The kidney removal of Catherine Eddowes.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yeah, no answer. The theory is in the bin. You can take it out and play with it occasionally if you want to Trevor and who knows, maybe one day, just maybe, you’ll find someone that agrees with you. There’s a first time for everything of course.

and i noticed you didnt answer the questions I posed

I presume that is because there is no answer other than to accept them as true facts

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yeah, no answer. The theory is in the bin. You can take it out and play with it occasionally if you want to Trevor and who knows, maybe one day, just maybe, you’ll find someone that agrees with you. There’s a first time for everything of course.

[Trevor Marriott]

Maybe rational thinking is what you need to do

https://www.trevormariott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Wickerman;n856244]Some people thrive on exceptions and contradictions. We are clearly wrong to expect an ex officer of the law to appreciate the value of rational thinking.[/]

Seeing as you seem to siding with Herlock and he wont acknowledge the fact that 2 senior police officers and one doctor who all attended the crime scene, and they all corroborate each other when saying no organs were missing would you care to comment?

and it seems you and Herlock are simply relying on Bonds ambiguous statement that the heart was absent from the pericardium a fact that doesn't appear in Bonds statement to Anderson which it would seem Dr Hebbert scribed

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Some people thrive on exceptions and contradictions. We are clearly wrong to expect an ex officer of the law to appreciate the value of rational thinking.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You clearly and deliberately ignore the proven facts which I have listed and you go off topic to rant and rave about whether I am right or wrong. You should spend more time analysing all the facts in greater detail and less time decrying my research.

Do you accept that Supt Arnold corroborates Reid, because this is very important?

Do you accept that DR Gabe also lists the location of the heart?

So now we have three people all saying the heart was found in the room

and if am right and Kelly was killed by the same killer as the other victims and that killer was supposed to have removed organs at the crime scenes. I have to ask why did he not take organs from Kelly when he had the opportunity to take many different organs from Kelly with no fear of detection. I think my theory of the organs being taken from the mortuary is even more plausible now

I dont see any bald heads in the forum

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But Arnold said, according to Lloyd’s 11th Nov 1888 ““The kidneys and heart had also been removed from the body, and placed on the table by the side of the breasts.”

So he was entirely wrong about the heart being on the table and unbelievably you are using this error of memory as proof of something. Get a grip Trevor.

And then, in the NY Herald 10th Nov 1888 you have Gabe allegedly saying “…Ribs and backbone were exposed and the stomach, entrails, heart and liver had been cut out and carefully placed beside the mutilated trunk”

As evidence you select two newspaper reports (one of which comes from the USA) both of which report an error. We know that the heart was neither on the table nor on the bed next to the body. You actually use errors as evidence. Well done Trevor.

….


I, on the other hand, can present Doctor Bond who stated that the heart was absent after he has presented a list of where the other organs were found in the room. Can anyone honestly believe that when listing where these organs were located he would have neglected to mention the location of the heart?

I have Dr Hebbert, who you are quite happy to quote elsewhere when he favours your own opinion but strangely when he disagrees with you, you repeatedly ‘forget’ to quote him. And Dr Hebbert wasn’t just any old Doctor (or a police officer that didn’t perform an examination of the body), he was Bond’s assistant:

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

He wrote this in 1895. Do you think that he never discussed the case with Bond? Or that he hadn’t seen the body?

Then we have our friend Dr Gabe, on November 11th 1888 in the Manchester Evening News (you quote the USA, I quote England):

“… a certain organ was missing".

It appears that there was no other report mentioning: “"The ears and nose were cut off, the liver was lying between the legs, and the head was hanging by a thread" But Gabe mentions this in the same newspaper report which strengthen’s its claim to accuracy.

….

Ok Trevor let’s hypothetically assume that the heart wasn’t missing. What does this prove in regard to your organ thief theory? Precisely nothing.

To start with you have to keep inventing a motive so that you can make a fallacious point. You repeatedly parrot “If he was harvesting organs then why…..” So you are actually saying “if this absolute unknown is true then why….” How can you look to prove something by using an unknown? Then again Trevor, you do have form for this (and on this topic) You don’t know how long the killer required in Mitre Square and you don’t know how long he actually had available and yet weirdly you claim that he couldn’t have had time…..using two unknowns!

Anyway, we have no reason to believe that he was ‘harvesting’ organs.

He may have been attempting cannibalism but either gave up on it or perhaps in Miller’s Court he just took a piece of unnamed flesh that he felt would be easier to eat.

He may have been taking organs for shock value (perhaps to sow the suggestion of cannibalism to the police and the public via The Press) But with the horror of the scene that he’d caused in Miller’s Court he might have decided that there was no need.

It might have been the case that after he’d finished in room 13 and after he’d cleaned himself that he heard someone in Miller’s Court (he might have heard more than one) If he was naturally concerned about being trapped in the room he may have looked out of the door to see if the coast was clear. As soon as he’d seen that it was clear he may have made a dash for it.

Or he simply didn’t think of removing a body part after a period of frenzy.

The problem is that you can’t assume to know why a serial killer did what he did unless he was caught and explained himself. What you are doing is inventing something so that you can use it to prove something else Trevor. You need to stop the “if the killer was harvesting…” point.

[Wickerman]

Some people thrive on exceptions and contradictions. We are clearly wrong to expect an ex officer of the law to appreciate the value of rational thinking.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You clearly and deliberately ignore the proven facts which I have listed and you go off topic to rant and rave about whether I am right or wrong you should spend more time analysing all the facts in greater detail and less time decrying my research.

It seems you cant handle the truth

I dont see any bald heads in the forum

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

There’s no point in this Trevor. Every single human being on the planet could tell you that you are wrong but you still wouldn’t accept it; or even consider the possibility. You never do Trevor. Whatever theory, suggestion, interpretation you come up with it’s your mindset that it must be right simply because you thought it. You never take in the opinion of others unless you find someone that agrees with you on a particular point. Most people faced with every single person telling them that they are wrong would pause and think “hold on, perhaps I’m wrong on this point?” But not you.

You have an inexhaustible supply of totally unwarranted self-confidence Trevor.

[Wickerman]

. . .

IMHO, which can only amount to speculation on my part, and by all concerned, is that Bond was stating that the heart had been removed from the pericardium from below, and was therefore absent from its usual location,in the pericardium. I don't believe that he was suggesting that it was absent from the room. JMO.

But George, the liver, uterus, kidneys & heart were all removed from their usual locations in the body, and yet only the heart was described as absent.

The liver, uterus & kidneys were all found in the room, so clearly 'absent' did not mean just from the body, it meant from the room.

[Trevor Marriott]

Your theory is a non-starter and always has been. Over on JtRForums, Howard Brown, Chris Phillips, Gary Barnett, Debra Arif, Paul Begg, Neil Bell, Wickerman…all pulling their hair out on this with you. Believe what you want Trevor. No one else does.

You clearly and deliberately ignore the proven facts which I have listed and you go off topic to rant and rave about whether I am right or wrong. You should spend more time analysing all the facts in greater detail and less time decrying my research.

Do you accept that Supt Arnold corroborates Reid, because this is very important?

Do you accept that DR Gabe also lists the location of the heart?

So now we have three people all saying the heart was found in the room

and if am right and Kelly was killed by the same killer as the other victims and that killer was supposed to have removed organs at the crime scenes. I have to ask why did he not take organs from Kelly when he had the opportunity to take many different organs from Kelly with no fear of detection. I think my theory of the organs being taken from the mortuary is even more plausible now

I dont see any bald heads in the forum

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Your theory is a non-starter and always has been. Over on JtRForums, Howard Brown, Chris Phillips, Gary Barnett, Debra Arif, Paul Begg, Neil Bell, Wickerman…all pulling their hair out on this with you. Believe what you want Trevor. No one else does.

You clearly and deliberately ignore the proven facts which I have listed and you go off topic to rant and rave about whether I am right or wrong you should spend more time analysing all the facts in greater detail and less time decrying my research.

It seems you cant handle the truth

I dont see any bald heads in the forum

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I am not interested in what Nick Connell wrote in his book, all I am interested in are the results of my examination and what the facts and evidence tell me

No, you pick and choose and get things wrong 99% of the time. It’s why no one ever agrees with you.

You say Reid is unreliable, then please explain how he manages to get everything right about the Kelly murder in that article?

He calls Bowyer “The Indian,” when he was known as “Indian Harry.”
He said that Bowyer found Mary’s body around 8.00 when it was early three hours later.
He said that McCarthy became a perfect madman after the murder yet he testified lucidly at the inquest.
He talks about Kelly’s window having a torn curtain.

The man didn’t even know what year Eddowes was murdered and it was only a month before Kelly!!

Apply the same criteria to Reid that you do to others - unreliable and unsafe to rely on.

But you cant accept or wont accept that there is corroboration of what Reid says in the article from another senior officer who attended the crime scene and there is no suggestion that he was confused because he gave the interview which was published 3 days after the murder.

If I were you I would pack up before you make a complete fool of yourself

Then why does everyone agree with me Trevor, and no one agrees with you?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Your theory is a non-starter and always has been. Over on JtRForums, Howard Brown, Chris Phillips, Gary Barnett, Debra Arif, Paul Begg, Neil Bell, Wickerman…all pulling their hair out on this with you. Believe what you want Trevor. No one else does.

[Trevor Marriott]

Nick Connell wrote a book on Reid:

"As in other interviews given by Reid on the Whitechapel murders, this contains glaring and obvious errors, including getting the year of the Mitre Square murder wrong, saying that Emma Smith was killed by one man when she had described three attackers, claiming that no body parts had been removed and saying that nobody saw a man with any of the victims on the nights they were killed are just a few examples.
...
It is perplexing to read the remarks of a police officer who had worked so closely on the Whitechapel murders investigation for so long, making numerous errors just a few years after the crimes had been committed. Yet on other occasions Reid was accurate, such as still being able to remember exactly how much weekly rent Mary Kelly had to pay. Disappointingly, Edmund Reid has not proved to be the most reliable source on the subject of the Whitechapel murders.


But hold on……Trevor takes his word as gospel…….why……clearly because it suits him to do so. He’s doing what he always does…applies different standards to different people…..the people who don’t favour his arguments are unreliable….those that might favour are paragons of rectitude.

Its an ongoing joke.

I am not interested in what Nick Connell wrote in his book, all I am interested in are the results of my examination and what the facts and evidence tell me

You say Reid is unreliable, then please explain how he manages to get everything right about the Kelly murder in that article?

But you cant accept or wont accept that there is corroboration of what Reid says in the article from another senior officer who attended the crime scene and there is no suggestion that he was confused because he gave the interview which was published 3 days after the murder.

If I were you I would pack up before you make a complete fool of yourself

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Patrick Differ]

Nick Connell wrote a book on Reid:

"As in other interviews given by Reid on the Whitechapel murders, this contains glaring and obvious errors, including getting the year of the Mitre Square murder wrong, saying that Emma Smith was killed by one man when she had described three attackers, claiming that no body parts had been removed and saying that nobody saw a man with any of the victims on the nights they were killed are just a few examples.
...
It is perplexing to read the remarks of a police officer who had worked so closely on the Whitechapel murders investigation for so long, making numerous errors just a few years after the crimes had been committed. Yet on other occasions Reid was accurate, such as still being able to remember exactly how much weekly rent Mary Kelly had to pay. Disappointingly, Edmund Reid has not proved to be the most reliable source on the subject of the Whitechapel murders.


But hold on……Trevor takes his word as gospel…….why……clearly because it suits him to do so. He’s doing what he always does…applies different standards to different people…..the people who don’t favour his arguments are unreliable….those that might favour are paragons of rectitude.

Its an ongoing joke.

I personally think the Police at that time, especially detectives and inspectors had more on their plate then just the Whitechapel murders. Plus they were dealing with a new type of agressive Press. Reid strikes me as possibly just being overwhelmed. One story blends into another over time. Fiction becoming fact. Reid thought all Whitechapel murders were by the same hand. Is that far fetched, would he be in a position to know, was he too close to it, was he biased to Whitechapel day to day living? Were any of the Police reliable with the facts? The fact that they could not catch this killer eventhough they surged, went undercover, and had vigilantes says alot about the ability of the killer. All of these cops could not be that incompetent.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Nick Connell wrote a book on Reid:

"As in other interviews given by Reid on the Whitechapel murders, this contains glaring and obvious errors, including getting the year of the Mitre Square murder wrong, saying that Emma Smith was killed by one man when she had described three attackers, claiming that no body parts had been removed and saying that nobody saw a man with any of the victims on the nights they were killed are just a few examples.
...
It is perplexing to read the remarks of a police officer who had worked so closely on the Whitechapel murders investigation for so long, making numerous errors just a few years after the crimes had been committed. Yet on other occasions Reid was accurate, such as still being able to remember exactly how much weekly rent Mary Kelly had to pay. Disappointingly, Edmund Reid has not proved to be the most reliable source on the subject of the Whitechapel murders.


But hold on……Trevor takes his word as gospel…….why……clearly because it suits him to do so. He’s doing what he always does…applies different standards to different people…..the people who don’t favour his arguments are unreliable….those that might favour are paragons of rectitude.

Its an ongoing joke.