The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Trevor Marriott]

No problem for Trevor, Mike.

He proposes that the Killer did not remove organs, that this was done at the mortuary for a trade in organs he proposes for research purposes. However he is unable to provide ANY support for this other than his argument it was too dark and there was too little time to do it on site. It's one of his new (actually old now) theories. In his own words it fails to stand up to serious scrutiny.
Steve

If you are going to quote me please get it right. It is the old theory that I suggest doesn't stand up to close scrutiny not mine ! I am happy with what I have put forward in support.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Joshua Rogan]

Dr Brown made two statements concerning the blood,which appear interesting.
(1) There was no blood on the front of the clothes.
(2) I should not expect much blood to have been found on the person who had inflickted these wounds.
So why the need for a large piece of apron to wipe away blood?Why did Brown later declare there was blood on the piece of apron matched to the piece found by Long?

Although Brown didn't expect "much blood" on the murderer, we know from PC Watkins' comments in the Star 1st Oct that his hands at least were bloody;

"There was perhaps a quart of blood on the stones, but there were no footprints or finger marks, except where the woman's chemise had been caught hold of"

[Elamarna]

If you are going to quote me please get it right. It is the old theory that I suggest doesn't stand up to close scrutiny not mine ! I am happy with what I have put forward in support.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Where have I misquoted you Trevor?
It's now an old theory given you have been suggesting it for some time.

No the old theory stands up well.

The "support" used is the views of 4 medically trained Persons and a Master Butcher.

I covered this in detail on the "Secret Police Files" thread, post 97.

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=403969&postcount=97

Not wishing to go over it all again, but to sum up:

2 medically trained Persons, Harrison and Calder said they did not think it could be done in the lighting they assumed or according to Harrison with the knife he assumed.

The other two Neale and Biggs, disagree and say it is possible, and further Biggs say the size of knife CANNOT be determined.

The Butcher is asked if he could do it in “almost total darkness” which of course is a leading question.

The Question of what light was avaible is indeed interesting.
The ONLY primary source on this is George William Sequeira who says while it was dark there was enough light to work by. Dr Brown does not disagree or contradict him.

Overall 5 experts 2 saying possible, 3 not, but those nots are at least partially based on assumptions or information on the lighting which is subjective and certainly not definitive.
Therefore the theory is only supported by the Belief there was not enough time or light; not by actual factual information.

So I really fail to see how I am misquoting You. Indeed I admire the variety and number of experts used.


Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

Where have I misquoted you Trevor?
It's now an old theory given you have been suggesting it for some time.

No the old theory stands up well.

The "support" used is the views of 4 medically trained Persons and a Master Butcher.

I covered this in detail on the "Secret Police Files" thread, post 97.

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=403969&postcount=97

Not wishing to go over it all again, but to sum up:

2 medically trained Persons, Harrison and Calder said they did not think it could be done in the lighting they assumed or according to Harrison with the knife he assumed.

The other two Neale and Biggs, disagree and say it is possible, and further Biggs say the size of knife CANNOT be determined.

The Butcher is asked if he could do it in “almost total darkness” which of course is a leading question.

The Question of what light was avaible is indeed interesting.
The ONLY primary source on this is George William Sequeira who says while it was dark there was enough light to work by. Dr Brown does not disagree or contradict him.

Overall 5 experts 2 saying possible, 3 not, but those nots are at least partially based on assumptions or information on the lighting which is subjective and certainly not definitive.
Therefore the theory is only supported by the Belief there was not enough time or light; not by actual factual information.

So I really fail to see how I am misquoting You. Indeed I admire the variety and number of experts used.


Steve

Where there are doubts there is always hope !!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[etenguy]

Where there are doubts there is always hope !!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Ah, I assume this is the evidence that blows the 'organs were carried away' theory out of the water. If it is, it is far from convincing.

Experts disagree, no surprise there. So, some say the organ removal was possible, others say not (but based on unsupported assumptions contrary to other evidence which is available).

The expert with the best knowledge of the light available, George William Sequeira, was clear there was sufficient light. Also, we do not know the type and dimensions of knife that was used, so assumptions made about this are speculative.

Clearly then, it was possible to remove the organs at the site. It does not follow that simply because it was possible, that is what happened.

The alternative postulated, that the organs were removed and sold to researchers at the mortuary, stretches credulity. This was a victim of the country's most wanted man and it was the height of ripper fever.

[Trevor Marriott]

Ah, I assume this is the evidence that blows the 'organs were carried away' theory out of the water. If it is, it is far from convincing.

Experts disagree, no surprise there. So, some say the organ removal was possible, others say not (but based on unsupported assumptions contrary to other evidence which is available).

The expert with the best knowledge of the light available, George William Sequeira, was clear there was sufficient light. Also, we do not know the type and dimensions of knife that was used, so assumptions made about this are speculative.

Clearly then, it was possible to remove the organs at the site. It does not follow that simply because it was possible, that is what happened.

The alternative postulated, that the organs were removed and sold to researchers at the mortuary, stretches credulity. This was a victim of the country's most wanted man and it was the height of ripper fever.

The anatomy act allowed bona five medical personnel to freely obtain organs from mortuaries for medical research. So there is no suggestion that they were sold to researchers.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

The anatomy act allowed bona five medical personnel to freely obtain organs from mortuaries for medical research. So there is no suggestion that they were sold to researchers.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

There are of course major issues with the idea of these organs being given away for what is just called by generic term "medical research".


1. What sort of research could/would be carried out on damaged organs?
2. Was there any research being carried out on these organs at the time in London?
3. Once preserved or treated they are of no use to actual research and damaged organs are of little use in teaching.


Steve

[Kattrup]

The anatomy act allowed bona five medical personnel to freely obtain organs from mortuaries for medical research. So there is no suggestion that they were sold to researchers.

if it was legal to take them, does your theory explain why these medical personnel did not afterwards inform anyone that they had taken organs?

I mean, supposedly they would have heard about the idea that the killer took them, right? Inquests, media coverage etc.

Since according to you it was legal to take the organs, there would have been no consequences for them.
Yet they let the police and others chase a false theory - until now!

Why do you think that is?

[etenguy]

The anatomy act allowed bona five medical personnel to freely obtain organs from mortuaries for medical research. So there is no suggestion that they were sold to researchers.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

If the organs had been taken through an official programme, we would know either
a) from records
b) from researchers when they realised the police thought the murderer had taken them.

The only conclusion I could therefore draw is that you proposed illicit sale of the organs. If you suggest it was through the official process, then the theory becomes less credible.

[Pierre]

Well,not really.

Do you suggest neither would have been found later that morning!

"Would have been found" did not happen.

It was found. That happened.

This is a well established historical fact.

Pierre

[Pierre]

The anatomy act allowed bona five medical personnel to freely obtain organs from mortuaries for medical research. So there is no suggestion that they were sold to researchers.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So Trevor,

could they have taken organs?

Would they have taken organs?

Did they take organs?

Where are we here:

Are we with the Couldhaves, the Wouldhaves or perhaps with the If:s?

Or did it happen?

Pierre

[Herlock Sholmes]

No problem for Trevor, Mike.

He proposes that the Killer did not remove organs, that this was done at the mortuary for a trade in organs he proposes for research purposes. However he is unable to provide ANY support for this other than his argument it was too dark and there was too little time to do it on site. It's one of his new (actually old now) theories. In his own words it fails to stand up to serious scrutiny.

Steve

Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification Steve. I smell a conspiracy

[Herlock Sholmes]

Am I setting my hopes too high in asking if there's any evidence for this?

Obviously this couldn't have been 'above board' as Etenguy has mentioned because when it was being suggested that the kidney came from Eddowes someone would have said ' well, actually it can't be because...'

Alternatively was there much of a trade in organs between otherwise reputable doctors? Burke and Hare were long gone after all!

[Kattrup]

Am I setting my hopes too high in asking if there's any evidence for this?

Yes.

There's no evidence at all, no source material, nothing.

Trevor Marriott's theory is completely baseless.

[Trevor Marriott]

So Trevor,

could they have taken organs?

Would they have taken organs?

Did they take organs?

Where are we here:

Are we with the Couldhaves, the Wouldhaves or perhaps with the If:s?

Or did it happen?

Pierre

Well someone took them, on that we are all agreed, but who took them, and when they were taken is another matter, and is not as clear cut as perhaps you and other have been led to believe.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk