Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Rippercast: Questions for Michael Hawley - Jack the Ripper Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety - by Sam Flynn 3 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - by Iconoclast 3 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - by GUT 10 hours ago.
Rippercast: One on one with Stephen Senise - by jmenges 11 hours ago.
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - by Iconoclast 12 hours ago.
Rippercast: Questions for Michael Hawley - Jack the Ripper Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety - by Hercule Poirot 12 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - (13 posts)
Witnesses: Spratling Vs Enright - (4 posts)
Rippercast: Questions for Michael Hawley - Jack the Ripper Suspect Dr. Francis Tumblety - (2 posts)
Rippercast: One on one with Stephen Senise - (1 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Motive, Method and Madness

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #3631  
Old 04-30-2018, 02:05 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 16,626
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
Well the fairies have been useful in the evidence gathering process a worthwhile acquisition to my team. They did tell me they were originally working for you, but resigned when you would not accept the evidence they gathered because it destroyed your theory

I am not going to hi jack this thread with regards to the organs issue, save to say that there will be more new facts and new evidence on this subject, which we be forthcoming in the next few weeks, which will add even more weight to what has already been produced to negate these original inferences.

Meanwhile perhaps you could enlighten us all as to what the evidence is to suggest the killer/s did take the organs from Chapman and Eddowes, other than the inferences, which this important part of the WM has been built upon.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
There was no cctv in either Hanbury street or Mitre Square, so no, I have no evidence whatsoever that the killer who cut open the abdomens of these two women was also the person who cut out their organs and took them away.

I am simply going by the inference, just like you say. Nothing more than so. I simply accept that anybody who killes and cuts a woman open is also the likeliest person to take the organs out from her.

Once you produce proof - and rumour has it itīs on itīs way - that the organs were instead taken away by a mortuary attendant or some such person, I will of course withdraw the suggestion that the killer was also the organ taker.

Meanwhile, say hello to the fairies from me.

PS. I donīt think people would mind if you hijacked the thread, not as long as you come up with that proof. It will change ripperology forever, Trevor, so people will certainly forgive you. Now, we will have to wait for some time and then see whether it is "Bravo, Trevor, you solved that part!" or "Come on, Trevor - not more of that crap, please!".

I bet itīs a toss-up.

Last edited by Fisherman : 04-30-2018 at 02:13 AM.
Quick reply to this message
  #3632  
Old 04-30-2018, 05:45 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,897
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
There was no cctv in either Hanbury street or Mitre Square, so no, I have no evidence whatsoever that the killer who cut open the abdomens of these two women was also the person who cut out their organs and took them away.

I am simply going by the inference, just like you say. Nothing more than so. I simply accept that anybody who kills and cuts a woman open is also the likeliest person to take the organs out from her.
But just because the abdomens were ripped open, and we know they were, why should it be "inferred" and generally accepted that the killer removed organs. The attacks on these victims were ferocious, and they were clearly subjected to a frenzied attack with a knife. So with little time available to him in Mitre Square would he have been able to go from a state of frenzy to being calm and in control,to remove two different organs with some medical knowledge in almost total darkness?

Destroy this inference from Mitre Square, and the Ripper mystery changes for ever, but will some accept changes I suspect not.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Quick reply to this message
  #3633  
Old 04-30-2018, 06:19 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 16,626
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
But just because the abdomens were ripped open, and we know they were, why should it be "inferred" and generally accepted that the killer removed organs. The attacks on these victims were ferocious, and they were clearly subjected to a frenzied attack with a knife. So with little time available to him in Mitre Square would he have been able to go from a state of frenzy to being calm and in control,to remove two different organs with some medical knowledge in almost total darkness?

Destroy this inference from Mitre Square, and the Ripper mystery changes for ever, but will some accept changes I suspect not.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
What should be inferred is that the by far likeliest taker of the organs is the one who cut the abdomen open, Trevor. You see, most of us accept that to get at the organs, one must open the abdomen first, and so it becomes part of a logical chain that the man who opened the abdomen is the likely remover of the organs too.

I donīt think that we can read any frenzy into the deeds, Trevor. I know it can seem tempting to do so, but all I see is a man who works fast with his knife. And for a reason.

As I say, I am quite ready and willing to accept changes - if there is reason to do so. Show me that reason, and I will change my mind.
Quick reply to this message
  #3634  
Old 04-30-2018, 06:33 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,897
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
What should be inferred is that the by far likeliest taker of the organs is the one who cut the abdomen open, Trevor. You see, most of us accept that to get at the organs, one must open the abdomen first, and so it becomes part of a logical chain that the man who opened the abdomen is the likely remover of the organs too.

I donīt think that we can read any frenzy into the deeds, Trevor. I know it can seem tempting to do so, but all I see is a man who works fast with his knife. And for a reason.

As I say, I am quite ready and willing to accept changes - if there is reason to do so. Show me that reason, and I will change my mind.
It is a fact that it was a frenzied attack in a short time frame.

The abdomens were stabbed and ripped open, not neatly cut open, All of that is not a definitive explanation to say that this was for the purpose of organs extraction, and besides if organ extraction was the motive, along side murder and mutilation, why would the killer inflict those injuries on the abdomen when they might damage any organs he was seeking to harvest.

And for him to have worked that fast in Mitre Square he would have needed to be more of an expert than Dr Browns expert. to remove them in the time available to him.

Be patient, but if you run true to form your mind cannot be changed, as has been proved to date, no matter what is put before you.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Quick reply to this message
  #3635  
Old 04-30-2018, 07:08 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 16,626
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
It is a fact that it was a frenzied attack in a short time frame.
No, Trevor, it is not a fact at all. It is a fact that many people THINK it was a frenzied attack, but facts are not what we think, it is what we know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
The abdomens were stabbed and ripped open, not neatly cut open, All of that is not a definitive explanation to say that this was for the purpose of organs extraction, and besides if organ extraction was the motive, along side murder and mutilation, why would the killer inflict those injuries on the abdomen when they might damage any organs he was seeking to harvest.
We donīt know what the killer knew about the placement of the organs, we donīt know which organs he had decided on (if he had decided on any), we donīt know that the uterus and kidney were damaged by the opening of the abdomen (reasonably, they were not), and so this is not a good point of yours.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
And for him to have worked that fast in Mitre Square he would have needed to be more of an expert than Dr Browns expert. to remove them in the time available to him.
We donīt know how much time he had, Trevor. We only know that he took out the organs (well, I think he did, leastways) and it is apparent that if he did, then there was time enough.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
Be patient, but if you run true to form your mind cannot be changed, as has been proved to date, no matter what is put before you.
www.trevormarriott.co.uk
I changed my mind on Tabram, for example. I always do change my mind when the evidence calls for it. If it calls upon me NOT to change my mind, I follow that course instead.
You try to play the game "Letīs paint him out as a total zealot, who cannot change his mind", but the fact of the matter is that I have not been presented with any reason to do so that holds much water. Once it happens - and it happened in the Tabram errand - I immediately accept that I have been wrong.

So sway me with some good arguments, and I will turn to wax in your hand, Trevor. Fail to do so, and I will bite that hand off.
Quick reply to this message
  #3636  
Old 04-30-2018, 07:12 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 1,787
Default

But surely Trevor as this was the fourth in a series of well publicised murders that were terrorising the whole of London; murders that the police were under extreme pressure to solve, the police would have kept the body under close guard thus reducing the chance for anyone to take away organs? Every clue would have been vital after all?
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message
  #3637  
Old 04-30-2018, 07:34 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,897
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
But surely Trevor as this was the fourth in a series of well publicised murders that were terrorising the whole of London; murders that the police were under extreme pressure to solve, the police would have kept the body under close guard thus reducing the chance for anyone to take away organs? Every clue would have been vital after all?
Like I said I dont want to hi jack this thread, and as is known I have put forward a good case so far with evidential facts to negate this long standing inference surrounding the removal of the organs from Chapman and Eddowes

I also have re visited the Mitre Square murder again in much greater detail and I have obtained new information, and new facts, which when i publish them will tip the scales firmly in favour of the killer not removing the organs from Chapman and Eddowes, those organs being removed whilst the bodies were left for up to 12 hours before the post mortems were carried out and when it was first discovered that organs were missing from the bodies.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Quick reply to this message
  #3638  
Old 04-30-2018, 07:41 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 9,738
Default

Trevor's theories notwithstanding, the fact remains that, whoever removed the organs from the Ripper victims, 4 out of 5 of them were disembowelled and/or eviscerated. This is a feature which did not apply in most of the torso cases, and can be readily explained in terms of practicalities in the minority of cases where it did.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message
  #3639  
Old 04-30-2018, 07:47 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 16,626
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
Trevor's theories notwithstanding, the fact remains that, whoever removed the organs from the Ripper victims, 4 out of 5 of them were disembowelled and/or eviscerated. This is a feature which did not apply in most of the torso cases, and can be readily explained in terms of practicalities in the minority of cases where it did.
You donīt know in how many cases there WERE eviscerations in the torso series, Gareth. We are looking at perhaps three or more such cases. And your idea that these things can be "readily explained" may be better worded "fancifully explained". We donīt know which applies, do we?

How do you "readily explain" why Jacksons heart and lungs were removed, by the way?

Anyways, I asked you a question or two before, and I have had no answer:

Is it not true that the cuts to the neck/throat region may initially have been exactly the same: a knifecut through both the throat and the soft parts of the neck? Is it not true that all victims but for Stride had the soft parts of their necks cut?

Iīm off to a party now, so any answer on my behalf will have to wait for some time.

Last edited by Fisherman : 04-30-2018 at 07:49 AM.
Quick reply to this message
  #3640  
Old 04-30-2018, 05:47 PM
harry harry is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,734
Default

I suppose that being as the neck part of the body includes the throat,any injury to the throat can also be interpreted as an injury to the neck.
However,traditionay a cut throat has ben accepted as a frontal injury,not one to the nape. The wizard of course will object.
Sam is correct.
Quick reply to this message
Closed Thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.