19th Century "anatomical skill"

[Elamarna]

The Bromley quotes are from his 1st article and are direct quotes

Thank you for making it clear.
I wondered as you had not indicated they were, which should always be done to avoid confusion..

Very balanced to those who are not blinkered

Please I am splitting my sides with laughter here, do you actually believe what you are writing?

My time window was in place long before you mentioned Bromley`s and has not changed. I am now merely pointing out the flaws in his and your 10 minute window, and the 6.49 mins in Bromleys analysis on this particular scenario

Now that is very interesting


In post # 82 on 23/06/16

So looking again at the times, and I keep going back to these times, the killer would not have had enough time to do all that he is supposed to have done. Where does the minimum of 7 minutes for organ removal required by a skilled surgeon come from? Any amateur would take even longer. You or anyone else cannot say the organs were removed in much less time because it would not be humanly possible based on Dr Browns timed experiment and the time Dr Phillips stated it would take him to remove the organs from Chapman.

Clearly you were saying last Thursday that it took 7 minutes to carry out the full procedure.



on the 26/06/16 post #105

So by the calculation 7 mins is the absolute minimum an expert would need, but I suspect the killer was no expert simply after organs.

Again on Sunday you are saying 7 minutes, no indication of any longer time being required.


However once the discussion got onto The article by Gavin Bromley you went quieter.


Then yesterday post #124

I suggest this interview could have taken place before the post mortem as he makes no mention of any removals, or gives any hint of removals, he simply answers a direct question with a direct answer.

Obviously you are now about to suggest its not 7 minutes but the original 5, plus some.



Finally yesterday again post #140

His later experiment showed it took an expert 3.30 mins to remove a uterus. How much extra time would have been to be added to that to remove the left kidney the most difficult one of the two kidneys, at least the same time again I would suggest. So add 7 mins to 5 mins and that makes 12 mins, and there is not a 12 min window of opportunity anywhere to be found.

We now have a full blown 12 minutes required, however it is very clear to see how you developed this from the quotes I have posted.

Given that 4 days ago, indeed until yesterday, you were claiming the full procedure took seven minutes, it is apparent that it is not a long held belief it took 12 minutes to complete the procedure.

Trevor I respectfully suggest this stops, its not very good, nor does it portray you in a good light.

The answer is it is not slanted.

Did I invent the witness Lawende?

It is bias and slanted.

Of course not, however his timing is an estimate and we are dealing in a few minutes either way.

Did I alter the witness timings?

They are estimates, you treat them as if they are more than that.

Did I wrongly quote Dr Brown when he says anatomical knowledge was used?

It is one professionals view, other disagreed.
Has Lynn as said surely he is referring to the kidney, which MAY show some knowledge; Brown does not say the removal of the uterus shows any skill at all.

Did I wrongly quote Dr Brown who said that it would have taken 5 minutes to murder and mutilate as he found the body?

Until yesterday you were not accepting the 5 minutes, now you say he means just the throat cutting, facial nicks and the opening of the body cavity is included in that time
Your reason for this is somewhat suspect to say the least, The organ removal is now extra on top.

Was I responsible for the 12 hour gap before the post mortem was carried out and whatever did or didnt happen during that time window?

What a strange question?

Not sure how that relates to any bias you may show.


.

You may not like it, you may not accept it, but that is the reality and its not going to go away.

1. It's not about liking it, the idea is just not realistic.
2. I would be prepared to consider it, maybe accept it, if it were backed by some facts.
3. Of course it won't go away, because you keep repeating it.
4. And just because you repeat it does not mean it is real.



Some closing thoughts and questions

Trevor why do you continue to say Brown conducted an experiment?
It was not a valid experiment by any stretch of the imagination, it just suggested what a trained individual could do.


Several questions have been neatly ignored, by either raising other points or side stepping.

Firstly the use of the organs for medical research.

To prove that these organs were being used in 1888 for "medical research" would strengthen the argument, and it should not be that difficult, but it is clear there is no intention of doing so, why?

Neither have you given an explanation why someone would take the organs, against the law, for no financial gain .


There is an unfortunate causality here, and that is that some of the issues you raise do deserved to be looked at, but this approach means that such items can and do get lost, which is a great shame.



yours


Steve

[lynn cates]

common sense

Hello Karl.

"It's not like mutilations are so rare that only one person could possibly perpetrate them all."

Shhh. You'll confuse a lot of people with your common sense.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

imitator

Hello (again) Karl. Thanks.

Actually, that is only a small reason.

I have a piece in Don Souden's "New Independent Review." It is "Possibly the Work of an Imitator." (Taken, obviously, from Baxter's words at his summation of the Stride inquest.)

Perhaps, you can get hold of this and you'll see what I'm on about? I wish I could give a short version, but it would not do justice to the many disparities in her case.

Cheers.
LC

[Pierre]

QUOTE=Elamarna;386380

Neither have you given an explanation why someone would take the organs, against the law, for no financial gain.

I know why someone would take the organs, against the law, for no financial gain.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

QUOTE=Elamarna;386380



I know why someone would take the organs, against the law, for no financial gain.

Regards, Pierre

in the mortuary circumstances Pierre? or in another context?

Steve

[Pierre]

in the mortuary circumstances Pierre? or in another context?

Steve

In another context. The context of the murder.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

In another context. The context of the murder.

Regards, Pierre

I suspected that was what you meant,

steve

[Trevor Marriott]

There is nothing lost at all and no side stepping, quite the contrary. I have made it quite clear for all to understand the flaws in the old accepted theory, and I have made just as clear the facts, which go to show there is another plausible explanation.

I still cannot see how you can keep suggesting that an expert can remove a uterus in 3.30 mins, but someone less trained or with no training could do it in less time, that is illogical.

You cannot dismiss Dr Browns experiment, it is scientific in nature. I am sure that if he had tried it himself even he would have taken longer, or even given the task to a student who would have taken longer. So despite what you say that 3.30 mins is one of the parameters to work from when looking at the time the killer would have needed, and of course we do not know what conditions the experiment was conducted under. If it was in daylight, then we must assume had it been in the dark it would have taken the expert longer. Dr Phillips time of 15 mins for him to do all that was done to Chapman is relevant now.

What you also have to accept which you seem to not want to do when considering the likelihood that the organs were taken at the mortuary is that organs were available from mortuaries to medical personnel for medical research.

Now as far you sarcastic question you keep asking regarding what research these organs would be required for the stock answer again is "medical research" that simply could involve them being placed in specimen jars and simply shown to students studying anatomy.

You ask why would someone take the organs unlawfully. Organs had to be paid for. I am sure that if someone from the medical profession was tasked with going to the mortuary to purchase organs, and saw an opportunity of obtaining organs and saving that money, then that could be an answer. So to that end speed in the removal would be of the essence, hence a slip of the knife when removing the uterus.

Chapmans body was even left outside the mortuary for a time. So you cannot dismiss my observations.

As to Dr Browns 5 mins I have always for several years now suggested that Dr Browns 5 mins was not enough time to do all that the killer is supposed to have done. The Star newspaper report has only just come to my notice which shows that the 5 mins he referred to which was previously taken by all, me included to encompass the whole scenario is now limited to the time it would take to carry out the murder and mutilations, and not to include the removal of the organs in that 5 mins. So I hope this now clarifies my position.

As to Dr Sequeira he says 3 mins, surely his answer must also reflect simply the murder and mutilations. It would be humanly impossible for anyone medically trained or otherwise to do all of that in three minutes

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The evidence never lies, but it doesn't always tell the truth

[Karl]

Hello (again) Karl. Thanks.

Actually, that is only a small reason.

I have a piece in Don Souden's "New Independent Review." It is "Possibly the Work of an Imitator." (Taken, obviously, from Baxter's words at his summation of the Stride inquest.)

Perhaps, you can get hold of this and you'll see what I'm on about? I wish I could give a short version, but it would not do justice to the many disparities in her case.

Cheers.
LC

Would you know where I could get a hold of this issue? It is to be found in issue #4, apparently, but the link...

http://newindependentreview.com/

...can only be accessed via the web-archive, and even then the issues themselves are not available for perusal.

[lynn cates]

looking

Hello Karl. Thanks.

I'll see if I can find a copy. Perhaps someone has a spare copy?

Cheers.
LC

[Karl]

You ask why would someone take the organs unlawfully. Organs had to be paid for. I am sure that if someone from the medical profession was tasked with going to the mortuary to purchase organs, and saw an opportunity of obtaining organs and saving that money, then that could be an answer.

That does not seem remotely plausible to me. Anyone going to the mortuary in order to fetch organs would already be prepared to pay for it - they wouldn't take the trip on the off chance that a kidney would be lying around. Nor would they carry equipment for that purpose.

And doctors were not so poor that they needed to steal them - nor so rich that they could afford to take the time, or hire someone, to go to the mortuary on the off chance that there was an opportunity for scavenging. It is like I said before, with the example of stationery: of course it costs money, but not so much that the administration would consider stealing.

Can you honestly imagine a doctor go to the mortuary himself (rather than sending someone less busy to do the errand), with money in hand to buy the organs he's after, but also carrying the tools he'd need in case there was an opportunity to grab them for free? And why would he be so cheap that he'd stoop to that level? What do you suppose would happen to his reputation if he was caught cutting into corpses?

[Trevor Marriott]

That does not seem remotely plausible to me. Anyone going to the mortuary in order to fetch organs would already be prepared to pay for it - they wouldn't take the trip on the off chance that a kidney would be lying around. Nor would they carry equipment for that purpose.

And doctors were not so poor that they needed to steal them - nor so rich that they could afford to take the time, or hire someone, to go to the mortuary on the off chance that there was an opportunity for scavenging. It is like I said before, with the example of stationery: of course it costs money, but not so much that the administration would consider stealing.

Can you honestly imagine a doctor go to the mortuary himself (rather than sending someone less busy to do the errand), with money in hand to buy the organs he's after, but also carrying the tools he'd need in case there was an opportunity to grab them for free? And why would he be so cheap that he'd stoop to that level? What do you suppose would happen to his reputation if he was caught cutting into corpses?

You clearly have no basic concept of understanding what I have said in that lengthy post, and I am not about to explain it all over again.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The evidence never lies but doesn't always tell the truth

[Elamarna]

Trevor

Replying is tedious, but so so easy.

There is nothing lost at all and no side stepping, quite the contrary. I have made it quite clear for all to understand the flaws in the old accepted theory, and I have made just as clear the facts, which go to show there is another plausible explanation.

Sorry when you said in post 151 that I had misquoted you in post 150, it was obvious I had not.
One can only assume that was raised to avoid the question asked.

It is not a plausible scenario, it is most unrealistic.

I still cannot see how you can keep suggesting that an expert can remove a uterus in 3.30 mins, but someone less trained or with no training could do it in less time, that is illogical.

No that is your view, and ignores that a trained person does things differently to a non trained one, something there is a complete unwillingness to comprehend.
For someone who has none of the skill set require, it is remarkable that you feel you are in a better position to comment on such than someone who does.

You cannot dismiss Dr Browns experiment, it is scientific in nature. I am sure that if he had tried it himself even he would have taken longer, or even given the task to a student who would have taken longer. So despite what you say that 3.30 mins is one of the parameters to work from when looking at the time the killer would have needed, and of course we do not know what conditions the experiment was conducted under. If it was in daylight, then we must assume had it been in the dark it would have taken the expert longer. Dr Phillips time of 15 mins for him to do all that was done to Chapman is relevant now.

Actual I have not dismissed it, I have, as you know said it was a test, it gives an idea of how long one particular person would take, it is an indication for that individual.
Indeed you admit above you have no idea of the conditions the test was carried out in, therefore it is not repeatable, it is not a valid scientific Experiment

To be valid, there must be known variables, such can then be measured against each other. It must be repeatable.

There are of course exceptions to that, such as Carbon 14 dating where the sample is destroyed, this however is not one of those exceptions.

A proposal for such an experiment has already been presented.

What you also have to accept which you seem to not want to do when considering the likelihood that the organs were taken at the mortuary is that organs were available from mortuaries to medical personnel for medical research.

Of course they could, however you have provided not one morsel of supporting evidence for this to have occurred. here

Now as far you sarcastic question you keep asking regarding what research these organs would be required for the stock answer again is "medical research" that simply could involve them being placed in specimen jars and simply shown to students studying anatomy.

Firstly, it was not a sarcastic question, it was asking for backing to a bland statement about medical research. You may be right and research on such was being done, the unwillingness to check is astounding.

I am sorry, but, the lack of knowledge with regards to medical research and teaching displayed in the posts is woeful.

Damaged organs are not used to teach to students and never were; why do you think they were?

You ask why would someone take the organs unlawfully. Organs had to be paid for. I am sure that if someone from the medical profession was tasked with going to the mortuary to purchase organs, and saw an opportunity of obtaining organs and saving that money, then that could be an answer. So to that end speed in the removal would be of the essence, hence a slip of the knife when removing the uterus.

What you fail to understand its that the slip of the knife makes the uterus useless.

Why risk your career and possible legal sanctions, which I assume included imprisonment, if caught, for single items of which there was ample legal supply.

Chapmans body was even left outside the mortuary for a time. So you cannot dismiss my observations.

Pardon?

Pure speculation with regards to what may or may not have happened to Chapman's body, no evidence what so ever.
We have been discussing exclusively discussing Eddowes, so more attempts to muddy the waters. ( yes i know she is in your theory, but we have not discussed her).

Not only amateur in approach to research , but a desperate attempt to defend a position for which there is no supporting evidence.

As to Dr Browns 5 mins I have always for several years now suggested that Dr Browns 5 mins was not enough time to do all that the killer is supposed to have done. The Star newspaper report has only just come to my notice which shows that the 5 mins he referred to which was previously taken by all, me included to encompass the whole scenario is now limited to the time it would take to carry out the murder and mutilations, and not to include the removal of the organs in that 5 mins. So I hope this now clarifies my position.

I agree you have never said 5 minutes , until two days ago you said 7.

Now it is suddenly 12, that figure is based solely on YOUR interpretation of a single newspaper comment.
Now we should look at the paper in question to see if there is any agreement that you may be right, that is how history works.

However it is certainly not definitive, the conclusion you have drawn is possible ( so is anything that is not impossible) but unlikely.

A change to the theory coincidentally you come to when shown that there could have been a window of up to 10 minutes.

Do you think we are all fools Trevor?

As to Dr Sequeira he says 3 mins, surely his answer must also reflect simply the murder and mutilations. It would be humanly impossible for anyone medically trained or otherwise to do all of that in three minutes

However he did not say that did he? he said it took 3 minutes,

Please produce some source to prove this, please stop rewritting the past to fit your theory.


Words fail me, what is presented is:

Bad history,
Bad science,
Lack of any evidence.
Everything based on one persons view.

To push one idea.

Put it forward as a theory no problem.
Claim it is FACT and it will be rebutted.



Steve

[Karl]

You clearly have no basic concept of understanding what I have said in that lengthy post, and I am not about to explain it all over again.

If you are going to reply just to write that, you might as well not bother. However, since you did not seem to understand me, I will clarify:

One point of contention - which can be addressed without touching on the other points; I quoted absolutely everything of relevance - is what possible reason there could be for medical personell to make off with the kidney in such a fashion as you suggest. This is not something you have explained, but something you have merely postulated. People have pointed out to you why the reason you have given doesn't make much sense, but instead of offering explanations that would help your theory, you simply restate the same suggestion. If you don't fix the holes, the bucket is still going to leak no matter how many times you fill it up.

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;386470]

You clearly not able to asses and evaluate facts in an unbiased fashion. You need to think outside the box. The sources are there and they support the theory. When this issue came to the forefront I didnt expect to to be greeted with open arms, and it accepted without question, and that has been the case because there is a need for some, and it seems you are one of this minority who want to keep the mystery as it has been for 127 years alive at all costs.

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win”
Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948)

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk