Facial Mutilations

[Jon Guy]

How would the police officer be aware of that if he had been instructed not to let anyone in?


www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Was he instructed not to let anyone in ?

Or was he just standing guard outside the locked shed with Robert Mann, and let in the two nurses (who Mann would have known), and recorded the fact that they had attended to the body.

It`s all in the inquest reports, Trevor.

[Trevor Marriott]

Was he instructed not to let anyone in ?

Or was he just standing guard outside the locked shed with Robert Mann, and let in the two nurses (who Mann would have known), and recorded the fact that they had attended to the body.

It`s all in the inquest reports, Trevor.

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. 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. If he or the police officer had let anyone else in against orders would they openly admit it?

And how would Mann have known the nurses, they were from the infirmary

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

There was more than one constable guarding the mortuary.

"and a strong force of police has been put around the mortuary."

[Trevor Marriott]

There was more than one constable guarding the mortuary.

"and a strong force of police has been put around the mortuary."

So pray tell us who the other constables were then ?

Or was this just an uncorroborated quote from a newspaper report ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Harry D]

Trev, the burden of proof isn't with them to prove that something didn't happen (i.e. the organs weren't stolen at the mortuary). That rests squarely with you.

[Wickerman]

Dear Trevor.
With all due respect, given your position as a retired detective, the evidence you raise, the level of your argument, and the unfounded assumptions you promote are totally bewildering coming from someone in your position.
I just fail to find a more tactful way to put it.

[lynn cates]

previous

Hello Harry. Thanks.

"Low lighting, . . ."

But compare buck's Row. There was sufficient light at Mitre.

". . . layers of clothing, . . ."

Three instead of two? Come off it.

". . . time constraints."

Not according to the police.

"Next."

No. previous. You've not dealt credibly with this yet.

Cheers.
LC

[Trevor Marriott]

Trev, the burden of proof isn't with them to prove that something didn't happen (i.e. the organs weren't stolen at the mortuary). That rests squarely with you.

There can be no conclusive burden of proof either way because we simply dont know all the answers, and the witness testimony was never fully tested.

Its a case of weighing all the facts and the evidence in support of both arguments and coming to an unbiased conclusion.

Could or did the killer remove the organs at the crime scenes given the light available to him and the condition of the bodies at the times. Or could the organs have been removed at the mortuaries during the long gap in time between bodies arriving at the mortuaries and the doctors coming back to conduct the post mortems.

It is a fact that organs were in great demand for medical research and that organs could be obtained from mortuaries, and that to that end every day there were medical personnel seeking out organs and bodies form mortuaries.

Ask yourself what is the most likely

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Dear Trevor.
With all due respect, given your position as a retired detective, the evidence you raise, the level of your argument, and the unfounded assumptions you promote are totally bewildering coming from someone in your position.
I just fail to find a more tactful way to put it.

With due respect you I now spend all my days now working for defense lawyers representing persons arrested for crimes ranging from murder to every other crime you can think of. Part of that work involved assessing and evaluating and where possible finding chinks in prosecution evidence.

So any arguments that I put forward or suggestions or assumptions that I make about the facts and evidence on this mystery are not made without good and valid cause.

Its time that you and others got out of this old habit of believing everything you read and are told about this mystery, and that whatever the police say must be kosher because its the police saying it and they could never lie. I think it called taking the blinkers off.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GUT]

There can be no conclusive burden of proof either way because we simply dont know all the answers, and the witness testimony was never fully tested.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor

Do you have any idea what burden of proof means?

[Wickerman]

Its time that you and others got out of this old habit of believing everything you read and are told about this mystery, and that whatever the police say must be kosher because its the police saying it and they could never lie. I think it called taking the blinkers off.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It isn't a case of believing everything in newspapers, it is very much a case of evaluating what we read.

What conceivable reason would a reporter have to tell us that there was a "strong force of police" guarding the mortuary, if it was only one constable?

You must also appreciate we read the same procedure enacted for the protection of Nichols body as we do for Chapman's body.

"...several officers of the police guard the remains of the dead"

Quite true, we need to question what we read, but we also need to evaluate what we read, not dismiss an account just because is contests our beliefs, heaven knows there are numerous examples of that on these forums.

We have two examples (Nichols, Chapman) that tell the same story, there may be more, so you can hardly blame that on the imaginations of a reporter.

Evaluate Trevor, not discriminate.

[Michael W Richards]

Neither Nichols or Chapman said they were going to solicit.

Neither did Mary Jon, which is the evidence that Lynn and I have been using when suggesting that we only have 2 Canonicals that we can state with some assurance of accuracy were soliciting on the night they were murdered, because we have in both cases admission of that fact by the deceased women themselves on that same night. Ergo, the founding principle in almost every Ripper argument is purely speculative...that part of Jacks MO is that he stalked street women who were soliciting at the time. Just 2 of the five Canonical women were, apparently.

Any suggestion that Liz, Kate or Mary were also soliciting is therefore based on ones preconceived notions or speculation. Interesting to note at this juncture that neither of the 2 women we can state were actually soliciting had any facial mutilations. And they are the only sequential murders that are in the Unsolved file that are remarkbly similar in virtually every aspect, from Victimology to Signature.

The general consensus, (and the basis of almost every Ripper book published), is that these minor issues are secondary to the issue of the likelihood that 2 serial killers, or more, were operating in that same area at that same time. I suppose that the multiple Torsos and 7 of thirteen murdered women who were not assumed to be "Jacks" victims were killed by "misadventure".

Cheers

[Sam Flynn]

Ergo, the founding principle in almost every Ripper argument is purely speculative...that part of Jacks MO is that he stalked street women who were soliciting at the time.

My reading of the evidence suggests that we have an opportunist who struck at easy targets. (Or opportunists, plural, if you like). I don't see that it's at all necessary to conclude that we have a "stalker" of "actively soliciting" street-women.

[Trevor Marriott]

It isn't a case of believing everything in newspapers, it is very much a case of evaluating what we read.

I disagree, you keep posting extracts from newspapers and quite clearly want to believe they supports your belief,when they are ambiguous. "Police guard around the remains" that could mean anything from when the body was first taken to the mortuary to the days after the post mortem and before the burial.

Pc Barnes was never questioned about what events happened, or who came, and who went while he was "on guard"

To highlight another amibiguity. The nurses who stripped the body stated that Inspector Chandler had instructed them to do so. Inspector Chandler says he did not, which one is lying, and for what reason.

You must also appreciate we read the same procedure enacted for the protection of Nichols body as we do for Chapman's body.

"...several officers of the police guard the remains of the dead"

And the same answer applies as I have stated above.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Errata]

Its time that you and others got out of this old habit of believing everything you read and are told about this mystery, and that whatever the police say must be kosher because its the police saying it and they could never lie. I think it called taking the blinkers off.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I believe cops lie I believe they take bribes, I believe organs were in demand, though not like, Tickle Me Elmo in demand, and I believe with my whole heart that given the right circumstances everyone acts in their own best interests whenever possible.

What I don't believe is that they did it on THIS case which clearly freaked them out badly. Sandbagging this case by tampering with the evidence, and then doing it AGAIN a couple of months later when the determination had been made that this was a serial killer is not self serving. Do I think they did everything right? No. Do I see any medical professional or law enforcement officer willing to compromise finding this killer by taking a bribe, or leaving the body, or taking an organ (the wrong way for a medical specimen mind you).

And I'm sure that there were people that sociopathic to say screw the case, I need what I need. But everyone there would have to have been equally sociopathic. And I think you need at least three people that uncaring, all courting arrest because it was only legal under certain circumstances, all who meet at the same time and somehow manage to silence everyone who saw the body prior to the organ theft so they don't say "Hey, there was stuff in here before and now it's gone". Because the intestines were out at the scene, so that cavity was partially exposed. And people did see inside. And none of them, even those with no notion of anatomy, noticed that the pelvic cavity was 50% emptier than it was before they went for lunch? And no one knew when the coroner was going to show up, so he could have walked in on some random guy cutting out a uterus, and straight to jail for all of them.

I don't see anyone getting that pitch and seeing it as a win. It's too complicated, no one is protected enough, and jobs were not so easy to come by that anything other than an astonishing bribe is going to induce someone to risk getting caught, going to jail for tampering with a corpse (which was big thing then), get out and be unemployable. It's not about whether or not someone would do that. Of course someone would try to grab an organ not quite legally. And it's not about whether someone could do that, because I'm sure they did semi regularly. It's about whether they could do in this case where even seasoned cops were revolted and scared. Whether they could get rid of all of the obstacles in their way in a cost effective fashion that allows them to get what they need cheaper than buying it on the black market, or waiting for another body. And that's a no.

So even if you don't care about the case, you don't care about the poor dead woman, and you don't even care that much about your job, you don't risk going to jail for some guy with a couple of bucks and a bad plan. The first thing you ask is "what's in it for me" the second question is "what happens if I get caught?" and the third is "what do you plan to do about the other people hanging around?". And unless this guy is going to set you up for life for this particular uterus, which is insane, the answer to the first question cannot make up for the answer to the second. You tell him to come back next week for a less sensational corpse. And if that doctor is remotely reasonable, he agrees. And outside of starting a fire down the street to draw everyone away, I can't even think of an answer to the third question. And I sure as hell wouldn't risk going to jail without an answer to that question.

Anyone can be lured by a sure thing. But this could not have been a sure thing. It would be sheer luck that they didn't get caught. And that's not good enough. You might convince one guy, but not several. And it would have taken several people in on it, if for no other reason than that they don't mention the strange guy going in the shed. They might do it for a photographer, because they might get fired, but there's no jail time in that. But prison time is a game changer.