Facial Mutilations

[Trevor Marriott]

Plausible been the key word here, Trevor.



But only by facts, and not baseless theories based on "what if`s"




Because false facts or lies would be called out at that time in history
Did cavemen wear onesies ? Maybe, it was just the cavemen that were painted on the walls by their contemporaries who wore loin clothes, and the rest were in onesies.




Well yes, contemporary bullshit beats modern bullshit.
The original inquest reports in many of the cases no longer exist so we have to rely on the reporters who were present at the inquest and recorded the depositions of those called to appear at the inquest.
I understand it must be a pain in the arse for modern theorists when their claims are shot down by someone like me quoting a doctor or police officer who was actually involved in the case



It does seem that everyone who should have been allowed access to the mortuary is recorded as being there.



Again plausible is the key word.
It could have been aliens who stunned PC Barnes with a ray gun, stole the uterus and then turned time back half an hour.



Which ones ?



Yes, that`s correct.
What were you after ?



Oh, which new facts ? (facts been the key word) - I`m all ears !!



yes, proof is a pain in the arse, isn`t it.




You don`t even need the word "conclusively" in that sentence.
You cannot prove anything.
In fact, you have demonstrated that you are not aware of all the facts.



The difference being that the Victorian doctors in question were at the scene of the crime and performed post mortem`s on the bodies.
Your " experts" rely on the secondary information that you have cherry picked for them.

Well you keep your head buried in the sand

[lynn cates]

faithless--not believing

Hello Trevor. Thanks.

Don't have much faith in the kidney nor yet that letter.

Cheers.
LC

[Jon Guy]

But you are clearly not prepared to accept new plausible explanations.

Plausible been the key word here, Trevor.

Historical facts are there to be challenged.

But only by facts, and not baseless theories based on "what if`s"

How do we know the whoever wrote historical facts was correct in the first place,

Because false facts or lies would be called out at that time in history
Did cavemen wear onesies ? Maybe, it was just the cavemen that were painted on the walls by their contemporaries who wore loin clothes, and the rest were in onesies.

after all with regards to this mystery we have a plethora of secondary newspaper articles which many seek to rely on, and it seems you are one of those as you keep quoting from them.,

Well yes, contemporary bullshit beats modern bullshit.
The original inquest reports in many of the cases no longer exist so we have to rely on the reporters who were present at the inquest and recorded the depositions of those called to appear at the inquest.
I understand it must be a pain in the arse for modern theorists when their claims are shot down by someone like me quoting a doctor or police officer who was actually involved in the case

Yes the police were there to stop the likes of the press and onlookers from getting in but did that mean other medical personnel were not admitted.

It does seem that everyone who should have been allowed access to the mortuary is recorded as being there.

How do you know that the nurses didn't remove the uterus, the answer is you don't. but can you disregard that as a plausible explanation.

Again plausible is the key word.
It could have been aliens who stunned PC Barnes with a ray gun, stole the uterus and then turned time back half an hour.

All we can say is that many of the witness statements in this mystery do not stand up to close scrutiny.

Which ones ?

The difficulty is that we are now trying to look at the murders in a different light. The witness statements we have solely relate to the coroners court which was a court for determining the cause of death and to identify a killer if that could be the case.

Yes, that`s correct.
What were you after ?

You and everyone else has to assess and evaluate the facts from both sides of the arguments and it is then for each person to make their own minds up on which parts of the old accepted facts they believe or which they dont, and which of the new facts they want to accept.

Oh, which new facts ? (facts been the key word) - I`m all ears !!

To keep saying prove this, or prove that, is being negative..

yes, proof is a pain in the arse, isn`t it.

I cannot conclusively prove my case,..

You don`t even need the word "conclusively" in that sentence.
You cannot prove anything.
In fact, you have demonstrated that you are not aware of all the facts.

Take the Victorian Doctors, they didn't even agree on the times relating to the removal of both Chapmans and Eddowes organs. Now also we have modern day doctors also disagreeing on how long it would take to remove these organs.,..

The difference being that the Victorian doctors in question were at the scene of the crime and performed post mortem`s on the bodies.
Your " experts" rely on the secondary information that you have cherry picked for them.

[Trevor Marriott]

Well yes, they held hands of course, that`s what policemen do isn`t it ?
There were crowds standing outside the gates all day and night, there were journalists trying to get in. Read the contemporary newspapers that describe the scene outside the mortuary.
Of course, there was a policeman on guard.



Some ladies from the lodging houses went in to try and identify the body.
The photographer must have gone in, Sgt`s Badham and Thicke, plus Chandler and possibly other officials like the coroners officer.



Quite clearly, the Board of Guardians directed the nurses to go and undress the body.




Well, I guess they hoped no-one else would be murdered in that district that morning between 7 and 2.
Did you think that all dead bodies were taken to the mortuary ?



A statement about what ?



Getting personal now eh ?
Anyway, yes, I do accept old official statements and the usual history stuff unless proven otherwise. Which has certainly not happened.



What`s the above about, Trev ?
Are you making assumptions about what I believe ?
Apart from the first one, you are correct with your other statements.

Now, where`s your proof ?
No more "what if he was lying, what if he was..."

But you are clearly not prepared to accept new plausible explanations. Historical facts are there to be challenged. How do we know the whoever wrote historical facts was correct in the first place, after all with regards to this mystery we have a plethora of secondary newspaper articles which many seek to rely on, and it seems you are one of those as you keep quoting from them.

Yes the police were there to stop the likes of the press and onlookers from getting in but did that mean other medical personnel were not admitted. How do you know that the nurses didn't remove the uterus, the answer is you don't. but can you disregard that as a plausible explanation. In the light of what we now know.

All we can say is that many of the witness statements in this mystery do not stand up to close scrutiny. The difficulty is that we are now trying to look at the murders in a different light. The witness statements we have solely relate to the coroners court which was a court for determining the cause of death and to identify a killer if that could be the case.

If a killer had been identified and a criminal trial taken place many of the questions we seek answers to may have been answered, but that didn't happen so we are left in limbo.

You and everyone else has to assess and evaluate the facts from both sides of the arguments and it is then for each person to make their own minds up on which parts of the old accepted facts they believe or which they dont, and which of the new facts they want to accept.

To keep saying prove this, or prove that, is being negative. I cannot conclusively prove my case, nor can you conclusively prove that all you seek to rely on is the truth. The police did tell lies in 1888 and no doubt witnesses did, and still do to this day in statements, for some maybe that's hard to believe but it is fact.

Take the Victorian Doctors, they didn't even agree on the times relating to the removal of both Chapmans and Eddowes organs. Now also we have modern day doctors also disagreeing on how long it would take to remove these organs.

I keep saying this that "anything is possible" take the blinkers off

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Jon Guy]

So they both stood outside holding hands for all that time,

Well yes, they held hands of course, that`s what policemen do isn`t it ?
There were crowds standing outside the gates all day and night, there were journalists trying to get in. Read the contemporary newspapers that describe the scene outside the mortuary.
Of course, there was a policeman on guard.

and no one went in or out?

Some ladies from the lodging houses went in to try and identify the body.
The photographer must have gone in, Sgt`s Badham and Thicke, plus Chandler and possibly other officials like the coroners officer.

except the nurses, who supposedly went in on the orders of Insp Chandler, who denied that,

Quite clearly, the Board of Guardians directed the nurses to go and undress the body.

and that the mortuary came to a complete stand still during that time and orders went out to people not to die during those hours, because there was no where to take them.

Well, I guess they hoped no-one else would be murdered in that district that morning between 7 and 2.
Did you think that all dead bodies were taken to the mortuary ?

Note, we dont have a statement from the police officer only one from Robert Mann whose mental capacity has been challenged.

A statement about what ?

So how you can readily accept without question some of the purported evidence and statements is unbelievable, no its not let me quantify because you are clearly one who supports the old accepted theories..

Getting personal now eh ?
Anyway, yes, I do accept old official statements and the usual history stuff unless proven otherwise. Which has certainly not happened.

five an five only victims all killed by the same hand
the killer removed the organs
the killer wrote the graffiti
the killer cut a piece of Eddowes apron

What`s the above about, Trev ?
Are you making assumptions about what I believe ?
Apart from the first one, you are correct with your other statements.

Now, where`s your proof ?
No more "what if he was lying, what if he was..."

[Trevor Marriott]

Not much was going on Trevor, the shed was locked with a policeman outside.



A policeman was outside the locked shed at all times, and as I said last week Mann was outside.

So they both stood outside holding hands for all that time, they never moved and no one went in or out? except the nurses, who supposedly went in on the orders of Insp Chandler, who denied that, and that the mortuary came to a complete stand still during that time and orders went out to people not to die during those hours, bcause there was no where to take them.

Note, we dont have a statement from the police officer only one from Robert Mann whose mental capacity has been challenged.

So how you can readily accept without question some of the purported evidence and statements is unbelievable, no its not let me quantify because you are clearly one who supports the old accepted theories.

five an five only victims all killed by the same hand
the killer removed the organs
the killer wrote the graffiti
the killer cut a piece of Eddowes apron

:

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Jon Guy]

Its in the inquest reports what various persons did do, but as I said before we do not know what else was going on at the mortuary between 7am and 2pm.

Not much was going on Trevor, the shed was locked with a policeman outside.

Mann says he stayed with the body that could mean outside or inside and doesn't prove he was there in person for the full 7 hours non stop.
.

A policeman was outside the locked shed at all times, and as I said last week Mann was outside.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Trevor.

"It should also be noted that entry to the abdomens of both Chapman and Eddowes was by different methods, that indicates two different people."

Yes. And reading further:

1. In Annie's case, the cuts were skilful but the entry method was amateur.

2. In Kate's case, the cuts were unskilful but the entry method was text.

It's almost as if the first were done by an experienced knifesman but NOT a surgeon, the second by an inexperienced cutter who had read a text or consulted a surgeon.

Cheers.
LC

Want to plump for a medical student ?

Remember the lusk kidney and the oppenshaw letter which was clearly penned by someone in the medical profession who was deliberately trying to hide that fact but failed miserably.

[lynn cates]

kidney

Hello Errata. Thanks.

Very well. Of course, I assume the uterus was taken by the killer in each case. It's the kidney I find troublesome.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

compare and contrast

Hello Trevor.

"It should also be noted that entry to the abdomens of both Chapman and Eddowes was by different methods, that indicates two different people."

Yes. And reading further:

1. In Annie's case, the cuts were skilful but the entry method was amateur.

2. In Kate's case, the cuts were unskilful but the entry method was text.

It's almost as if the first were done by an experienced knifesman but NOT a surgeon, the second by an inexperienced cutter who had read a text or consulted a surgeon.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

trophy

Hello CD. Thanks.

"Just so I am clear here -- the mortuary attendant is a different person from the killer, correct?"

Quite.

"If so, it must have been terribly frustrating for him having to wait for a chopped up woman to come in so he could do his thing without it being discovered."

Can't say for sure about the motive.

But, to be clear, the kidney removal is a problem for ALL theorists. For even those who talk about sex organs as trophies must explain HOW a kidney counts as a sex organ.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

deliberate

Hello Trevor. Thanks.

"That could have been because the bodies were taken to 2 different mortuaries and organs removed by two different persons."

I believe that--but not for the reason you are thinking of. (heh-heh)

"That could also explain why two uteri were taken. If the killer had taken Chapman's uterus why would he want to take another?"

Well, the theory to which many subscribe is that he sought trophies. I regard that as nonsense, of course. As you know, I regard the taking of Kate's a deliberate attempt to copy Annie's murder. After all, the body cavities were entered in two VERY different ways.

Cheers.
LC

[Harry D]

Lunacy
You need to take a look back at some of your posts both on this thread and the whitechapel mystery then you can see lunacy in its true form

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

That was the equivalent of 'NO U'.

[Trevor Marriott]

Why are you assuming he still has the first uterus, from 3 weeks earlier?

I not assuming that because believe the killer didnt take them in the first place.

I am simply playing devils advocate in trying to negate some of the arguments put froward which suggest the killer did take them and the reasons why he took them.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Errata]

People collect all sorts of things and it is not unusual for them to have multiples of the same thing in their collections.

c.d.

Yeah, I think all we need to do is look at Gein and his house of horrors, and we can easily decide that there is probably a scale of keeping bits. Gein being a 10, Dahmer being an 8, Kemper a 6, The Ripper maybe a 4.

They do it because it makes them happy. I mean there really isn't a more profound "why" than that. Sure it may be symbolic, maybe they eat it, maybe they put it in a jar, maybe they make a woman suit. It's what makes them happy. Serial killers are not that complex. I mean you could write a paper a day on what is going on in their heads that makes keeping bits a pleasurable hobby, But Dahmer didn't sit around analyzing his abandonment issues, contemplating the role of his mother's illness is his particular brand of entertainment. It made him happy. Done. It made him feel bad to get rid of those things, so he didn't. Life is a big Skinner box for all of us. Serial killers are no different there. Push the lever, get a treat. We don't think about it. We just push the lever.