Someone with medical knowledge

[JeffHamm]

hi jeff
wait i thought weston-davies ancestor was a dr, not a journalist? hence the medical knowledge seen in the wounds?

According to the article, his ancestor was a journalist. Perhaps in his book he details some medical training, but I don't know if that's the case.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Poor choice of words.
I meant 'recall' with respect to the names of the qualified members we've had here on Casebook.

I was sufficiently impressed by Dr. Ind to copy most of the exchanges we had with him, likewise with Prosector.
I have simply here copied & paste a few relevant quotes, the files are quite long but, if no-one minds I could post the entire files I kept from both doctors.
My file for exchanges with Dr Ind is 16pgs, the file I have for Prosector is 7 pgs.

If anyone would like to see both files I can send them, or post them here.

We should also not forget Mr Edmund Neale a consultant gynecologist who notes that the uteri from Eddowes and Chapman were removed using two differnet procedures and that begs the question as to how many killers would have had that knowledge?

He also notes that whoever removed these would have to have had medical knowledge, not only to remove them but to be able to locate them and this includes the kidney from Eddowes.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

We should also not forget Mr Edmund Neale a consultant gynecologist who notes that the uteri from Eddowes and Chapman were removed using two differnet procedures and that begs the question as to how many killers would have had that knowledge?

I don't remember him being on Casebook, and I don't see that name on the members list.

He also notes that whoever removed these would have to have had medical knowledge, not only to remove them but to be able to locate them and this includes the kidney from Eddowes.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Perhaps, but I think you're giving that out second hand. Why doesn't he come on here and we can question him?

[Trevor Marriott]

I don't remember him being on Casebook, and I don't see that name on the members list.



Perhaps, but I think you're giving that out second hand. Why doesn't he come on here and we can question him?

Mr Neale was one of a team of medical experts I used to opine in great detail on the medical evidence relative to all the Whitechapel victims.

The full extent of his and the rest of the other medical experts opinions can be found in the medical evdence chapter of my book Jack the Ripper-The Real Truth

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Jack-Ripper-Truth-Trevor-Marriott/dp/1728912997/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1XLX0EUKW482Q&keywords=trevor+marriott&qid=1573727516&s=books&sprefix=Trevor+M,stripbooks,161&sr=1-1

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

Yes, but you see the problem we have. This makes your source second hand, in fact he may fall into that dubious cavern of information you identified as 'unreliable'.
Unless he appears on here to explain his opinions and face questions direct from members. It isn't just to confirm what he says, it also confirms for us that your source has made his judgement on the actual facts of the case, and not some unintentional misunderstanding.

Can you convince Mr Neale to put in an appearance on Casebook?

[erobitha]

Mr Neale was one of a team of medical experts I used to opine in great detail on the medical evidence relative to all the Whitechapel victims.

The full extent of his and the rest of the other medical experts opinions can be found in the medical evdence chapter of my book Jack the Ripper-The Real Truth

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Jack-Ripper-Truth-Trevor-Marriott/dp/1728912997/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1XLX0EUKW482Q&keywords=trevor+marriott&qid=1573727516&s=books&sprefix=Trevor+M,stripbooks,161&sr=1-1

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Can you confirm whether he was offered payment in return for this advice for your book?

[Trevor Marriott]

Can you confirm whether he was offered payment in return for this advice for your book?

What is the relevance of that question ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[erobitha]

What is the relevance of that question ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It raises the question of impartiality of the advice. There have been experts who have said the opposite, but they have not been paid.

I'm not criticising you for using whetever experts you want for the purpose of your own book, but how can we regard his testimony on here as being impartial?

If he was willing as Wickerman said to come one and be asked questions, I think that would go a long way to addressing those concerns.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, but you see the problem we have. This makes your source second hand, in fact he may fall into that dubious cavern of information you identified as 'unreliable'.
Unless he appears on here to explain his opinions and face questions direct from members. It isn't just to confirm what he says, it also confirms for us that your source has made his judgement on the actual facts of the case, and not some unintentional misunderstanding.

Can you convince Mr Neale to put in an appearance on Casebook?

I can assure you there is no unintentional misunderstanding, and his evidence is clearly not second hand, and I can confirm that the medical opinions by Mr Neale and other experts as set out in the book are true and accurate opinions given by these experts based on their own detailed examination and review of the medical evidence from 1888, and I strongly refute your inference to the contrary.

Have you bothered to purchase a copy of the book and read the medical evidence chapter?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

It raises the question of impartiality of the advice. There have been experts who have said the opposite, but they have not been paid.

I'm not criticising you for using whetever experts you want for the purpose of your own book, but how can we regard his testimony on here as being impartial?

If he was willing as Wickerman said to come one and be asked questions, I think that would go a long way to addressing those concerns.

He nor any of the other experts were not paid, what concerns are there about what he says,other than you and others seem to not want to accept what he says because it goes against other medical evidence which props up your own theory.

Because clearly where he says two differnet methods of extraction of the uteri from Chapman and Eddowes is concerned does raise a major doubt about the same person removing them from both victims.

As to being impartial I could ask the same question about the other medical experts you and others clearly seek to rely on.

If you or others want to ask any questions of him I am happy to forward them onto him but as far as I am concerned the team of experts in my opinion have covered all the facts surrounding the medical evidence.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[DJA]

Cheapskate

[Wickerman]

I can assure you there is no unintentional misunderstanding, and his evidence is clearly not second hand, and I can confirm that the medical opinions by Mr Neale and other experts as set out in the book are true and accurate opinions given by these experts based on their own detailed examination and review of the medical evidence from 1888, and I strongly refute your inference to the contrary.

Have you bothered to purchase a copy of the book and read the medical evidence chapter?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I was under the impression that over the years you have posted all your medical evidence here on Casebook, quotes & photo's, etc.
We've seen them all, and I distinctly remember how you were criticized on several points, including for your example of how few bloodstains a cloth would have after a kidney & uterus had been wrapped inside. Which seemed to be a priority for you to challenge at the time.
You would be correct to claim we have little right to criticize your book if we have not read it, yes that stands to reason. But it was your choice to provide material on Casebook taken from your book, and it is this which Casebook members have been challenging.

Being faced with a medical issue where two doctors have opposing opinions is nothing new, this is why we often look for a second opinion if we are seriously ill.
But in obtaining that second opinion it is necessary to know the 2nd doctor has been provided with all the same facts as the first doctor.
This is what we do not know, and the best way to be sure is to speak with the 2nd doctor here in person. At the time of your books publication this was the most preferred option, but at this late date perhaps it's water under the bridge now. He may not even be interested in revisiting the subject.

[Observer]

The abdominal wounds inflicted upon Mary Ann Nichols, were, in my opinion, random meaningless deep slashes. One of the wounds was described as being "jagged" in nature, this suggests to me this particular wound was inflicted as a result of unadulterated rage. Consequentially, initially, I don't believe we have a killer whose motive was to obtain the internal organs of his victims, the wounds were meaningless slashes. I don't believe the killer had any medical knowledge. If Sutcliffe had removed, and taken away, one of his victims internal organs, had he not been caught, would this had led us to believe he possessed medical knowledge? Sexual mutilators, of the type JTR falls into are well documented.

[Trevor Marriott]

I was under the impression that over the years you have posted all your medical evidence here on Casebook, quotes & photo's, etc.
We've seen them all, and I distinctly remember how you were criticized on several points, including for your example of how few bloodstains a cloth would have after a kidney & uterus had been wrapped inside. Which seemed to be a priority for you to challenge at the time.
You would be correct to claim we have little right to criticize your book if we have not read it, yes that stands to reason. But it was your choice to provide material on Casebook taken from your book, and it is this which Casebook members have been challenging.

Being faced with a medical issue where two doctors have opposing opinions is nothing new, this is why we often look for a second opinion if we are seriously ill.
But in obtaining that second opinion it is necessary to know the 2nd doctor has been provided with all the same facts as the first doctor.
This is what we do not know, and the best way to be sure is to speak with the 2nd doctor here in person. At the time of your books publication this was the most preferred option, but at this late date perhaps it's water under the bridge now. He may not even be interested in revisiting the subject.

Take it from me Mr Neale was provided with the full inquest testimonies along with all the other medical evidence. What I posted on here is a fraction of the full opinions from a number of expert medical witnesses who were also provided with the full details and asked to opine.

I presume you and others have not even bothered to purchase the book so how can you criticise the opinions given in good faith.

I could ask you to contact your medical expert and ask him if the uteri from Eddowes and Chapman were removed using two different procedures but of course Mr Neale is more the expert when it comes to female anatomy because that is his specialist field.

If Mr Neale removes a uterus from a live donor and places it in a piece of white cloth and then 10 minutes later the cloth is photographed and it shows the cloth heavily blood stained it dosntt take a rocket scientist to work out that the organs from Eddowes were not taken away in an apron piece, a theory that you first postulated some time ago which is now debunked.




www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

...

I presume you and others have not even bothered to purchase the book so how can you criticise the opinions given in good faith...

I don't think I have. If you think about it logically, myself & others here can only contest the points you have raised yourself. And, in my book that is fair game.
If your arguments don't suffice to convince anyone of your theory, how can you reasonably expect anyone to buy your book?
You know yourself you have made some highly controversial claims with few if any takers for your side of the argument.

I could ask you to contact your medical expert and ask him if the uteri from Eddowes and Chapman were removed using two different procedures but of course Mr Neale is more the expert when it comes to female anatomy because that is his specialist field.

Dr. Ind was asked:
"Were the uteri removed carefully or by a random ‘slash’?"

To which he replied:
"Although JTR managed to precisely remove a kidney he completely failed to perform an adequate hysterectomy. In Chapman’s case he excised part of the bladder and in Eddowes case he only performed a subtotal hysterectomy (leaving the cervix behind).

According to the Mammoth book Kelly had her uterus placed under her head. There is no comment as to what was attached to the uterus and whether it included the cervix. Does anyone know the answer to this?

In my opinion there was nothing careful nor informative concerning the uterine excisions.

Most hysterectomies involve removing the corpus (main body) and the cervix (neck). Although I must add that there is a small current trend for women to request that their cervix is left behind in the unfounded theory that it contributes to orgasms. Some involve removing the ovaries as well and others do not.

The danger in performing a hysterectomy include damaging the vessels of the pelvic side wall and the ureters (tube connecting the kidneys to the bladder). In most non-cancerous cases this is avoided by keeping the excision close to the uterus as well as identifying the above structures. Do we know from the post mortems if there was any damage to the ureters during the uterine excisions or damage to the other structures on the pelvic side wall? These structures are the external iliac vein and artery, the internal iliac vein and artery, the obturator nerve and vessels, the psoas muscle and the genitofemoral nerve.

To remove the cervix you need to mobilise the bladder caudally. If you do not it is almost inevitable that you will also remove part of the bladder. This is what JTR did during Chapman’s hysterectomy."