The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes.

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

Trevor Marriott's theory is completely baseless.

Very much like your posts

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Steve

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?

What evidence is there to show that they were so damaged and were of no use in medical research. I am sure way back then any organ damaged or otherwise would have had some use in medical research

2. Was there any research being carried out on these organs at the time in London?

I am sure there was medical research being carried out into all the organs in the body in Victorian times. So pray tell if you can show that was not the case

Steve

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[etenguy]

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.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

On the contrary, I think exploring your theory has been most helpful in making the events of that night a little clearer.

It now seems to me that the murderer was intent on communicating with the authorities, and after all the hoax letters wanted to authenticate his communications. The apron was used for the GSG and the kidney for the Lusk letter. It shows a consistency of approach and might also explain why he committed a double murder that night when he couldn't get what he needed from poor Elizabeth Stride. It was a risky endeavour given the police presence and his knowledge that the first victim that night had been found.

By exploring a possible alternative explanation and being able to discount it, that has helped me to focus on what is known, make connections across the different aspects of that night's events and provide a reason for the second murder beyond the simple assumption he was satisfying a blood lust. It has helped cement, in my mind at least, that the GSG and Lusk letter are authentic.

Thank you, Trevor.

[Elamarna]

What evidence is there to show that they were so damaged and were of no use in medical research. I am sure way back then any organ damaged or otherwise would have had some use in medical research

The fact that you ask shows the limited understanding of medical research.
"Some use"? Clearly you demonstrate no knowledge of the subject.

I am sure there was medical research being carried out into all the organs in the body in Victorian times. So pray tell if you can show that was not the case

And once again Trevor if you propose a theory, the Onus is on YOU to provide supporting data, not on others to provide data to disprove the unsupported ideas you propose.

If your theory is to stand up to any serious scrutiny YOU need to show what type of research the organs would be used for, and the published papers which would have resulted from such research.

Steve

[DJA]

Steve


www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You are correct for once Trevor.

[Wickerman]

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.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It is the evidence that gets "us" to where we are, as opposed to your vivid imagination that gets you to where you are.

When have you ever known a body to be so rifled for organs at the mortuary, at the beginning of a murder inquiry, even before the inquest has sat?

C'mon, as an ex-policeman, offer some evidence of how often this happens, if ever.

[harry]

There is very little proven, would be my reading of the evidence.Mostly it comes down to belief.Did Long find the apon piece where he claimed to have done?Was Eddowes wearing an apron when she was killed?,plus a whole lot more.The writing can never be proven to have been written by Eddowes killer,untill other factors have been proven.Till then,one person's belief is as good as another's.Including Trevor's.

[DJA]

Yeah,nah.

[Wickerman]

Testimony delivered in a court is taken at face value, it is not required to be proven before being given.
There is ample testimony in favor of Eddowes wearing an apron, and that this apron was presented in court in two pieces.

All suggestions to the contrary are mere fantasy.

The idea that her organs were not removed before her body arrived at the mortuary is again, mere fantasy.

Not a shred of testimony exists in support of either of these claims which in all truth should be assigned to a work of fiction.

[Trevor Marriott]

Testimony delivered in a court is taken at face value, it is not required to be proven before being given.

But it has to be proved or disproved when given

There is ample testimony in favor of Eddowes wearing an apron, and that this apron was presented in court in two pieces.

Two pieces were presented but there is no evidence that they made up a full apron.

All suggestions to the contrary are mere fantasy.
The idea that her organs were not removed before her body arrived at the mortuary is again, mere fantasy.

On a par with most of what you post then?

Not a shred of testimony exists in support of either of these claims which in all truth should be assigned to a work of fiction.

If there was testimony then the old accepted theory about the killer removing the organs would have been eliminated a long time ago,and these are in any event based in the case of the organs nothing more than inferences.

The doctors did not carry out an examination at the crime scene to determine if any organs had been taken.

So look at the overall picture surrounding all of the murders and what did, or did not happen to the bodies, and what was done to the bodies by their respective killers. You are left with two victims that were taken to two different mortuaries. There bodies were left for 12 hours before the postmortems were carried out and organs were found to be missing. There is medical evidence which shows that two different methods were used to enter the abdominal cavities of both victims.

These were the only two victims where organs were found to be missing od for that matter any attempts made to remove organs from any of the other victims.

Now if you dont think all of those put together raises a doubt, then you really do need a reality check

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

It is the evidence that gets "us" to where we are, as opposed to your vivid imagination that gets you to where you are.

When have you ever known a body to be so rifled for organs at the mortuary, at the beginning of a murder inquiry, even before the inquest has sat?

C'mon, as an ex-policeman, offer some evidence of how often this happens, if ever.

Yes I accept that the bodies if tampered with should not have been but we simply dont know what went on during that 12 hour window, and what goes on in today's world is totally different to what went on 129 years ago.

Bona fide medical personnel would attend mortuaries on a daily basis seeking out organs and in some cases cadavers for medical research. That includes medical students so if you want to expand why not suggest that the organs from Eddowes were removed by medical student and then the kidney was sent to Lusk as a hoax. After all the symptoms of Eddowes were in line with symptoms of the kidney.

The Lusk letter is 100% a hoax read it carefully and you can see why it is a hoax and probably sent by a medical student or someone with medical knowledge.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

You are correct for once Trevor.

Dave are you seriously suggesting damaged organ can or would be of use in valid research? If so a source please, for instance a research paper from say 1880-1900 stating such were used and the research they were used for, just to be clear I am talking of the uterus.

Or are you saying there were studies of say the kidney going on at the time, maybe linked to a Doctor working nearby?


Best wishes

Steve

[harry]

Where is this taken at face value,in a court of law in England,practised?.Any testimony can be tested and questioned as to it's accuracy,and except in very rare circumstances,considered accepted or rejected depending on the amount of supporting fact.
Long's testimony is not supported,and today is questioned as to it's accuracy.Dr Brown's evidence,as we have it,is the result of another person's reading and translating of notes made by Brown.A summary that cannot,it seems,be compared to the original notes.So much for face value.

[Elamarna]

Where is this taken at face value,in a court of law in England,practised?.Any testimony can be tested and questioned as to it's accuracy,and except in very rare circumstances,considered accepted or rejected depending on the amount of supporting fact.
Long's testimony is not supported,and today is questioned as to it's accuracy.Dr Brown's evidence,as we have it,is the result of another person's reading and translating of notes made by Brown.A summary that cannot,it seems,be compared to the original notes.So much for face value.

I am somewhat confused Harry, Brown gave his testimony at the inquest, the original of which still survives, it was not read and translated other than bu us.


Steve

[Elamarna]

Yeah,nah.

Dave your the Sutton expert on here, was he still actively carting out research on the kidney in 88? His main work was in 72 was it not.

Steve