The kidney removal of Catherine Eddowes.

[Trevor Marriott]

I’m not refuting the fact that they said it, I’m refuting that it’s a fact that they were correct. Why does Reid (who was at the scene) trump a Doctor (who was at the scene)? Also Trevor, and I’ll make no apologies for repeating this, why is Macnaghten deemed ‘unsafe’ by you because he made two minor errors (and you’ve said the same of other officers whose words you don’t like, and yet Reid is apparently totally ‘safe’ even though his piece in the Press was an absolute litany of inaccuracies and errors. He couldn’t even name the year that Eddowes was killed (even naming two years which were both wrong!) And this was only 8 years after the event! And please don’t just do your usual trick and point out that he got ‘some’ things right because he could hardly have got every single fact wrong. This is another example of having a double standard for testimony. One for those that disagree with your theories and one for those that appear to agree. It’s cherrypicking.

It's not cherry picking, and it's not just about Reid, another senior officer who attended the crime scene, corroborates what Reid said that no organs were found missing so you don't have any argument. And I would not call the errors in the MM minor

Just for your info Reid was not directly involved in all the murders so he can be excused for some memory lapses in some of the other reports and as far as the the Kelly murder is concerned, he was spot on with everything even to the last detail I have highligted in red the points he got right and I notice despite all your huffing ad puffing you cannot dispute what he said.

Staying with Reids article, he states the motive was murder and mutilation, and I concur, as i have said that about all the other murders

“This was a case in which a pretty, fair-haired, blue-eyed, youthful girl was murdered. She rented a room in a house in Dorset-street, or which she paid 4s 6d a week rent. The room was badly furnished for the reason that her class of people always pawn or sell anything decent they ever get into their places. The curtains to the windows were torn and one of the panes of glass was broken.
Kelly was in arrears with her rent and one morning a man known as ‘The Indian’, who was in the employment of the landlord of the house, went round about eight o’clock to see the woman about the money. Receiving no answer to his knock at the door, he peered through the window, and through the torn curtain saw the horrible sight of the woman lying on her bed hacked to pieces and pieces of her flesh placed upon the table.
I ought to tell you that the stories of portions of the body having been taken away by the murderer were all untrue. In every instance the body was complete. The mania of the murderer was exclusively for horrible mutilation. The landlord was brought round to the house by his man, and the sight of the poor mutilated woman turned his brain.
The suggestion having been made that in the eyes of a murdered person a reflection of the murderer might be retained, we had the eyes of Kelly photographed and the photographs magnified, but the effort was fruitless.We tried every possible means of tracing if the woman had been seen with a man, but without avail. An example of the difficulty we had may be found in that women came forward who swore that they saw Kelly standing at the corner of the court at eight o’clock of the morning her body was found, but the evidence of the doctors proved this to be an impossibility. By that hour the woman had been dead not less than four hours

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I am only providing the articles, but as I have stated, two senior police officers who were at the crime scene report the heart was not taken away by the killer which I know you seem to have difficulty in accepting that overwhelming fact

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I’m not refuting the fact that they said it, I’m refuting that it’s a fact that they were correct. Why does Reid (who was at the scene) trump a Doctor (who was at the scene)? Also Trevor, and I’ll make no apologies for repeating this, why is Macnaghten deemed ‘unsafe’ by you because he made two minor errors (and you’ve said the same of other officers whose words you don’t like, and yet Reid is apparently totally ‘safe’ even though his piece in the Press was an absolute litany of inaccuracies and errors. He couldn’t even name the year that Eddowes was killed (even naming two years which were both wrong!) And this was only 8 years after the event! And please don’t just do your usual trick and point out that he got ‘some’ things right because he could hardly have got every single fact wrong. This is another example of having a double standard for testimony. One for those that disagree with your theories and one for those that appear to agree. It’s cherrypicking.

[Trevor Marriott]

Error..pure and simple Trevor.

Was the heart placed on the table? No. So you’re articles are clearly in error.

I am only providing the articles, but as I have stated, two senior police officers who were at the crime scene report the heart was not taken away by the killer which I know you seem to have difficulty in accepting that overwhelming fact

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Further corroboration would later come to prove that the heart was not taken away comes in the form of two newspaper articles, the first published in Lloyds Weekly dated November 11th 1888 which the interviewee would appear to have been Superintendent Arnold who was in overall charge of Whitechapel policing, and visited the crime scene shortly after the discovery of the body. The relevant part of the article reads “The kidneys and heart had also been removed from the body, and placed on the table by the side of the breasts.

The second piece of corroboration comes from The New York Herald dated November 10th and is a quote from Dr Gabe who also attended the crime scene while the body was still in situ:
“The nose and ears were sliced away. The throat was cut from left to right, so that the vertebrae alone prevented a heads manlike severance. Below the neck the trunk suggested a sheep's carcass in a slaughter house. Ribs and backbone were exposed and the stomach, entrails, heart and liver had been cut out and carefully placed beside the mutilated trunk”

There clearly is a conflict with Dr Gabes article
But Insp Reid and Supt Arnold should not be ignored as the police would be the ones to provide all the details for the coroner

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Error..pure and simple Trevor.

Was the heart placed on the table? No. So you’re articles are clearly in error.

[Trevor Marriott]

There’s a 1895 book entitled "A System of Legal Medicine" where Dr. Charles Alfred Hebbert (who was Dr. Thomas Bond's assistant) discussed the aspects of the Miller's Court murder. Dr. Hebbert had written:

"In this case, to be sure, all the organs except the heart were found scattered around the room..."

Dr Gabe was reported to have said (Manchester Evening News of 09.11.88) that "a certain organ was missing". This would seem to be reliable because the newspaper also reported him as saying that "The ears and nose were cut off, the liver was lying between the legs, and the head was hanging by a thread". I don't think there was any other report about the liver lying between the legs at this time but it's confirmed in Bond's PM report (albeit that he says "between the feet" which is the same thing). Presumably the missing organ was the heart (although the Hartlepool Daily Mail of 9th Nov seemed to think that "the womb and other parts are missing" but gave no source as to where it obtained this information)

Further corroboration would later come to prove that the heart was not taken away comes in the form of two newspaper articles, the first published in Lloyds Weekly dated November 11th 1888 which the interviewee would appear to have been Superintendent Arnold who was in overall charge of Whitechapel policing, and visited the crime scene shortly after the discovery of the body. The relevant part of the article reads “The kidneys and heart had also been removed from the body, and placed on the table by the side of the breasts.

The second piece of corroboration comes from The New York Herald dated November 10th and is a quote from Dr Gabe who also attended the crime scene while the body was still in situ:
“The nose and ears were sliced away. The throat was cut from left to right, so that the vertebrae alone prevented a heads manlike severance. Below the neck the trunk suggested a sheep's carcass in a slaughter house. Ribs and backbone were exposed and the stomach, entrails, heart and liver had been cut out and carefully placed beside the mutilated trunk”

There clearly is a conflict with Dr Gabes article
But Insp Reid and Supt Arnold should not be ignored as the police would be the ones to provide all the details for the coroner

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

There’s a 1895 book entitled "A System of Legal Medicine" where Dr. Charles Alfred Hebbert (who was Dr. Thomas Bond's assistant) discussed the aspects of the Miller's Court murder. Dr. Hebbert had written:

"In this case, to be sure, all the organs except the heart were found scattered around the room..."


Dr Gabe was reported to have said (Manchester Evening News of 09.11.88) that "a certain organ was missing". This would seem to be reliable because the newspaper also reported him as saying that "The ears and nose were cut off, the liver was lying between the legs, and the head was hanging by a thread". I don't think there was any other report about the liver lying between the legs at this time but it's confirmed in Bond's PM report (albeit that he says "between the feet" which is the same thing). Presumably the missing organ was the heart (although the Hartlepool Daily Mail of 9th Nov seemed to think that "the womb and other parts are missing" but gave no source as to where it obtained this information)

Wrong thread.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There’s a 1895 book entitled "A System of Legal Medicine" where Dr. Charles Alfred Hebbert (who was Dr. Thomas Bond's assistant) discussed the aspects of the Miller's Court murder. Dr. Hebbert had written:

"In this case, to be sure, all the organs except the heart were found scattered around the room..."


Dr Gabe was reported to have said (Manchester Evening News of 09.11.88) that "a certain organ was missing". This would seem to be reliable because the newspaper also reported him as saying that "The ears and nose were cut off, the liver was lying between the legs, and the head was hanging by a thread". I don't think there was any other report about the liver lying between the legs at this time but it's confirmed in Bond's PM report (albeit that he says "between the feet" which is the same thing). Presumably the missing organ was the heart (although the Hartlepool Daily Mail of 9th Nov seemed to think that "the womb and other parts are missing" but gave no source as to where it obtained this information)

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well, you keep believing all that you have posted, and perhaps one day you will wake up to reality, but I doubt that will ever happen

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Pathetic.

Not one single answer.

[Trevor Marriott]

To be fair and give Trevor a final chance to make meaningful responses to the individual points against his theory let’s sum up in individual, numbered, easy-to-respond-to points.


1. The basis for Trevor’s theory is that the killer didn’t have the time to remove organs in Mitre Square.

If Trevor says “it’s impossible that Doc could have got from A to B in an hour.” And I say “ what is the distance between A and B?” To which Trevor replies “I don’t know.” Then I ask “how quickly could Doc have travelled between A and B?” And Trevor responded “I don’t know.” How much value would we place in Trevor’s original claim that Doc couldn’t have done it? It’s none of course. So why does Trevor make the claim that the killer couldn’t have removed organs when we don’t know how long it would have taken him or how long he had available to him? Trevor has completely failed to address this point. And he hasn’t done it because the point is indisputable.


2. Trevor claims that the Doctor’s, Brown and Sequiera, couldn’t have examined the body to any great extent before the post mortem. And yet we know from the evidence that the body was removed to the mortuary at 3am and that Dr. Brown (and possibly Sequiera, although he isn’t mentioned) were still at the mortuary 2 hours later. What does Trevor think that they were doing in that 2 hours? Watching the slowest undressing of a corpse in history? Why else would they have gone to the mortuary in the first place if not to further examine the body under more favourable conditions than in Mitre Square? Do we know that they noticed the uterus? Of course not but the relevant point is that organ thieves couldn’t possibly have known that they hadn’t which would have made the decision to steal organs before the post mortem absolutely insane.


3. Trevor claims that the Doctors would have documented it if they had found the uterus missing in any examination before the post mortem. This is obvious nonsense because the doctors didn’t document the pre-PM examination at all. Why would they? Do we have any examples of a doctor doing this? I’m not aware of any. All documentation about the corpse would have been done at the post mortem, unless Trevor thinks that one of the Doctors said “shouldn’t we make some notes now in case some bits go missing?” Trevor can’t just invent criteria simply so that he could knock them down and claim that he’s made a point.


4. Trevor claims that Dr Phillips was only at the mortuary for the post mortem and not before. We know that this isn’t true. Phillips presence at the mortuary was requested by Dr Brown while Brown was still in Mitre Square with the body and Brown himself tells us why he had requested Phillips opinions. We know that PC Long handed the apron piece to Dr Phillips at Leman Street Station at some point in the early hours of the morning. And we know, from the Lloyd’s reporter that spoke to Dr Brown at 5.20 at the mortuary, that Brown was still awaiting the arrival of Dr Phillips. So unless Trevor believes that Brown was prepared to stand around at the mortuary twiddling his thumbs for another 9 hours until the PM then we can safely assume that Phillips arrived at the mortuary some time after 5.20. And why was he going to the mortuary? Because Brown had requested his presence to examine the injuries in comparison to a corpse that had had organs removed. And again, there is absolutely no way that organ thieves could have known that he hadn’t seen that the uterus was still in place.


5. Trevor makes the point that organ thieves existed. I have never doubted this but we have to note that, when asked if there would have been a market for these particular stolen organs, Brown said “none whatever.” It also has to be pointed out that the uterus was taken incomplete. Would there be a market for incomplete organs. How could an experienced organ thief, in mortuary conditions, still have failed to remove the organ cleanly and in its entirety which would surely have been his aim? Isn’t that more likely evidence that it had been taken incomplete in far less favourable conditions.


6. Finally Trevor makes the point that organ thieves would have had enough time to take organs. I’ve never really doubted this but we have to apply common sense. Organ thieves would never have removed organs from a body that was due for a post mortem (I should have no need to explain the very obvious reason why this is the case) So why would they change in this case (and in the case of Chapman for that matter?) It makes absolutely no sense because they had no need to change their method and take such an insane risk. If Phillips arrived at around 5.30 (it may have been later) and was there for an hour or so, then we have Doctors at the mortuary until around 6.30-7.00. This was two hours after sunrise; broad daylight. Can anyone seriously believe that out organ thieves would have been there, stealing organs from a corpse, when anyone, police officer, Doctor, non-corrupt official, nurse etc could have walked in on them? And this was after 3 doctors had examined the body and could very easily have spotted that the uterus was still in place. We can only stretch credibility so far. The idea isn’t worth further consideration.


The organs were provenly taken by the killer.

Well, you keep believing all that you have posted, and perhaps one day you will wake up to reality, but I doubt that will ever happen

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

To be fair and give Trevor a final chance to make meaningful responses to the individual points against his theory let’s sum up in individual, numbered, easy-to-respond-to points.


1. The basis for Trevor’s theory is that the killer didn’t have the time to remove organs in Mitre Square.

If Trevor says “it’s impossible that Doc could have got from A to B in an hour.” And I say “ what is the distance between A and B?” To which Trevor replies “I don’t know.” Then I ask “how quickly could Doc have travelled between A and B?” And Trevor responded “I don’t know.” How much value would we place in Trevor’s original claim that Doc couldn’t have done it? It’s none of course. So why does Trevor make the claim that the killer couldn’t have removed organs when we don’t know how long it would have taken him or how long he had available to him? Trevor has completely failed to address this point. And he hasn’t done it because the point is indisputable.


2. Trevor claims that the Doctor’s, Brown and Sequiera, couldn’t have examined the body to any great extent before the post mortem. And yet we know from the evidence that the body was removed to the mortuary at 3am and that Dr. Brown (and possibly Sequiera, although he isn’t mentioned) were still at the mortuary 2 hours later. What does Trevor think that they were doing in that 2 hours? Watching the slowest undressing of a corpse in history? Why else would they have gone to the mortuary in the first place if not to further examine the body under more favourable conditions than in Mitre Square? Do we know that they noticed the uterus? Of course not but the relevant point is that organ thieves couldn’t possibly have known that they hadn’t which would have made the decision to steal organs before the post mortem absolutely insane.


3. Trevor claims that the Doctors would have documented it if they had found the uterus missing in any examination before the post mortem. This is obvious nonsense because the doctors didn’t document the pre-PM examination at all. Why would they? Do we have any examples of a doctor doing this? I’m not aware of any. All documentation about the corpse would have been done at the post mortem, unless Trevor thinks that one of the Doctors said “shouldn’t we make some notes now in case some bits go missing?” Trevor can’t just invent criteria simply so that he could knock them down and claim that he’s made a point.


4. Trevor claims that Dr Phillips was only at the mortuary for the post mortem and not before. We know that this isn’t true. Phillips presence at the mortuary was requested by Dr Brown while Brown was still in Mitre Square with the body and Brown himself tells us why he had requested Phillips opinions. We know that PC Long handed the apron piece to Dr Phillips at Leman Street Station at some point in the early hours of the morning. And we know, from the Lloyd’s reporter that spoke to Dr Brown at 5.20 at the mortuary, that Brown was still awaiting the arrival of Dr Phillips. So unless Trevor believes that Brown was prepared to stand around at the mortuary twiddling his thumbs for another 9 hours until the PM then we can safely assume that Phillips arrived at the mortuary some time after 5.20. And why was he going to the mortuary? Because Brown had requested his presence to examine the injuries in comparison to a corpse that had had organs removed. And again, there is absolutely no way that organ thieves could have known that he hadn’t seen that the uterus was still in place.


5. Trevor makes the point that organ thieves existed. I have never doubted this but we have to note that, when asked if there would have been a market for these particular stolen organs, Brown said “none whatever.” It also has to be pointed out that the uterus was taken incomplete. Would there be a market for incomplete organs. How could an experienced organ thief, in mortuary conditions, still have failed to remove the organ cleanly and in its entirety which would surely have been his aim? Isn’t that more likely evidence that it had been taken incomplete in far less favourable conditions.


6. Finally Trevor makes the point that organ thieves would have had enough time to take organs. I’ve never really doubted this but we have to apply common sense. Organ thieves would never have removed organs from a body that was due for a post mortem (I should have no need to explain the very obvious reason why this is the case) So why would they change in this case (and in the case of Chapman for that matter?) It makes absolutely no sense because they had no need to change their method and take such an insane risk. If Phillips arrived at around 5.30 (it may have been later) and was there for an hour or so, then we have Doctors at the mortuary until around 6.30-7.00. This was two hours after sunrise; broad daylight. Can anyone seriously believe that out organ thieves would have been there, stealing organs from a corpse, when anyone, police officer, Doctor, non-corrupt official, nurse etc could have walked in on them? And this was after 3 doctors had examined the body and could very easily have spotted that the uterus was still in place. We can only stretch credibility so far. The idea isn’t worth further consideration.


The organs were provenly taken by the killer.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You are not able to see the truth if it jumped up and slapped you in the face

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Strangely, no one else can either. You stand completely alone but insisting that you are right and that everyone else is wrong. You’ve tried everything Trevor but there’s one thing that you haven’t done and that is to respond directly and deal with the individual points. All that you’ve got is:

“You are not able to see the truth if it jumped up and slapped you in the face.”

Pointless response.

”I rest my case.”

Pointless response.

“If they had have done it would have been documented.”

Clearly untrue.

“I totally agree that there is no way the doctors at the crime scenes could have carried out a detailed examination whereby they could have found organs missing.”

Proven incorrect.

…..

No one agrees with you as usual. Everyone of your points has been rebutted and dismissed and you have deliberately failed to respond directly to any points made.

I’d say “game over” Trevor but I was never really ‘on’ was it? You should have done what most people do….they present a theory for discussion, debate and criticism but that’s not ‘you’ is it? You always come up with a theory and assume that because you came up with it that it must be correct. Then when you present it, and no one accepts it (which is always the case) you dig in your heals and go into attack mode. Unless you can make any valid points there’s no point in discussing this subject further. The whole of ripperology accepts that the ripper took the organs….one man stands alone in opposition. Give it up Trevor. You lost a long time ago.

[Trevor Marriott]

And what a pathetically weak case it is Trevor. Is that really the best that you can do? Do you honestly think that anyone would fall for that response

Let’s get the most simple thing out of the way first. No one, especially me, has claimed that Reid never got anything right. Of course he did. The point is though that he got lots wrong and some of them were glaring mistakes that you would expect from someone that was undoubtedly around at the time. Let’s use Macnaghten as an example again shall we? He got Druitt’s age wrong…41 instead of 31 (hardly a howler) and he said that Druitt was said to have been a Doctor…of course he was a Barrister but his father was a Doctor. For these two errors you repeatedly tell us that we should dismiss anything that he said because he was ‘unreliable.’ Why do you assign different criteria for Inspector Reid who made a long list of errors? Why is he conveniently ‘reliable?’ The fact that he made so many errors renders his power of recall highly suspect. The fact that he got some things right is neither here nor there. No one could get every fact that they ever recalled wrong so of course he would have got some things right. The fact that you completely dismiss/ignore his errors and claim him reliable is one of the worst examples of bias that I’ve ever heard. You ‘trust’ Reid simply because you feel that he supports your theory.

Then you say this:

”He was talking about the Kelly murder you seem to want to interpret his statement in relation to the Kelly murder in a way that it suits you.”

No, I interpret what he said in the way that every other person who has read it interprets it Trevor. Without exception not one single person agrees with your deliberately disingenuous interpretation. As I ever you stand entirely alone but your ego just won’t allow you to consider that you might be wrong.

Your final point is the killer though. This is Reid’s quote again:

“I ought to tell you that the stories of portions of the body having been taken away by the murderer were all untrue. In every instance the body was complete. The mania of the murderer was exclusively for horrible mutilation.”


I said: “Reid was saying that the killer was only ever interested in mutilation and that he never took organs.”

Your response was:

“Well he was right there the killer never took organs“

This response is absolute proof that you know that you are wrong. Everyone at the time, Police officers, Doctors, Coroners, politicians, journalists all…and I do mean all….believed that the killer had taken organs.

So unless you have reason to believe that Reid had secret information that he kept from everyone else in England at the time then we have only one conclusion…..that Inspector Reid mistakenly believed that the killer was only interested in mutilation and hadn’t taken organs from any of the victims.

You are embarrassing yourself on this one Trevor. How can a former police officer think in this way? I guess that it just shows that you aren’t interested in getting to the truth. All that you are interested in is promoting your theories and of course you have the hide of a rhinoceros in that in 8 years or so I’ve never seen one of your theories concurred with by anyone. It’s just you…on your own again…being totally and utterly wrong and yet ploughing on regardless because you are just incapable of admitting that you are wrong.

You are not able to see the truth if it jumped up and slapped you in the face

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I rest my case

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And what a pathetically weak case it is Trevor. Is that really the best that you can do? Do you honestly think that anyone would fall for that response

Let’s get the most simple thing out of the way first. No one, especially me, has claimed that Reid never got anything right. Of course he did. The point is though that he got lots wrong and some of them were glaring mistakes that you would expect from someone that was undoubtedly around at the time. Let’s use Macnaghten as an example again shall we? He got Druitt’s age wrong…41 instead of 31 (hardly a howler) and he said that Druitt was said to have been a Doctor…of course he was a Barrister but his father was a Doctor. For these two errors you repeatedly tell us that we should dismiss anything that he said because he was ‘unreliable.’ Why do you assign different criteria for Inspector Reid who made a long list of errors? Why is he conveniently ‘reliable?’ The fact that he made so many errors renders his power of recall highly suspect. The fact that he got some things right is neither here nor there. No one could get every fact that they ever recalled wrong so of course he would have got some things right. The fact that you completely dismiss/ignore his errors and claim him reliable is one of the worst examples of bias that I’ve ever heard. You ‘trust’ Reid simply because you feel that he supports your theory.

Then you say this:

”He was talking about the Kelly murder you seem to want to interpret his statement in relation to the Kelly murder in a way that it suits you.”

No, I interpret what he said in the way that every other person who has read it interprets it Trevor. Without exception not one single person agrees with your deliberately disingenuous interpretation. As I ever you stand entirely alone but your ego just won’t allow you to consider that you might be wrong.

Your final point is the killer though. This is Reid’s quote again:

“I ought to tell you that the stories of portions of the body having been taken away by the murderer were all untrue. In every instance the body was complete. The mania of the murderer was exclusively for horrible mutilation.”


I said: “Reid was saying that the killer was only ever interested in mutilation and that he never took organs.”

Your response was:

“Well he was right there the killer never took organs“

This response is absolute proof that you know that you are wrong. Everyone at the time, Police officers, Doctors, Coroners, politicians, journalists all…and I do mean all….believed that the killer had taken organs.

So unless you have reason to believe that Reid had secret information that he kept from everyone else in England at the time then we have only one conclusion…..that Inspector Reid mistakenly believed that the killer was only interested in mutilation and hadn’t taken organs from any of the victims.

You are embarrassing yourself on this one Trevor. How can a former police officer think in this way? I guess that it just shows that you aren’t interested in getting to the truth. All that you are interested in is promoting your theories and of course you have the hide of a rhinoceros in that in 8 years or so I’ve never seen one of your theories concurred with by anyone. It’s just you…on your own again…being totally and utterly wrong and yet ploughing on regardless because you are just incapable of admitting that you are wrong.

[Trevor Marriott]

You’ve already tried to con your way past this point in the past with posters on JtRForums and, as ever, every single person told you that you are wrong. Not one single person agreed with you and they were virtually pulling their hair out trying to explain something to you which was glaringly obvious. As ever, because you have a theory, you dug your heals in and completely showed yourself up.

In his News Of The World interview Reid was saying, very clearly and very obviously that no organs were taken from any of the victims and not just Kelly. And before you begin a bit of ‘Christer Holmgren-type manipulation of the English language when it suits you’ let’s recall what he actually said.

“I ought to tell you that the stories of portions of the body having been taken away by the murderer were all untrue. In every instance the body was complete. The mania of the murderer was exclusively for horrible mutilation.”

So “in every instance the body was complete.”

‘In every instance’ of what, if he was just talking about Kelly as you claim? “In every instance” can only mean “in each murder”

He was talking about the Kelly murder you seem to want to interpret his statement in relation to the Kelly murder in a way that it suits you.

Then to cap it off and 100% seal the deal he says “The mania of the murderer was exclusively for horrible mutilation.” This can’t be interpreted in any other way unless you are suggesting that what he’d actually meant was “the killer was only interested in mutilation with Kelly but with Chapman and Eddowes he was interested in removing organs.”

I have said all along that the murders were committed for the sole purpose of murder and mutilation

Reid was saying that the killer was only ever interested in mutilation and that he never took organs.

Well he was right there the killer never took organs

Reid is unreliable. Error after error after error. Yet you desperately rely on his unsafe memory to prop up your comedy theory.

His memory was spot on as far as the Kelly murder was concerned as he visited the Crime Scene, and I notice you have failed to answer my question as to what he has got wrong in the article about not only the murder itself but the background let me remind you and others you have brainwashed by misrepresenting the article of what he actually said in the article regarding the Kelly murder.

“This was a case in which a pretty, fair-haired, blue-eyed, youthful girl was murdered. She rented a room in a house in Dorset-street, or which she paid 4s 6d a week rent. The room was badly furnished for the reason that her class of people always pawn or sell anything decent they ever get into their places. The curtains to the windows were torn and one of the panes of glass was broken.
Kelly was in arrears with her rent and one morning a man known as ‘The Indian’, who was in the employment of the landlord of the house, went round about eight o’clock to see the woman about the money. Receiving no answer to his knock at the door, he peered through the window, and through the torn curtain saw the horrible sight of the woman lying on her bed hacked to pieces and pieces of her flesh placed upon the table.
I ought to tell you that the stories of portions of the body having been taken away by the murderer were all untrue. In every instance the body was complete. The mania of the murderer was exclusively for horrible mutilation. The landlord was brought round to the house by his man, and the sight of the poor mutilated woman turned his brain.
The suggestion having been made that in the eyes of a murdered person a reflection of the murderer might be retained, we had the eyes of Kelly photographed and the photographs magnified, but the effort was fruitless. We tried every possible means of tracing if the woman had been seen with a man, but without avail. An example of the difficulty we had may be found in that women came forward who swore that they saw Kelly standing at the corner of the court at eight o’clock of the morning her body was found, but the evidence of the doctors proved this to be an impossibility. By that hour the woman had been dead not less than four hours

I rest my case

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I know I said that I was not going to reply to your posts but I am relenting on this one occasion as I can just sit back and let you run riot with these posts on this topic and not respond.

So tell me what part of the arcticle about the Kelly murder did Reid get wrong and this all I am concerned with, and this is very relevant and it shows that his memory of all that took place regarding the Kelly murder was as it should have been, and not as you and others suggest fading, and why would he make a statement like that years later when he knew that there were people involved in the Kelly murder that could have rebuuted his statement about no organs were found missing.

Reid attended the crime scene and when he later stated no organs were found missing this statement should be readily accepted and not questioned by you or others who subscribe to the killer taking organs in fact If the killer was harvesting organs, he could have taken any number of organs for Kelly.

www.trevormarriott

You’ve already tried to con your way past this point in the past with posters on JtRForums and, as ever, every single person told you that you are wrong. Not one single person agreed with you and they were virtually pulling their hair out trying to explain something to you which was glaringly obvious. As ever, because you have a theory, you dug your heals in and completely showed yourself up.

In his News Of The World interview Reid was saying, very clearly and very obviously that no organs were taken from any of the victims and not just Kelly. And before you begin a bit of ‘Christer Holmgren-type manipulation of the English language when it suits you’ let’s recall what he actually said.

“I ought to tell you that the stories of portions of the body having been taken away by the murderer were all untrue. In every instance the body was complete. The mania of the murderer was exclusively for horrible mutilation.”

So “in every instance the body was complete.”

‘In every instance’ of what, if he was just talking about Kelly as you claim? “In every instance” can only mean “in each murder”

Then to cap it off and 100% seal the deal he says “The mania of the murderer was exclusively for horrible mutilation.” This can’t be interpreted in any other way unless you are suggesting that what he’d actually meant was “the killer was only interested in mutilation with Kelly but with Chapman and Eddowes he was interested in removing organs.”

Reid was saying that the killer was only ever interested in mutilation and that he never took organs.

Reid is unreliable. Error after error after error. Yet you desperately rely on his unsafe memory to prop up your comedy theory.