Who did kill Nichols and Kelly ?

[Fisherman]

Thats conjecture on your part

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

See post 180.

[Fisherman]

There was no degree of skill shown with regards to the removal of the body parts from Kelly.

As to the removal of the kidney from Eddowes and the degree of difficulty I have highlighted. I refer to Edmund Neale consulatnt gynecolgist from my book Jack the Ripper The Secret Police Files

"I agree with the suggestion at the time that to have removed a kidney would require a degree of knowledge, but it is interesting that it is the left kidney that was removed rather than the right, which would probably be more difficult to access because of the liver, thereby making the task of removal more difficult to accomplish"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So when BOTH kidneys are taken out from the front, left AND right, like in the Kelly case, it tells us that there is less skill involved...? Care to explain how that works, Trevor?

[Fisherman]

As an aside, the level of skill I think we are looking at with the Ripper, is a thorough knowledge of where the different organs are situated inside the body, combined with determination, confidence and a very sharp knife that the killer handled with experience.
Nothing more than that.
No surgical insights at all, no medical experience at all.

[Trevor Marriott]

So when BOTH kidneys are taken out from the front, left AND right, like in the Kelly case, it tells us that there is less skill involved...? Care to explain how that works, Trevor?

I am not a medical expert and neither are you so I will pass on your offer.

My medical expert have all reviewed the post mortem reports and given their opinions. I will be guided by what they say even though at times I do question some of those opinions. But of course we know that medical opinion between doctors are at times going to be in conflict, as is still the case today.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

As an aside, the level of skill I think we are looking at with the Ripper, is a thorough knowledge of where the different organs are situated inside the body, combined with determination, confidence and a very sharp knife that the killer handled with experience.
Nothing more than that.
No surgical insights at all, no medical experience at all.

Well that profile is as about as much use as the FBI profile of the killer, or the other profile which appeared on the TV where the killer looked like Freddie Mercury.

Its nice to see that you have added to your expertise profile. You have gone from casebooks resident forensic pathologist to casebooks resident forensic criminal profiler

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

I am not a medical expert and neither are you so I will pass on your offer.

My medical expert have all reviewed the post mortem reports and given their opinions. I will be guided by what they say even though at times I do question some of those opinions. But of course we know that medical opinion between doctors are at times going to be in conflict, as is still the case today.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Then follow what they say.



You are cherry picking comments from some experts you use and ignoring others. You admit that you have little understanding of the subject, so how do you decide what to question? actually views are not questioned, they are not even dismissed, just ignored.

It's the equivalent in science of throwing results that don't suit you out of the window, total pointless and rendering the work less than useless.


If such were used on the testing of medicines, how would anyone know such were safe to use.


You rightly say you know nothing of medicine, it is clear the same applies to any science or research it seems.

Where is the honesty and integrity that is needed in any science or research Trevor?


Steve

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott: I am not a medical expert and neither are you so I will pass on your offer.

... but those who ARE medical experts have told us that excising a kidney from the front is a tad difficult since the kidney is hidden by a membrane. Accordingly, it can be argued that somebody with anatomical insights is more likely to pull it off.
So I am not making any calls - I am using the medical experts´ calls, Trevor.

Another expert - one of your very own experts - tells us that excising the right kidney is harder than excising the left.

And then, if the face of all this impressive expertise, you take it upon yourself to claim that although Kelly had BOTH kidneys excised from the front, she is LESS likely to have been cut by somebody with anatomical insights than a victim who had only the left kidney excised...?

Now, Trevor, my take was all based on true and real life experts and what they say. None of it was my call.

So maybe now you are able to comment on how your line of thought travelled when you arrived at your rather exotic conclusion that a woman who has both kidneys excised from the front displays LESS medical and anatomical insights than a woman who has only one - the easy one, according to your expert - kidney excised from the front.

To me it sounds plain wrong, but maybe you have an expert at hand who can tell me how it works?

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;404547]Well that profile is as about as much use as the FBI profile of the killer, or the other profile which appeared on the TV where the killer looked like Freddie Mercury.

Its nice to see that you have added to your expertise profile. You have gone from casebooks resident forensic pathologist to casebooks resident forensic criminal profiler

www.trevormarriott.co.uk[/QUOTE

I can´t remember calling myself either of those things. I have views on what happened, but I think everybody out here has. Would you rather we didn´t discuss the case at all? Or should medicos only discuss the medical implications, psychologists only matters of the mind? Do you need to be a physicist to discuss light emission or an expert on candy to discuss the cachous?

You are an ex-murder squad detective, and look where that has brought us.
You just let anyone who wants to discuss anything do just that, and if you think they are wrong, THEN you can bring in your experts to prove your point. That´s how it´s gonna work, and if you don´t like it, any religious expert can tell you to go to hell. Well, actually, anybody at all can do so, but with less insight about what hell is.
My layman´s take on it is that hell is a large room where Ripperologists avoid discussing the case in favour of all sorts of moronic diversions.

[Trevor Marriott]

Then follow what they say.



You are cherry picking comments from some experts you use and ignoring others.

That’s the equivalent in science of throwing results that don't suit you out of the window, total pointless and rendering the work less than useless.


If such were used on the testing of medicines, how would anyone know such were safe to use.


You rightly say you know nothing of medicine, it is clear the same applies to any science it seems.

Where is the honesty and integrity that is needed in any science or research Trevor?


Steve

I am not cherry picking, if I were, I would not have included all the different experts opinions in my book for all to read. It all a question of interpretation. Its also a question of accepting what is presented both from 1888 and now. You seem to be reluctant to accept either.

The trouble with you is that you are one of those I refer to who is so fixated in the old accepted theories that you cannot accept and wont accept anything new that challenges those old theories.

After 128 years science is not going to take this mystery any further now and the same can be said for the general run of the mill research. So we are left with what we have from 1888, and what new evidence can be adduced from up to date research.

As an experienced investigator I identified a number of flaws in those old accepted theories which i have gone to great lengths to either prove or disprove. In some of those case I accept I have not been able to prove or disprove these conclusively, but I have in my opinion gathered enough new data for the average person with no hidden agendas that are interested in the mystery to be able to make their own minds up as to where the truth lies, and to accept or reject the new findings.

You have the chance, as does everyone to try to find the elusive sources and data, which will show that the old accepted theories are correct and that my findings and research are flawed.

I wish you well.

My work is now done I have new fish to fry.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;404551]

Well that profile is as about as much use as the FBI profile of the killer, or the other profile which appeared on the TV where the killer looked like Freddie Mercury.

Its nice to see that you have added to your expertise profile. You have gone from casebooks resident forensic pathologist to casebooks resident forensic criminal profiler

www.trevormarriott.co.uk[/QUOTE

I can´t remember calling myself either of those things. I have views on what happened, but I think everybody out here has. Would you rather we didn´t discuss the case at all? Or should medicos only discuss the medical implications, psychologists only matters of the mind? Do you need to be a physicist to discuss light emission or an expert on candy to discuss the cachous?

You are an ex-murder squad detective, and look where that has brought us.
You just let anyone who wants to discuss anything do just that, and if you think they are wrong, THEN you can bring in your experts to prove your point. That´s how it´s gonna work, and if you don´t like it, any religious expert can tell you to go to hell. Well, actually, anybody at all can do so, but with less insight about what hell is.
My layman´s take on it is that hell is a large room where Ripperologists avoid discussing the case in favour of all sorts of moronic diversions.

Moronic diversions by morons. If the cap fits ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;404557]

Moronic diversions by morons. If the cap fits ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Actually, I was more like thinking of you, who avoid discussing the case in favour of saying that those who disagree with you would somehow wrongfully have claimed to be experts on different matters. That was what I meant with "diversions".
Hope that helps.

Now, please answer the question about Kelly.

[Elamarna]

I am not cherry picking, if I were, I would not have included all the different experts opinions in my book for all to read. It all a question of interpretation. Its also a question of accepting what is presented both from 1888 and now. You seem to be reluctant to accept either.

Certainly not, Trevor.

I restarted the thread on your experts did I not?

Did I not say it was good how you used more than one opinion?

Yes interpretation, and it must be based on a balanced review of the data, that is where you fail time and time again as a researcher.

The fact that you ignore statements which DO NOT fit your ideas, and accept those that do IS Cherry Picking there is no other term for it.

The trouble with you is that you are one of those I refer to who is so fixated in the old accepted theories that you cannot accept and wont accept anything new that challenges those old theories.

Please stop this nonsense, you asked me a list of questions some time back, to try and see what I believed.

You have never ever responded or even said thank you!

I assume because you did not get the results you wanted; I do not accept all the old theories.

I will link to the post next time you make this claim, so all can see.

I am not fixed on any ideas, "old" or "new", but I am experienced in research and know how to look at data being as objective as possible, and trying to limit any bias I may have.

After 128 years science is not going to take this mystery any further now and the same can be said for the general run of the mill research. So we are left with what we have from 1888, and what new evidence can be adduced from up to date research.

New ideas are great if they can be backed by the limited data and by applying a non bias approach to looking at them.
They are certainly no worse than old ideas some of which are indeed weak or flawed.

Unfortunately this is where bias comes in, anything you dislike or disagree with is called "seriously flawed"; this assessment is made time after time, based on opinion not data .

If we just go with any idea and say that is what happen because we want to believe it, we are no longer carrying out factual/historical research we are writing fiction.

As an experienced investigator I identified a number of flaws in those old accepted theories which i have gone to great lengths to either prove or disprove. In some of those case I accept I have not been able to prove or disprove these conclusively, but I have in my opinion gathered enough new data for the average person with no hidden agendas that are interested in the mystery to be able to make their own minds up as to where the truth lies, and to accept or reject the new findings.

Trevor the truth as unpalatable to you as it is, amounts to the fact that you have not proven the majority of flaws you claim

The approach taken to interpretation is often whimsical at best and possibly disingenuous at worst.


You say In your opinion you have enough to support your views, but that opinion is seriously bias.

All of your ideas are based purely on your unique interpretation of the data, be that from 1888 or modern day experts.

Presenting an opinion is not proving, or establishing a fact.

Yes that what it is all about, those of us who research this and even more so those who claim to publish serious research have a duty to the "average" man to make sure that information is honest and not disingenuous.

You have the chance, as does everyone to try to find the elusive sources and data, which will show that the old accepted theories are correct and that my findings and research are flawed.

If one is going to challenge accepted ideas in any field, the onus is the the one challenging to prove their points of their case.

The argument that others must prove your objections are wrong is the approach taken by the likes of those who push the idea of ancient aliens.


One must establish at least two things when challenging accepted ideas;


1. Persuasive, data backed arguments and theories that the current theories are flawed.


Have you done this?

You have indeed argued on items such as the time and light in Mitre Square, based on your own interpretation of data,

However this has meant ignoring primary sources and other data which does not FIT.



2. Ideas that are not just different, but which are backed by data, and are viable


Have you achieved this?

In the case of organ removal you have certainly not: you have not established there was a market in the mortuaries of 1888 Whitechapel for such, or that such illegal harvesting took place at such places.

The argument that there was not time to do it on site is based on a view, contrary to the expert views of those present and to 50% of the modern experts used in your publications.

The argument that it was too dark, is contrary to the only primary source we have on the light. You attempt to wriggle out of this by saying the word "deed" means only certain wounds.

How you claim to know this is the case is certainly interesting!

It appears to be circular in nature, being he could not mean the organ removal, as there was neither time or light for such.

To base an hypothesis on such a flawed interpretation ultimately means it is not viable as it stands.

My work is now done I have new fish to fry.

You said the same yesterday, such a shame.



Steve

[Sam Flynn]

My work is now done I have new fish to fry.

Red herrings, presumably.

[John G]

Then clearly Bond was not impressed with taking the kidneys out from the front - and there goes the argument. Kelly´s innards were not damaged as far as we know, and they were not torn out as far as we know. They were excised by means of knife - which does not take a surgeon.

Dr Bond didn't think that Kelly's murderer had any skill at all, not even that of a common horse slaughterer. Dr Phillips concurred, describing the injuries inflicted on Kelly as "most wanton".

This is far removed from the level of skill Dr Phillips ascribed to Chapman's murderer, or Dr Brown to Eddowes killer.

[elleryqueen74]

Dr Bond didn't think that Kelly's murderer had any skill at all, not even that of a common horse slaughterer. Dr Phillips concurred, describing the injuries inflicted on Kelly as "most wanton".

If the killer were a medical man or had any skill, he would not necessarily need to use his skills during the murders, as the skills he would have are for the preservation of life. In the instances of the murders he is clearly not preserving life so he would not need to be so methodical in the use of his skills. So he could just cut and slash as he wishes. There are no laws saying that if he were a Dr or skilled that he has to keep using those skills during a murder. However if during the murder he decides he wants and organ like a Kidney which is hard to get to then of course his skills then would come into play as he would have the skill to be able to know how to get it.