The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Trevor Marriott]

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

Well the doctors at the time did

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.

Yes but all those killers you mentioned had time to do what they did our killer did not have loads of time.

Those cuts you mentioned were likely as not caused by the stab wounds

Dr Brown "The liver was stabbed as if by the point of a sharp instrument"

"There was a stab of about an inch on the left groin.

"And the left kidney carefeully taken out"

So we have a killer who kills Eddowes in a frenzied attack, and then in the heat of the moment composes himself to be able to remove a kidney carefully in almost total darkness, along with a uterus"

On the subject of pigs if you think he was able to do all of this as has been suggested, then pigs really can fly !!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

Yes but all those killers you mentioned had time to do what they did our killer did not have loads of time

Please go back and read your own question, which was fully answered by my Gein/West examples.

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;430173]Rip someones abdomen open and the intestines will spill out in any event.


Not a certainty that will happen Trevor.

From your own work Dr Biggs


"A. Intestines can and do spill out of abdominal wounds, but under ‘normal’ circumstances (i.e. an open abdomen in a person lying on their back) there is no reason for them necessarily to exit the abdominal cavity. It is possible for the intestines to stay more or less in their original position within the abdomen, and for organs to be whipped out from under / over / around them."

I see no evidence presented to counter the statement, hence your Post is inaccurate.

Steve

[Bridewell]

True, but never underestimate the capacity of colloquial speech to use one or two more words than it really needs. Take this from the Morning Advertiser report of the Mary Kelly inquest:

Joseph Barnett was the first witness called. When the Testament was handed to him he at once kissed it, and on being checked by the officer he said, "Oh, well, I don't know nothing about such things."

Now that's interesting. Why did he choose to kiss the Holy Book?

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/kissing-holy-objects

[Elamarna]

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.
medical student at the mortuary.

TREVOR

The heart would not even be visable from the position of the killer, it would require the diaphragm to be cut.

To remove the heart would show ever incredible luck or anatomical knowledge.

Your comment is without validity.

Steve

[Elamarna]

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.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor, we know that in the case of Nichols when the body was left unattended, after Llewellyn's examination of the abdomenial wounds, that the mortuary was locked.

For your version of events to be considered we therefore have two options.

A. The attendants allowed body parts to be removed and did not report such. There are NO sources or evidence to support this, to suggest such is simply fiction, unless you can supply evidence.


B. The doors were left unlocked when NO one was in attendance, again unsupported.


The idea fails to even make it to the stage of hypothesis.



Steve

[Bridewell]

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.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor, of course that's when they were 'found to be missing'! It doesn't mean that they weren't already missing though, does it - or were you expecting someone to have compiled an inventory of what was and was not missing at an earlier stage?

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;430188]

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


Not a certainty that will happen Trevor.

From your own work Dr Biggs


"A. Intestines can and do spill out of abdominal wounds, but under ‘normal’ circumstances (i.e. an open abdomen in a person lying on their back) there is no reason for them necessarily to exit the abdominal cavity. It is possible for the intestines to stay more or less in their original position within the abdomen, and for organs to be whipped out from under / over / around them."

I see no evidence presented to counter the statement, hence your Post is inaccurate.

Steve

Well look what we have here evidence in picture form.

Yet again i have to prove you wrong, and this pic shows the result of a small abdominal wound in a murder victim nothing as severe as in Chapman and Eddowes. So with that in mind just how far would it have been possible for the intestines to recoil outwards and upwards give their abdomen openings.

You see medical experts can be proved wrong.

If you look at the wound on this victim and then look at where the abdominal openings on Eddowes and Chapman went up to it is entirely possible that is how the organs finished up where they did and not by the killer placing them there.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;430193]

Well look what we have here evidence in picture form.

Yet again i have to prove you wrong, and this pic shows the result of a small abdominal wound in a murder victim nothing as severe as in Chapman and Eddowes. So with that in mind just how far would it have been possible for the intestines to recoil outwards and upwards give their abdomen openings.

You see medical experts can be proved wrong.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Nowhere near the shoulder, I see.

[Elamarna]

Well look what we have here evidence in picture form.

Yet again i have to prove you wrong, and this pic shows the result of a small abdominal wound in a murder victim nothing as severe as in Chapman and Eddowes. So with that in mind just how far would it have been possible for the intestines to recoil outwards and upwards give their abdomen openings.

Afraid you don't.

1. This is probably a mortuary photo not a scene of crime photo and thus movement has taken place.

2. No one me nor Briggs is denying it is possible, just that it need not be, and probably does not happen In most cases.

You see medical experts can be proved wrong.

See point two above. It does no such thing, however it does demonstrate a NEED to appear to be correct.

If you look at the wound on this victim and then look at where the abdominal openings on Eddowes and Chapman went up to it is entirely possible that is how the organs finished up where they did and not by the killer placing them there.

I would suggest those organs have been placed there before the photo, the positioning is quite unnatural. When one looks at thee wound it seems clear the intestines have been pulled and not spilled out..

And here we have classic Mr Marriott Cherry picking, accept Biggs when it suits your argument, discard when does not.

You know the silly thing Trevor? Neither of us beleive the GSG was the work of the killer.

And yet you argue on and on with no hope of winning the debate.

Steve

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Sam Flynn;430194]

Nowhere near the shoulder, I see.

Well of course not.

Placed in a nice mound on the body.

And no reference to who? Or where?

It seems some do not learn the sources without references are of little use.


Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;430198]

Well of course not.

Placed in a nice mound on the body.

And no reference to who? Or where?

It seems some do not learn the sources without references are of little use.


Steve

But one pic is worth a thousand words

For your info the pic is to be found in a German book titled "Der sexualverbrecker" written by Dr Erich Wulfen it was published in 1910.
which I have for sale at £25.00 lots of interesting crime scene photos, https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Wulffen

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Afraid you don't.

1. This is probably a mortuary photo not a scene of crime photo and thus movement has taken place.

2. No one me nor Briggs is denying it is possible, just that it need not be, and probably does not happen In most cases.



See point two above. It does no such thing, however it does demonstrate a NEED to appear to be correct.

I would suggest those organs have been placed there before the photo, the positioning is quite unnatural. When one looks at thee wound it seems clear the intestines have been pulled and not spilled out..

So you are now a medical expert now ?

And here we have classic Mr Marriott Cherry picking, accept Biggs when it suits your argument, discard when does not.

Even expert testimony is there to be challenged and that photo does just that.

You know the silly thing Trevor? Neither of us beleive the GSG was the work of the killer.

You are correct about that

And yet you argue on and on with no hope of winning the debate.

Who votes in the debate, a handful of naysayers from here, against the general public who have no hidden agendas.

Steve

The victim in the photo can be clearly seen lying on a bed not a mortuary table.

To explain Dr Biggs comments I might suggest he was referring to bodies that had perhaps been stabbed through their outer clothing. In which case the clothing would prevent recoil.

Even expert testimony is there to be challenged and that photo does just that.

[DirectorDave]

No, for me.

I think the simplest explanation is that the killer tossed the apron aside and the GSG was already there.

There were many other, perhaps easier methods to leave a message, MJK's room for one.

I'm about 80% No ~ 20% Yes.

[Elamarna]

The victim in the photo can be clearly seen lying on a bed not a mortuary table.

To explain Dr Biggs comments I might suggest he was referring to bodies that had perhaps been stabbed through their outer clothing. In which case the clothing would prevent recoil.

Even expert testimony is there to be challenged and that photo does just that.

It is not obviously a bed, however if you provide supporting info that it is I am happy to accept such. That of course does not prove it has been placed in Position.


Dr Biggs does not say that. Shame on you for such a weak rebuttal.

Steve