Facial Mutilations

[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.

[lynn cates]

faithless--not believing

Hello Trevor. Thanks.

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

Cheers.
LC

[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

[Jon Guy]

Well you keep your head buried in the sand

Will do.
Give us a kick on the arse when you find something worth coming up for.

[Trevor Marriott]

Will do.
Give us a kick on the arse when you find something worth coming up for.

Before you bury your head here is something to take with you to digest the meaning of plausible which by your posts you clearly don't understand the meaning of

seeming reasonable or probable.
"a plausible explanation"
synonyms:
credible, reasonable, believable, likely, feasible, probable, tenable, possible, conceivable, imaginable, within the bounds of possibility, convincing, persuasive, cogent, sound, rational, logical, acceptable, thinkable.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Hunter]

This has been pointed out before every time this stuff gets brought up but I'll point it out again just for jolly. George Bagster Phillips testified that he noticed Chapman's uterus was missing at the scene of the crime. Look it up. I realise these inconvienient truths means nothing to wacko theorists. Which is why I seldom post anymore. The same people with the same bullshit... over and over and over.

[Harry D]

This has been pointed out before every time this stuff gets brought up but I'll point it out again just for jolly. George Bagster Phillips testified that he noticed Chapman's uterus was missing at the scene of the crime. Look it up. I realise these inconvienient truths means nothing to wacko theorists. Which is why I seldom post anymore. The same people with the same bullshit... over and over and over.

But WHAT IF, Hunter? WHAT IF!?

[Trevor Marriott]

This has been pointed out before every time this stuff gets brought up but I'll point it out again just for jolly. George Bagster Phillips testified that he noticed Chapman's uterus was missing at the scene of the crime. Look it up. I realise these inconvienient truths means nothing to wacko theorists. Which is why I seldom post anymore. The same people with the same bullshit... over and over and over.

And I keep pointing out to you that is wrong its about time you got your head around it.

[Coroner] You do not think they could have been lost accidentally in the transit of the body to the mortuary?

[Bagster Phillips] I was not present at the transit. I carefully closed up the clothes of the woman. Some portions had been excised.

If the uterus was found to be missing at the crime scene, why did the coroner ask if it could have got lost in transit?

The above text was from the inquest testimony relative to the post mortem, Not from the crime scene. He didn't find the uterus missing until the post mortem

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

If the uterus was found to be missing at the crime scene, why did the coroner ask if it could have got lost in transit?

More to the point, how on earth did Wynne Baxter imagine that a uterus (and its attachments) could just "fall out", presumably due to bumps in the road?

The man was an idiot.

[Hunter]

I reckon a further explanation may be necessary. Baxter was simply trying to determine that the organs in question were taken away by the murderer rather than being lost with the abdominal flaps, stomach, intestines and all the mess put on the ambulance with the victim in transport. Baxter likely already knew the answer. He was just (maybe awkwardly to us now) trying to drive the point home to the jury - which reinforces the fact that Phillips noticed the organs missing before the body was conveyed to the mortuary.

Phillips should have accompanied the body to the mortuary and this was (too me) Baxter's way of chiding him for not doing it. Having studied both Phillips and Baxter a little bit I could readily name Baxter's probable human weaknesses... but a simple study of his political career alone shows he was far from an idiot.

Y'all can have it back now folks.

[Errata]

I reckon a further explanation may be necessary. Baxter was simply trying to determine that the organs in question were taken away by the murderer rather than being lost with the abdominal flaps, stomach, intestines and all the mess put on the ambulance with the victim in transport. Baxter likely already knew the answer. He was just (maybe awkwardly to us now) trying to drive the point home to the jury - which reinforces the fact that Phillips noticed the organs missing before the body was conveyed to the mortuary.

Yeah

Let's say there was a murder today, and instead of a uterus the killer rooted around in the chest and took the duodenum. And someone reads this to a court, or some official. And the first thing out of that guys mouth is going to be

"I'm sorry what?"

And then there's the confirmation that the duodenum is missing. But what the hell is someone going to do with a duodenum? No one even pronounces it correctly, zero fetish value, no symbolism. So Since no one would want such a thing, you really have to be sure that the killer took it, and it didn't just get kicked under a dumpster or something. If it was the heart, the genitals, hell fingers we understand. But a duodenum? Who doesn't make sure something else didn't happen to it?

Well, in 1888, people didn't take organs. There would have been very few cases of that known, and because it's the LVP and genitals are actually dirty bits, who would even want one if they were going to take something? Why not take a heart, a clearly understood symbol and at least doesn't make you pervert?

There's a lot of people who have to wrap their head around this. And the Coroner may be asking because he can't wrap his head around this, or maybe he is asking for the benefit others, leading them to the understanding that there is no other explanation, this weird disgusting thing did happen.

[lynn cates]

non-starter

Hello Cris, Trevor. I think there can be little doubt that the uterus was taken in BOTH the Chapman and Eddowes's cases AT the scene. So I think that is a non-starter.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

mutilations

Hello Gareth.

". . . how on earth did Wynne Baxter imagine that a uterus (and its attachments) could just "fall out", presumably due to bumps in the road?"

Perhaps on account of the extensive mutilations?

Cheers.
LC

[Trevor Marriott]

I reckon a further explanation may be necessary. Baxter was simply trying to determine that the organs in question were taken away by the murderer rather than being lost with the abdominal flaps, stomach, intestines and all the mess put on the ambulance with the victim in transport. Baxter likely already knew the answer. He was just (maybe awkwardly to us now) trying to drive the point home to the jury - which reinforces the fact that Phillips noticed the organs missing before the body was conveyed to the mortuary.

Phillips should have accompanied the body to the mortuary and this was (too me) Baxter's way of chiding him for not doing it. Having studied both Phillips and Baxter a little bit I could readily name Baxter's probable human weaknesses... but a simple study of his political career alone shows he was far from an idiot.

Y'all can have it back now folks.

Nothing to take back, your post is all conjecture, and yet another attempt to deflect from the obvious

The coroner would not have asked that specific question if he had been told or perceived that the organs were all present at the crime scene.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Cris, Trevor. I think there can be little doubt that the uterus was taken in BOTH the Chapman and Eddowes's cases AT the scene. So I think that is a non-starter.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn
I have to say you are wrong on this as Baxters question to Phillips clearly points to the fact that the uterus was not present in Chapmans abdomen when the body was at the crime scene.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk