The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Pierre]

And, of course, you haven't a shred of evidence to support this argument. But then many contributors to this subject don't think they need anything as banal as actual evidence to support their arguments.

Oh dear, oh dear.

Dear John,

It is not my case to say who was the killer in 1888-1889.

Evidence must be allowed to speak for itself.

I will never accuse dead people.

Evidence is all there is. It is all I have. I have no right to protect old sources.

Pierre

[John G]

Dear John,

It is not my case to say who was the killer in 1888-1889.

Evidence must be allowed to speak for itself.

I will never accuse dead people.

Evidence is all there is. It is all I have. I have no right to protect old sources.

Pierre

Except since you started posting-several years ago now-you haven't actually posted any evidence in support of your theory. Have you?

And, ultimately, it's not "evidence" that counts; it's how one interprets the evidence.

[Pierre]

QUOTE=John G;430121

Except since you started posting-several years ago now

In fact I started posting two years ago, John.

it's not "evidence" that counts; it's how one interprets the evidence.

The sources are in some cases more important than the interpretations.

Pierre

[John G]

QUOTE=John G;430121



In fact I started posting two years ago, John.



The sources are in some cases more important than the interpretations.

Pierre

Sources are essentially irrelevant without our interpretations.

[Pierre]

Sources are essentially irrelevant without our interpretations.

The source quoted here must be interpreted as essentially irrelevant.

[Wickerman]

The fact that you "APPARENTLY" do not understand what is very clear, makes your continual misinterpretations understandable.

Steve

I find it astonishing to hear a Brit claim that you cannot use "apparently" in a sentence when you are certain of what you are talking about.
Perhaps someone needs to remind Mr Marriott of the Great British Understatement....

https://notesfromtheuk.com/2017/01/20/british-understatement/

[Wickerman]

Note the matching of the two pieces was done via the seams of the borders so that means the two pieces must have come from the same side of the apron. Do you not think that is strange, if she was wearing an apron?

The last time I looked an apron had a border all around, that border is stitched, this stitching is the seam.
All that line says to me is the cut began at one side of the apron and extended across to the opposite side. From border to border.

.... and if that be so would still have been attached to the body and would have been recorded as her wearing it.

It was recorded, but not as a piece of apron, it was designated as a handkerchief, in this case meaning a headcovering. Likely due to it being tied around the neck.

[Wickerman]

No he didnt say that in his testimony he uses the words "apparently wearing"

this without a doubt throws a spanner in the works because as i have said before why wasnt he asked "Officer either she was or she wasnt which is it?"

Dr Brown said:
"Some blood and apparently faecal matter was found on the portion that was found in Goulston Street."

Do you really think Dr Brown was not sure what faecal matter looks & smells like?

[harry]

So there were three pieces of apron,Jon?The piece found on her body,the piece noted by Collard among her possessions.The Handkerchief around her neck,which wasn't a handkerchief but a piece of apron.
Sorry,four pieces,I forgot the piece Long found.Any advances on four pieces anyone?
Now which piece was brought to the attention of Brown?Not the piece on the body,because the body was nude.
Plus it isn't Brown's notes that survived as evidence,but notes made of Brown's evidence,which as notes seem to contain an extraordinary amount of detail.Perhaps Brown was a very sloe speaker.

[Wickerman]

Well it depends on which scenario you want to believe, which fits in with what you believe happened.

A different killer is quite probable. Someone who knew that the abdomens were ripped open on the other victims and that in some case the intestines were apparently drawn out. Someone who perhaps had a motive for killing Kelly and wanted to make it look like the same killer who had killed the other victims?

In an earlier post, on another thread, you were explaining your theory, and you happened to mention the intestines being "drawn out" in the cases of Chapman & Eddowes.

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=350865&postcount=874

There is no uncertainty as to whether those intestines were removed. Both doctors involved in those respected cases described as much. They saw with their own eyes the intestines removed from the bodies. They reported what they saw, it is not open to dispute.
So, when you wrote the sentence above (quoted) you had no reasonable doubt whether the intestines were removed.
Yet, you chose to use "apparently", which tells me you clearly understand it's usage, yet you pretend not to.

The intestines were certainly drawn out.
Dr. Brown's "Apparently wearing" is exactly the same, and you know it.

[Trevor Marriott]

In an earlier post, on another thread, you were explaining your theory, and you happened to mention the intestines being "drawn out" in the cases of Chapman & Eddowes.

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=350865&postcount=874

There is no uncertainty as to whether those intestines were removed. Both doctors involved in those respected cases described as much. They saw with their own eyes the intestines removed from the bodies. They reported what they saw, it is not open to dispute.
So, when you wrote the sentence above (quoted) you had no reasonable doubt whether the intestines were removed.
Yet, you chose to use "apparently", which tells me you clearly understand it's usage, yet you pretend not to.

The intestines were certainly drawn out.
Dr. Brown's "Apparently wearing" is exactly the same, and you know it.

Rip someones abdomen open and the intestines will spill out in any event.

The previous point I was making was that the organs that were later found to be missing, were not found to be missing until the post mortem.

On a medical note if someone wanted to remove a uterus they would not need to take out the intestines. If someone wanted to remove a kidney the modern day method is to enter the body from the back. Entering from the front makes it a more difficult procedure.

The left kidney is also the more difficult of the two kidneys to remove because of what organs are located around it.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

Rip someones abdomen open and the intestines will spill out in any event.

Not to the extent where they levitate out of the body and flop down over the victims' shoulders.

On a medical note if someone wanted to remove a uterus they would not need to take out the intestines.

Just goes to show how inexpert and/or pressed for time the "hysterectomist" must have been.

The left kidney is also the more difficult of the two kidneys to remove because of what organs are located around it.

And a right mess the "nephrectomist" made of the job, too; there was plenty of collateral damage to the structures around said kidney.

By the way, if this was the work of an organ-harvesting mortuary attendant, why didn't they also take the easier-to-remove right kidney while they had the opportunity?

[Trevor Marriott]

Not to the extent where they levitate out of the body and flop down over the victims' shoulders.Just goes to show how inexpert and/or pressed for time the "hysterectomist" must have been.
And a right mess the "nephrectomist" made of the job, too; there was plenty of collateral damage to the structures around said kidney.

By the way, if this was the work of an organ-harvesting mortuary attendant, why didn't they also take the easier-to-remove right kidney while they had the opportunity?

So if the killer removed the kidney, why didn't he take the easy one if he knew what he was looking for ? Because you dont just rip open an abdomen put you hand in and say to yourself "Oh whats this" and decide to cut it out, when the heart was probably a more easy option to locate in any event.

And if the same killer had murdered Chapman why on earth would he want another uterus, when he already had one? and while on the subject of the uterus. In the case of Chapman the uterus with the fallopian tubes were attached was removed. That was not the case with Eddowes. So there are two major issues which either point to two different killers, or two different persons who removed the organs at the mortuaries using different methods to enter the abdomen.

The damage you referred to could have been caused by an inexperienced anatomist or medical student working in haste at the mortuary, who perhaps may have not known one kidney was more difficult to extract than the other. The arguments have a double edge.

The other point to bear in mind is time wise, the more difficult the organ to locate, and remove the more time used up, and we know that time is of the utmost importance in determining if the killer had time to actually take the organs or not.

You need to forget the organ harvesting by a mortuary attendant. I would suggest a mortuary attendant would not have enough, if any medical knowledge to be able to do that, Robert Mann is testimony to that he was mortuary attendant at Chapmans mortuary. He could hardly string two words together.

You know also that bona fide medical people were allowed to go to mortuaries and lawfully obtain organs for medical research on a daily basis

Now I accept that the bodies of Chapman and Eddowes should not have been tampered with before the post mortem. But we know there was almost a 12 hour window when both the bodies were left at the mortuaries, and so we have know idea what happened during that 12 hour window.

We also know that Chapmans body was left outside for some considerable time, and we also know that during that 12 hour window her body was in fact tampered with.

Now there may, or may not have been a police officer standing guard, but what was his job. Not to keep all and sundry out, but to keep out the press and members of the public. The mortuaries did not shut their doors, the normal everyday working of the mortuary still continued with medical persons going back and forth.

If I am right then this would explain the degree of medical precision seen when the post postmortems were carried out.

It might also explain that the Lusk kidney was actually taken from Eddowes taken by a medical student at the mortuary.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

So if the killer removed the kidney, why didn't he take the easy one if he knew what he was looking for ?

Because, for someone working on the right hand side of the body, it would be easier to work on the left kidney as the arms would be naturally and comfortably extended. Attempting to remove the right kidney would require the "operator" to lean over the abdominal cavity, with both arms pointing back towards the body of the person conducting the "operation". This uncomfortable position would have been made even more tricky, if not downright hazardous, considering that the "operator" would also have been wielding a very sharp blade.

For comfortable access to the right kidney, he would have to have positioned himself on the opposite side of the body. This would not have been feasible in Mitre Square given the position of the body, and the close proximity of Eddowes' left flank to the wall of the building in front of which she was found.

At the mortuary, however, there would have been easy access to both sides of the body, allowing both kidneys to be much more easily, and cleanly, removed. The very fact that this did not happen is yet another strong indicator that the organs were taken out at at Mitre Square.

[Sam Flynn]

And if the same killer had murdered Chapman why on earth would he want another uterus, when he already had one?

Why did Fred West keep the toe-bones of more than one of his victims? Why did Ed Gein collect so many human nipples that he could make a belt out of them?

while on the subject of the uterus. In the case of Chapman the uterus with the fallopian tubes were attached was removed. That was not the case with Eddowes. So there are two major issues which either point to two different killers, or two different persons who removed the organs at the mortuaries using different methods to enter the abdomen.

Or a killer who was improvising as he went along, and enjoyed greater or lesser "success" in removing what he wanted.

I would suggest a mortuary attendant would not have enough, if any medical knowledge to be able to do that...

"There was a cut from the upper part of the slit on the under surface of the liver to the left side, and another cut at right angles to this, which were about an inch and a half deep and two and a half inches long... The pancreas was cut, but not through, on the left side of the spinal column. Three and a half inches of the lower border of the spleen by half an inch was attached only to the peritoneum... The womb was cut through horizontally, leaving a stump of three quarters of an inch. The rest of the womb had been taken away with some of the ligaments." (Dr Brown)

I don't see much precision there.

It might also explain that the Lusk kidney was actually taken from Eddowes taken by a medical student at the mortuary.

It's possible, but we don't really know that it was a med student, or that he took it from a mortuary. Indeed, it's still reasonably possible that it was a pig's kidney.