The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Varqm]

Apron used to carry organs....

The killer,most likely,did not came upon the victim accidentally,he was looking for a victim.Don't you think he came prepared,something easy to put the organs into or wrap with and bring home instead of going through the victim's dress and cutting?He must have gained experience from Chapman.This is more likely.

[Wickerman]

Apron used to carry organs....

The killer,most likely,did not came upon the victim accidentally,he was looking for a victim.Don't you think he came prepared,something easy to put the organs into or wrap with and bring home instead of going through the victim's dress and cutting?He must have gained experience from Chapman.This is more likely.

Assuming he came prepared, as you say, then we might also assume he brought something to wipe his hands on.
So what was the point of the piece of cut apron?

[harry]

Joshua,
I obviously have been reading the papers,plus many other sources of information.In addition ivé read overseas papers,and one thing is obvious,they could not all have had reporters at the inquest.In fact,only if one could prove a certain reporter from a particular paper was present,could one speak from a position of certainty when quoting papers.
Now answer this.Did Long do the correct thing in taking the cloth to a police station.It has been pointed out there was another officer present before Long departed,so if Long did know and was acting under the knowledge of Eddowes murder,wasn't it practice,even in 1888,to preserve the crime scene.To leave evidence as found? No other officer,in any of the other murders,removed evidence.Why Long?

[Wickerman]

Why do you think it was a crime scene?

[harry]

Didn't Long have that thought,but Jon,if evidence scene is more suitable,be my guest.

[DirectorDave]

Joshua,
I obviously have been reading the papers,plus many other sources of information.In addition ivé read overseas papers,and one thing is obvious,they could not all have had reporters at the inquest.In fact,only if one could prove a certain reporter from a particular paper was present,could one speak from a position of certainty when quoting papers.

That is correct, news distribution services like the Press Association, Reuters and our saucy friends the central news agency were around years before 1888, newspapers would get the story from them, the CNA were caught out a few times embellishing stories.

[Wickerman]

Didn't Long have that thought,but Jon,if evidence scene is more suitable,be my guest.

It strikes me as a good indication that Long had heard of a murder (as he claimed), and he thought this blood stained cloth might be related.
He did say there were rumors of a murder (Berner St.), and that he just heard of another (Mitre Sq) when he decided to take this cloth to the station.
He had already established that there had been no observable crime at the Goulston St. location.
Also, neither the Coroner nor anyone else (ie; Inspector) voiced concern about him taking away the cloth.

[Elamarna]

How petty can you get? Posts 1973/2014 were posted in good faith, the book referred to was a German book written in German. From what i was able to understand all the photos in the book were crime scene photos. The victims photo at first glance does not show the body laid out in a mortuary so an easy mistake. Which I rectified in a later post.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It's not petty, you presented something as fact when it was not, getting a translation took only a few minutes, however you did not bother before posting, and if you do not read Germany how can you hope to use the photo as evidence not knowing what the book says.
That was highly misleading and if not challenged by others that would still be presented as a crime scene photo. Indeed the first response to the translation appeared to be to contest it. It was only after several were posted that those were accepted.

Much the same as the Saga of the Eddowes stab off the body photo last year.

Steve

[Elamarna]

No-one has claimed a particular theory has been proven.
The theories we discuss are either consistent with the evidence, or they are not.

Yes but does it not occur to you that the evidence is ambiguous and at times flawed as has been pointed out to you and which you choose to ignore

The so called flaws have been looked at and the majority exist only to you, why is that one asks?
Could it be due to the need to push these “new ideas” as you so quaintly call them

You have not proved anything wrong.

I dont need to prove anything wrong. All I need to do is create a doubt

To achieve what precisely Trevor?
And just to say something is doubtful does not make it so, I refer you again to Erich Anton Paul von Daniken, he along with others of his kind take the very same approach.

Some points you do not like, and others you criticize, but this is not scrutiny, and it certainly doesn't constitute proof that what has gone before is wrong.
You just don't like it, thats all.

No I dont like it, because I can see the obvious flaws and the ambiguities. You have already been told by a medical expert the much of what the doctors stated as opinion or fact back then was nothing more than guesswork.

Yet you do not accept Biggs when he tells you the intestines are unlikely to fly out, or when he says the organs could have been removed in Mitre Square, its classic “Cherry Picking”, accept what fits the idea you have and reject what does not, that is not how history and science in general work.

Where does this "conclusive proof" idea come from?

Well if you readily accept the old theories without question its up to you or others to prove that all that has been written is the truth, and clearly that is not the case so you cant conclusively prove that the old accepted theories can be relied on beyond a reasonable doubt.

If one wishes to challenge accepted ideas the onus is on the challenger to defend the new view.

Again its the Ancient Aliens approach,: “you can’t prove how the pyramids were built, so alien help is probably”

Have you conclusively proven any part of your theory?

Yes I have proved that the organs were not taken away in the apron piece, as you suggest, and given plausible explanations as to why there would be no need for the killer to cut or tear a piece of her apron, to wipe his knife or his hands on.

You have not proven such at all, you have made a suggestion, that is all.
You cannot claim you have proven something just because you believe your view is correct, you need to well…. Actually prove it, with evidence. You have not!

Testimony stated the apron was produced "in two pieces".
When I went to school that usually meant two halves make a whole.

But where does it mention anywhere two halves you are making it up again

The same approach time after time, “you cant prove” and “it does not actually say it made a whole apron so it didn't”
That is not a scientific and unbiased approach, it is one of desperation to fit the sources to a specific argument.

There are a number of doubts within the existing theories, that doesn't mean they are wrong. Clearly, they cannot all be right, but the doubts are mainly due to missing information, not contradictory information.

No the doubts are caused by ambiguities, and flaws in the evidence and the conflicting newspaper reports, which seem to be held in high esteem by some on here

They are called sources Trevor, and to refuse to use them in preference to what appears to be some supernatural insight is utterly perposterous and somewhat comical.

One of your favorite whipping posts at present is the suggestion that the apron was cut off to carry away the organs.
This is consistent with the evidence - a piece of cloth that was bloodstained, which it was. It is also impractical for the killer to put wet organs in his pockets. So the suggestion is both logical and is consistent with the evidence.
You don't like it, I get that.

I have shown that the organs could not have been taken away in the apron piece, nothing more to say on that.

You have NOT shown THEY COULD NOT BE, you have given an argument that they may not have been.

Though speculating that those organs were removed at the mortuary does not create a parallel argument. It's a weak argument because it is entirely speculation, with no evidence to support it.

If it can be proved that the killer did not remove the organs from the body then there has to be another explanation because they were only found to be missing at the post mortem stage.

However you have not proved such, and are a great distance from making such a suggestion even plausabile.

Because someone 'might' have been able to get passed the constable on guard at the mortuary, does not mean they did.
(Does this constable say he let someone in?)

Does he say he let no one in?

The negative approach again, just because he does not say something specifically you cannot assume such happened. You need more than mere absence.

Because someone 'might' have had the time to remove them from the corpse, does not mean they did.
(Does the Constable say there were people inside while the doctors were absent?)

Does he say there were not, if did then we would want to know who those were, and what he did while they were inside.

See above, however in the Nichols case the Mortuary was locked when no one was in attendence so one needs to see if the same was the general rule.

Because someone 'might' have had a market for those organs, does not mean they had one.
(Any evidence such a market existed for those organs?)

There was no market I dont know why this term keeps being used. As I have stated dozens of times, bona fide medical personnel, Doctors, anatomists. medical student could lawfully obtain organs for medical research from mortuaries and in some case they could take the whole body.

Can you show such was allowed in the case of Murder Victims before PM, thus interfering with a murder inquiry?
And you have singularly failed to explain what these organs, some damaged would be used for?
I suspect this is because you have no idea, and just find the term Medical Research convenient to hide behind.

Because someone 'might' have had authorization to remove the organs prior to the autopsy, does not mean they did.

They could only obtain organs if there were bodies there to obtain them from

Most specimens for Medical research would be supplied by the institution the researcher was attached to, you seem to see them rushing to the Mortuary every time there was a murder, its the stuff of fiction Trevor!

(Any note, report, suggestion, or even a clue in writing that medical people were permitted to be alone with the corpse without Dr Brown's knowledge?)

Dr Brown would not have know any organs were missing until the post Morten, when it was then believed that the killer had taken them, when in fact someone form the medical profession could have whipped them out in haste. Bearing in mind both the bodies of Chapman and Eddowes (the only two victims to have organs taken) were left at the mortuary for almost 12 hours before the postmortems were carried out. Neither I nor you or anyone else can say what happened during those windows. We know the bodies should not have been tampered with, but we know that Chapmans body was, so is it wrong to speculate that this is what might have happened?

What you suggest is the equivalent of a case being taken to court with no evidence, just hearsay or what may have happened
Pure unsupported speculation, not a single source to back it up.

We also know that no organs were taken or any attempts made to remove organs from any of the other victims, and why was that? Was it because their abdomens had not been ripped open like those of Chapmam and Eddowes thus making it impossible for any organs to be removed at the mortuary for fear of detection.

That is not so,the Nichols killer was in all probability disturbed, however recent assessments of her wounds suggest very strongly she was ready to have organs removed, even Christer and I agree on that.
In Addition Tom Wescott in his latest book has suggested that organs may have been taken, this is another new theory, but like yours it is unsupported and unprovable at this stage. Should we accept it, just because he causes some doubt on the matter.

Lets look at Kelly it has been part of the old accepted theory that the same killer killed Kelly as killed all of the others, and in doing so took away an organ from her in line with taking organs from the other two.

Well if that didn't happen and that the heart was not taken away, not only does it kick a big hole in the overall mystery but it adds even more weight to the organs of Eddowes and Chapman being taken at the mortuary and not by the killer.

That is the point is it not “IF”.
The majority of researchers believe that organs were taken from Kelly, your contrary view of that is not proof, just an alternative idea, again used to push a predetermined theory.

You have no evidence, this entire scenario is the stuff of fiction until you start providing evidence that some activity you claim 'could' have happened actually occurred.

There doesn't need to be direct evidence because that is not likely to happen, its all about creating a doubt about the old accepted theories and offering other new plausible explanations, and then it is a matter for the worldwide public to accept or reject, based on the value of the arguments put forward from both camps.

So in the end its all about selling the story to the public who generally are not well versed in the subject,
The suggestion that actual evidence is not required is shameful and once again I can only think of “Ancient Aliens” and von Daniken.

I know that no matter what is put forward on these ripper forums is going to change the way some look at these murders.

Actually people would listen if you put forward a supported argument, you seldom do.

I have nothing further to add to this thread now,

The normal retreat,

Steve

[Fisherman]

Elamarna:

That is not so,the Nichols killer was in all probability disturbed, however recent assessments of her wounds suggest very strongly she was ready to have organs removed, even Christer and I agree on that.

I will make a rare remark here, Steve. We actually do not agree that the structure of the wounds tells us that she was made ready to have any organs removed. I can see where you are coming from, but I have a different view. What you and I agreed about, if I remember correctly, was that it seems feasible that the killer had a mindset to cut away the abdominal wall in flaps, just as was performed on Chapman, Kelly and Jackson.
Of course, if the abdominal wall is removed, it will allow free access to the abdominal cavity, but as you may remember, I think that a cut from pubes to breastbone is quite enough to allow for such a thing too.
Whether the killer had the intention to procure any of Nichols´organs or not is something I prefer to leave an open question. If the underlying ground of inspiration is what I think it is, then there was certainly no need to do so - the removal of the abdominal wall in panes would (in my scenario) not simply be a means to get to the organs but instead part of - and possibly all of - the intended damage to the abdomen.

As I said, I can see how you reached the conclusion that we agree, but you reached it on flawed grounds, which is why I feel I need to point that out. It may well be that the killers sole intention was to cut the abdominal wall away from Nichols.

Carry on.

[Sam Flynn]

I have nothing further to add to this thread now

Can we get back to the topic of the graffito, then?

[Elamarna]

Elamarna:

That is not so,the Nichols killer was in all probability disturbed, however recent assessments of her wounds suggest very strongly she was ready to have organs removed, even Christer and I agree on that.

I will make a rare remark here, Steve. We actually do not agree that the structure of the wounds tells us that she was made ready to have any organs removed. I can see where you are coming from, but I have a different view. What you and I agreed about, if I remember correctly, was that it seems feasible that the killer had a mindset to cut away the abdominal wall in flaps, just as was performed on Chapman, Kelly and Jackson.
Of course, if the abdominal wall is removed, it will allow free access to the abdominal cavity, but as you may remember, I think that a cut from pubes to breastbone is quite enough to allow for such a thing too.
Whether the killer had the intention to procure any of Nichols´organs or not is something I prefer to leave an open question. If the underlying ground of inspiration is what I think it is, then there was certainly no need to do so - the removal of the abdominal wall in panes would (in my scenario) not simply be a means to get to the organs but instead part of - and possibly all of - the intended damage to the abdomen.

As I said, I can see how you reached the conclusion that we agree, but you reached it on flawed grounds, which is why I feel I need to point that out. It may well be that the killers sole intention was to cut the abdominal wall away from Nichols.

Carry on.

Ok , no issue with that and thank you Christer for the clarification, i was not meaning to misrepresent you.
It seems that he could have taken organs if not disturbed if he wanted. Would you accept that?
We both think he was disturbed I hope, be he Lechmere or a n other.
If not disturbed it is anyone's guess what would have occurred.

Thank you again.

Steve

[Elamarna]

Can we get back to the topic of the graffito, then?

Of course.

And after all that I still remain unconvinced the killer wrote the GSG.

That does not mean I rule it out, just that I see no overwhelming evidence for it.


Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

[/b]
The so called flaws have been looked at and the majority exist only to you, why is that one asks?
Could it be due to the need to push these “new ideas” as you so quaintly call them



[/b]
To achieve what precisely Trevor?
And just to say something is doubtful does not make it so, I refer you again to Erich Anton Paul von Daniken, he along with others of his kind take the very same approach.



Yet you do not accept Biggs when he tells you the intestines are unlikely to fly out, or when he says the organs could have been removed in Mitre Square, its classic “Cherry Picking”, accept what fits the idea you have and reject what does not, that is not how history and science in general work.



If one wishes to challenge accepted ideas the onus is on the challenger to defend the new view.

Again its the Ancient Aliens approach,: “you can’t prove how the pyramids were built, so alien help is probably”



You have not proven such at all, you have made a suggestion, that is all.
You cannot claim you have proven something just because you believe your view is correct, you need to well…. Actually prove it, with evidence. You have not!



The same approach time after time, “you cant prove” and “it does not actually say it made a whole apron so it didn't”
That is not a scientific and unbiased approach, it is one of desperation to fit the sources to a specific argument.



They are called sources Trevor, and to refuse to use them in preference to what appears to be some supernatural insight is utterly perposterous and somewhat comical.



You have NOT shown THEY COULD NOT BE, you have given an argument that they may not have been.



However you have not proved such, and are a great distance from making such a suggestion even plausabile.



The negative approach again, just because he does not say something specifically you cannot assume such happened. You need more than mere absence.



See above, however in the Nichols case the Mortuary was locked when no one was in attendence so one needs to see if the same was the general rule.



Can you show such was allowed in the case of Murder Victims before PM, thus interfering with a murder inquiry?
And you have singularly failed to explain what these organs, some damaged would be used for?
I suspect this is because you have no idea, and just find the term Medical Research convenient to hide behind.



Most specimens for Medical research would be supplied by the institution the researcher was attached to, you seem to see them rushing to the Mortuary every time there was a murder, its the stuff of fiction Trevor!




What you suggest is the equivalent of a case being taken to court with no evidence, just hearsay or what may have happened
Pure unsupported speculation, not a single source to back it up.



That is not so,the Nichols killer was in all probability disturbed, however recent assessments of her wounds suggest very strongly she was ready to have organs removed, even Christer and I agree on that.
In Addition Tom Wescott in his latest book has suggested that organs may have been taken, this is another new theory, but like yours it is unsupported and unprovable at this stage. Should we accept it, just because he causes some doubt on the matter.



That is the point is it not “IF”.
The majority of researchers believe that organs were taken from Kelly, your contrary view of that is not proof, just an alternative idea, again used to push a predetermined theory.



So in the end its all about selling the story to the public who generally are not well versed in the subject,
The suggestion that actual evidence is not required is shameful and once again I can only think of “Ancient Aliens” and von Daniken.



Actually people would listen if you put forward a supported argument, you seldom do.



The normal retreat,

Steve

Your comments have been duly noted, but changes nothing.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

Your comments have been duly noted, but changes nothing.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

How unexpected.

Steve