word found as many researchers subscribe to the theory that Eddowes was in fact wearing an apron and the killer cut or tore a piece to take with him for the purpose of taking away the organs in, or for wiping his blood stained hands and knife on before depositing it in Goulston Street. The size of this apron piece has never been fully established, but is mainly referred to as a portion or a piece.
    The apron piece found by Pc Long in Goulston Street has been described in different ways, by different people; both in official reports and in various newspapers of the day who reported on the inquest and these reports show many discrepancies and inconsistencies. The official reports are what should be accepted as being correct. The reports would have been in written form and would