Who did kill Nichols and Kelly ?

[Trevor Marriott]

But if he was at the 'reassembly' autopsy the next day, he'd be in a pretty good position to know.

He wasnt !!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Pierre]

The Ripper removed the uterus in three of his murders. Only the killer knows why he left it at the scene with Kelly, or didn't manage to remove it at all with Nichols.

He left it at the scene with Kelly so it could be seen.

He had no time to take it from Nichols, because Lechmere came along on his way to work.

Regards, Pierre

[Trevor Marriott]

The heart does not feature in Dr Bond's inventory of "placed" body parts, whereas every other organ (including the lowly spleen) is listed. He does, however, say that the heart was "absent". Taken together, those facts would seem to support the view that Kelly's heart was indeed not found at the scene of the crime.

But that inventory could have been made as a result of listing the body parts as they were found and what was seen at the time.

It all a question of interpretation of the ambiguous statement of Bond.

Then you have to look at what there is to corroborate that inference people have drawn for that over the years "nothing"!

Whereas we have Insp Reid stating that nothing was missing, coupled with newspaper reports of the day saying the same. We also have the fact that there is nothing recorded from any official police, or otherwise, over the ensuing years to corroborate the fact that the heart was missing.

You see if you prove nothing was taken away from Kelly when the killer could have taken away half the body, and also accept she was killed by the same hand as Chapman and Eddowes. It adds more weight to the suggestion that the killer of Chapman and Eddowes did not remove the organs at the crime scene, and at the same time punches a big hole in a major part of this ripper mystery.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

In the case of Chapman and Eddowes the killer is supposed to have removed the uterus from both. If it is to believed that 5 mins was enough time for the killer to kill mutilate and remove a uterus and a kidney from Eddowes, then if the killer was taking organs, he had enough time to take organs from Nicholls, yet none were taken, and no evidence from the body that any attempt was even made to do so

Um... Nichols' abdomen was scored and sliced several times, to the extent that her bowels protruded. Indeed, although the remaining medical reports are somewhat patchy, it appears that Nichols suffered more injuries to her external abdomen than did Chapman or Eddowes. If her killer had spent less time slicing her belly, he might have had more left to explore what was inside.

same with Stride and Tabram.

Different killer, in my book.

As I said if the killer was taking organs then he could have taken one or more organs from Kelly, yet he didn't

Instead, he "merely" emptied her entire abdomen and most of her thorax of their organs. Oh, and probably took her heart away as a trophy.

[Trevor Marriott]

He left it at the scene with Kelly so it could be seen.

He had no time to take it from Nichols, because Lechmere came along on his way to work.

Regards, Pierre

But he still had enough time based on the time allotted in Mitre Sq for the murder, mutilations and removal of two organs (5 mins)

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

In the case of Chapman and Eddowes the killer is supposed to have removed the uterus from both. If it is to believed that 5 mins was enough time for the killer to kill mutilate and remove a uterus and a kidney from Eddowes, then if the killer was taking organs, he had enough time to take organs from Nicholls, yet none were taken, and no evidence from the body that any attempt was even made to do so. same with Stride and Tabram.

How can one say there was enough time in the Nichols case.

You certainly have no evidence which allows you to say that the killer had at least 5 minutes alone with her do you?


The killer was almost certainly disturbed, now if that is being disturbed by Lechmere, or alternative by Paul, if you buy the Lechmere case, it really does not matter.

There is evidence in the wounds that he was disturbed. In addition there is some evidence that the intention was to disembowel and remove, but he was disturbed, this is research I am working on at present.

As I said if the killer was taking organs then he could have taken one or more organs from Kelly, yet he didn't, so when we only have two victims that organs were found to be missing at the post mortems, two victims where the bodies were left unattended for long periods of time, and two victims which show different methods of the removal of the same organ we must sound the warning bells.

Your continued insistence that the heart was present is remarkable, not back by the Medics at the scene, nor at the postmortem, not backed by the papers, the early stories it was present, were on the whole retracted.

The majority of sources say it was not present, indeed do we have more than Reid to say it was?
Has you claim so often of other theories, deeply flawed, based on little but a personal opinion.

And why do we have such an idea, not because of the data that is clear, but because such an idea FITS the NEW theories.

Its not different methods, the method is similar, just performed with variation, which is what one would expect in the real world.

Take the cotton wool out of your ears !!!!!!!!!

No Trevor, you take the blinkers off and look at data objectively for once!!!!


Have a good day


Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

Um... Nichols' abdomen was scored and sliced several times, to the extent that her bowels protruded. Indeed, although the remaining medical reports are somewhat patchy, it appears that Nichols suffered more injuries to her external abdomen than did Chapman or Eddowes. If her killer had spent less time slicing her belly, he might have had more left to explore what was inside.Different killer, in my book.
Instead, he "merely" emptied her entire abdomen and most of her thorax of their organs. Oh, and probably took her heart away as a trophy.

Sam

Nichols bowels did not protrude.

Emptying Kellys abdomen is a trait not seen in any of the other victims. Might point to a different killer to the others.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

But he still had enough time based on the time allotted in Mitre Sq for the murder, mutilations and removal of two organs (5 mins)

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Please explain how you can say that?

Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;404426]

How can one say there was enough time in the Nichols case.

You certainly have no evidence which allows you to say that the killer had at least 5 minutes alone with her do you?


The killer was almost certainly disturbed, now if that is being disturbed by Lechmere, or alternative by Paul, if you buy the Lechmere case, it really does not matter.

Of course it does matter. The only reason you say that is does not matter is my research and your audience here.

Am I right in saying this, Steve?

There is evidence in the wounds that he was disturbed. In addition there is some evidence that the intention was to disembowel and remove, but he was disturbed, this is research I am working on at present.

Yes. He was disturbed. And "he" was decribed by Lechmere as a policeman according to sworn PC Mizen at the inquest.

There is nothing to do about this: It is a well established historical fact.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

Sam

Nichols bowels did not protrude.

Emptying Kellys abdomen is a trait not seen in any of the other victims. Might point to a different killer to the others.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor,

Suggest you read ALL the reports of Nichols injuries, then perhaps you would learn something

Steve

[Elamarna]

Of course it does matter. The only reason you say that is does not matter is my research and your audience here.

Am I right in saying this, Steve?

No Pierre, you are wrong on that one, its purely that in this instance it does not matter, who. Its about the time available.

Yes. He was disturbed. And "he" was decribed by Lechmere as a policeman according to sworn PC Mizen at the inquest.

There is nothing to do about this: It is a well established historical fact.

That is not what Mizen said, the testimony from was Mizen was that he was needed buy a police man, this is disputed.
It is your your interpretation that a policeman was disturbed, Its a theory, not historic fact.



, Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Pierre;404429]

Of course it does matter. The only reason you say that is does not matter is my research and your audience here.

Am I right in saying this, Steve?

Yes. He was disturbed. And "he" was decribed by Lechmere as a policeman according to sworn PC Mizen at the inquest.

There is nothing to do about this: It is a well established historical fact.

Regards, Pierre

And also: Lechmere did not say, according to PC Mizen, that he had seen an ordinary man walking or running away from the site.

If Lechmere was the killer he could not tell the police that a policeman was the killer. They would not believe that.

Pierre

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;404433]

And also: Lechmere did not say, according to PC Mizen, that he had seen an ordinary man walking or running away from the site.

If Lechmere was the killer he could not tell the police that a policeman was the killer. They would not believe that.

Pierre

Thats your theory certainly, i have no idea if it is true or not, and like recently in another thread, i allowed for it.


Steve

[Pierre]

No Pierre, you are wrong on that one, its purely that in this instance it does not matter, who. Its about the time available.

That is not what Mizen said, the testimony from was Mizen was that he was needed buy a police man, this is disputed.
It is your your interpretation that a policeman was disturbed, Its a theory, not historic fact.


, Steve

Shame on you, Steve. Not for my sake but for the sake of the past and the precious sources it has left to us.

Regards, Pierre

[Trevor Marriott]

Final reply

How can one say there was enough time in the Nichols case.

You certainly have no evidence which allows you to say that the killer had at least 5 minutes alone with her do you?

Well this answer hangs on the fact that either Lechmere was the killer or it was another. If Lechmere then he would have had no more than 5 mins. If another killer then he could have had an unlimited time available to him, unless of course was disturbed by Lechmere. The point is that if the same killer then he could have effected any removal in under 5 mins based on the Eddowes murder. Or the killer had unlimited time and only carried out the murder and mutilations and had no design on any organ

The killer was almost certainly disturbed, now if that is being disturbed by Lechmere, or alternative by Paul, if you buy the Lechmere case, it really does not matter.

You dont know that see above

There is evidence in the wounds that he was disturbed. In addition there is some evidence that the intention was to disembowel and remove, but he was disturbed, this is research I am working on at present.

What evidence? Conjecture on your part

Your continued insistence that the heart was present is remarkable, not back by the Medics at the scene, nor at the postmortem, not backed by the papers, the early stories it was present, were on the whole retracted.

The later editions of the newspapers did not retract the fact that nothing was missing from the body. There is nothing from any official police or otherwise which suport the suggestion that the heart was taken away by the killer

The majority of sources say it was not present, indeed do we have more than Reid to say it was?

The Newspapers corroborate what Reid says

No Trevor, you take the blinkers off and look at data objectively for once!!!!

I think it is you that need to remove the blinkers not me


Steve