Jack's Escape from Mitre Square

[Trevor Marriott]

No, I don't believe that was the case Trevor. The sidebar about the pm was by Crawford, it was not part of what they had been discussing up until that point. Then he returned to the questioning about what Brown found when he examined the body, in place in the square. What was the condition of the woman, and what did you find when you examined the woman?

"I am surgeon to the City of London Police. I was called shortly after two o'clock on Sunday morning, and reached the place of the murder about twenty minutes past two. (AT THE CRIME SCENE) My attention was directed to the body of the deceased. It was lying in the position described by Watkins, on its back, the head turned to the left shoulder, the arms by the side of the body, as if they had fallen there. Both palms were upwards, the fingers slightly bent. A thimble was lying near. The clothes were thrown up. The bonnet was at the back of the head. There was great disfigurement of the face. The throat was cut across. Below the cut was a neckerchief. The upper part of the dress had been torn open. The body had been mutilated, and was quite warm - no rigor mortis. The crime must have been committed within half an hour, or certainly within forty minutes from the time when I saw the body. There were no stains of blood on the bricks or pavement around.
By Mr. Crawford: There was no blood on the front of the clothes. There was not a speck of blood on the front of the jacket.
By the Coroner: Before we removed the body Dr. Phillips was sent for, as I wished him to see the wounds, he having been engaged in a case of a similar kind previously. He saw the body at the mortuary. The clothes were removed from the deceased carefully. I made a post-mortem examination on Sunday afternoon. There was a bruise on the back of the left hand, and one on the right shin, but this had nothing to do with the crime. There were no bruises on the elbows or the back of the head. The face was very much mutilated, the eyelids, the nose, the jaw, the cheeks, the lips, and the mouth all bore cuts. There were abrasions under the left ear. The throat was cut across to the extent of six or seven inches.
[Coroner] Can you tell us what was the cause of death? - The cause of death was haemorrhage from the throat. Death must have been immediate.
[Coroner] There were other wounds on the lower part of the body? - Yes; deep wounds, which were inflicted after death.
(Witness here described in detail the terrible mutilation of the deceased's body.)
Mr. Crawford: I understand that you found certain portions of the body removed? - Yes. The uterus was cut away with the exception of a small portion, and the left kidney was also cut out. Both these organs were absent, and have not been found.
[Coroner] Have you any opinion as to what position the woman was in when the "wounds" (PLURAL) were inflicted? - In my opinion the woman must have been lying down. The way in which the kidney was cut out showed that it was done by somebody who knew what he was about.
[Coroner] Does the nature of the wounds lead you to any conclusion as to the instrument that was used? - It must have been a sharp-pointed knife, and I should say at least 6 in. long.
[Coroner] Would you consider that the person who inflicted the wounds possessed anatomical skill? - He must have had a good deal of knowledge as to the position of the abdominal organs, and the way to remove them.
[Coroner] Would the parts removed be of any use for professional purposes? - None whatever.
[Coroner] Would the removal of the kidney, for example, require special knowledge? - It would require a good deal of knowledge as to its position, because it is apt to be overlooked, being covered by a membrane.
[Coroner] Would such a knowledge be likely to be possessed by some one accustomed to cutting up animals? - Yes.
[Coroner] Have you been able to form any opinion as to whether the perpetrator of this act was disturbed? - I think he had sufficient time, but it was in all probability done in a hurry.
[Coroner] How long would it take to make the wounds? - It might be done in five minutes. It might take him longer; but that is the least time it could be done in.
[Coroner] Can you, as a professional man, ascribe any reason for the taking away of the parts you have mentioned? - I cannot give any reason whatever.
[Coroner] Have you any doubt in your own mind whether there was a struggle? - I feel sure there was no struggle. I see no reason to doubt that it was the work of one man.
[Coroner] Would any noise be heard, do you think? - I presume the throat was instantly severed, in which case there would not be time to emit any sound.
[Coroner] Does it surprise you that no sound was heard? - No.
[Coroner] Would you expect to find much blood on the person inflicting these wounds? - No, I should not. I should say that the abdominal wounds were inflicted by a person kneeling at the right side of the body. The wounds could not possibly have been self-inflicted.
[Coroner] Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston-street? - Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.
[Coroner] Have you formed any opinion as to the motive for the mutilation of the face? - It was to disfigure the corpse, I should imagine.
A Juror: Was there any evidence of a drug having been used? - I have not examined the stomach as to that. The contents of the stomach have been preserved for analysis.

You need to read it again ! there was no proper examination of the body at the crime scene !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

There are no what ifs its a simple case or closely assessing and evaluating the facts and not as you see to want to do and that is readily accept what was said back then which as can be seen is clearly unsafe. The was almost no cross examaning of the witnesse sane for the odd question her and there

I believe I have provided enough details and information to cast a major doubt about what happened in Miter Square, and you have to show that the evidence shows that he did have and that evidence you seek to rely on is unsafe.

Lets let the people in the big wide world make their own minds up !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It’s like juggling custard.

Blah blah unsafe blah blah old accepted theories blah blah unsafe.....

You have provided zero. You have said ....what if they didn’t have enough time? You are so obsessed with being able to go on your speaking tours and saying “these other Ripperologists just stick to that old accepted theories but Marriott Of The Yard looks outside of the box” that it blatantly biases your judgment.

Brown and Sequeira included the organ removals within their estimations. This is an obvious fact. Not a guess or a maybe, it’s a fact because they can’t have done otherwise. And of course we can’t say that they are exactly correct in their times but we have absolutely zero, grounded in solid irrefutable evidence, to say that they were either slightly or wildly wrong.

So how can you say that a killer didn’t have time to do something ( something that we cannot know exactly how long that it would take) in a period of time that we cannot narrow down to a certainty. You’re claiming the impossible. To make this claim the burden of proof is on you. And so you have to show us categorically that the time required was greater than the time available.

Now, can you do that Trevor?

Ill answer for you.....no you can’t.

So you’re trying to knit a theory out of fresh air.

[JeffHamm]

Dr Brown did not open the body he engaged another medical expert of the day who was aversed in female anatomy to carry out the timed experiment. Why was that if he was happy with his and Dr Sequeira`s original estimates? and that three minutes the expert took I would suggest does not include the time it took to walk into the square and the time it took to carry out all other aspects of this murder which were attributable to the killer.

You have to look at the whole time scenario right from the time the couple could have left the spot where they were standing right to the time the killer left the victim, and we cant do that because we dont know exactly. Everybody seems to have been working with 1.35am as the start time this is according to Levy, but another witness with Levy says it could have been 1.33 or 1.34. but those times simply relate to the couple being seen, they do not relate to the times the couple could have left that spot and these times can only be used in varying time windows based on different times

For the killer to have had at least 5 minutes, and this time is the least time he would have needed according to Brown with the victim the couple would have had to leave that spot at 1.36 allowing for approx 1 minute to walk to the murder spot that takes the time to 1.37. Harvey comes along at either 1.41.42.

You cannot ignore the evidence of Dr Browns expert, but of course I accept we do not fully know the extent of this experiment only the time it took to remove a uterus. sand the fact that the expert damaged the bladder something the remover of Eddowes organs managed to avoid.

So would it be possible for the killer to do what would seem to be the impossible? and do you really want some of the old accepted theories to be rebutted? If the times do not allow for the killer to have removed the organs, then there has to be another plausible explanation.

I fail to see how you and others keeping saying Kelly`s heart was missing based on one ambiguous statement from Bond who only states it was missing from the pericardium, he doesn't say it was missing from the room, and thereafter there is not one person police or otherwise mentions the missing heart being taken away, or the suggestion that the killer took it away. In fact its the opposite with many reports stating no organs were missing, and one important statement from Insp Reid head of Whitechapel CID who attended the crime scene who states all organs were accounted for.

Now out of the two of you, who am I going to believe is right ? Its a no brainer

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I misspoke, yes, Dr. Brown's expert opened the body and removed a uterus, and all of that required 3 minutes. But it is still double dipping because the amount of time to do all the opening and so forth all is part of the time JtR has available. It's still the final cut that is of concern, and that's not 3 minutes, particularly for a mutilator who is hacking things out with no respect for the deceased. And he didn't leave a little bit behind, I believe it is described as 1/3 of it left behind. And JtR damaged the bladder, which to me seems a worse error than than the bladder. Damaging the bladder sounds like Chapman's case. So, yes, given that much of the 3 minutes for the experiment doesn't apply as much of that would be what JtR does in the time we agree upon, it's only the final step of organ removal that JtR needs to do.

Now, try to understand me. I'm not arguing that the old theories must be right because I want them to be right. What I'm saying is that your claims there were not enough time, that the grabbing of bits and cutting them out take 3 or more minutes, and so forth, are not believable nor does what you put forth as evidence appear to be correctly interpreted. And without solid evidence to support your counter-claim, it has nothing to stand on. You haven't proved your case, and the counter-argument that there was enough time is supported (there is enough time unaccounted for available - to prove it was all used would require more evidence, someone having seen Eddowes move into the square, and you're right, we don't have that, but what we do have is enough information that means it appears possible, and given what was done, we can make an inference, which is not to say it's proven true, that she moved into the square pretty much when the rain stopped.

Kelly's heart is reported as absent at the time of the post-mortem. It is not listed among the body parts found in the room. There are a few press statements indicating that an organ was taken, but not the uterus (which was listed among the body parts found in the room). While one or two reports on the day state nothing was missing, one, if not both, report the day after the post-mortem that a piece was missing. Basically, there are multiple indications that something was missing and that something was her heart. Simply repeating that it is not ambiguous doesn't make it ambiguous. It's not.

You are free to believe what you want Trevor. Just remember, belief doesn't make something correct. I know you have a vested interest in maintaining these claims, and that it could have financial repercussions for you if you were to acknowledge that these notions are hypotheticals and not evidence based inferences, so perhaps it's unfair to expect you to publicly agree that your hypotheses have yet to produce a line of inquiry that garners them support.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

It’s like juggling custard.

Blah blah unsafe blah blah old accepted theories blah blah unsafe.....

You have provided zero. You have said ....what if they didn’t have enough time? You are so obsessed with being able to go on your speaking tours and saying “these other Ripperologists just stick to that old accepted theories but Marriott Of The Yard looks outside of the box” that it blatantly biases your judgment.

Brown and Sequeira included the organ removals within their estimations. This is an obvious fact. Not a guess or a maybe, it’s a fact because they can’t have done otherwise. And of course we can’t say that they are exactly correct in their times but we have absolutely zero, grounded in solid irrefutable evidence, to say that they were either slightly or wildly wrong.

So how can you say that a killer didn’t have time to do something ( something that we cannot know exactly how long that it would take) in a period of time that we cannot narrow down to a certainty. You’re claiming the impossible. To make this claim the burden of proof is on you. And so you have to show us categorically that the time required was greater than the time available.

Now, can you do that Trevor?

Ill answer for you.....no you can’t.

So you’re trying to knit a theory out of fresh air.

There is no way of telling the time available because we don’t the actual time the couple enters the square.

so the impossible which you keep suggesting is in fact possible

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

I misspoke, yes, Dr. Brown's expert opened the body and removed a uterus, and all of that required 3 minutes. But it is still double dipping because the amount of time to do all the opening and so forth all is part of the time JtR has available. It's still the final cut that is of concern, and that's not 3 minutes, particularly for a mutilator who is hacking things out with no respect for the deceased. And he didn't leave a little bit behind, I believe it is described as 1/3 of it left behind. And JtR damaged the bladder, which to me seems a worse error than than the bladder. Damaging the bladder sounds like Chapman's case. So, yes, given that much of the 3 minutes for the experiment doesn't apply as much of that would be what JtR does in the time we agree upon, it's only the final step of organ removal that JtR needs to do.

Now, try to understand me. I'm not arguing that the old theories must be right because I want them to be right. What I'm saying is that your claims there were not enough time, that the grabbing of bits and cutting them out take 3 or more minutes, and so forth, are not believable nor does what you put forth as evidence appear to be correctly interpreted. And without solid evidence to support your counter-claim, it has nothing to stand on. You haven't proved your case, and the counter-argument that there was enough time is supported (there is enough time unaccounted for available - to prove it was all used would require more evidence, someone having seen Eddowes move into the square, and you're right, we don't have that, but what we do have is enough information that means it appears possible, and given what was done, we can make an inference, which is not to say it's proven true, that she moved into the square pretty much when the rain stopped.

Kelly's heart is reported as absent at the time of the post-mortem. It is not listed among the body parts found in the room. There are a few press statements indicating that an organ was taken, but not the uterus (which was listed among the body parts found in the room). While one or two reports on the day state nothing was missing, one, if not both, report the day after the post-mortem that a piece was missing. Basically, there are multiple indications that something was missing and that something was her heart. Simply repeating that it is not ambiguous doesn't make it ambiguous. It's not.

You are free to believe what you want Trevor. Just remember, belief doesn't make something correct. I know you have a vested interest in maintaining these claims, and that it could have financial repercussions for you if you were to acknowledge that these notions are hypotheticals and not evidence based inferences, so perhaps it's unfair to expect you to publicly agree that your hypotheses have yet to produce a line of inquiry that garners them support.

- Jeff

And you have yet to show any conclusive piece of evidence which proves the killer had the time and the skill to remove these organs at the crime scene

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

https://www.trevormarriott

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is no way of telling the time available because we don’t the actual time the couple enters the square.

so the impossible which you keep suggesting is in fact possible

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But that’s the point Trevor. You’re the one making the claim. You’re saying that the evidence points to the fact that the killer didn’t have enough time to have done what he did which therefore infers that the organs were taken in the mortuary. But can you show or prove this? No.

Brown and Sequeira, who were there at the time and were in full possession of the facts (including the window of time available to the killer) felt that he did have time. As you’ve pointed out Brown even used a third party to arrive at a time for the removal of the organs and he was still of the same opinion. The only way that you could even cast doubt on this “old accepted theory” is if you could prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the killer only had 5 minutes (and even then it probably wouldn’t have been impossible) and you can’t. So again we’re back to the ‘what if’s.”

[JeffHamm]

And you have yet to show any conclusive piece of evidence which proves the killer had the time and the skill to remove these organs at the crime scene

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

www.trevormarriott

Hi Trevor,

As you know, proving the killer had the skill requires solving the case, that's a red herring as you can no more prove they didn't have the skill.

Evidence that they could do it, and had the time, is based upon the fact that the evidence shows they did it.

Evaluation of the unaccounted for time produces a minimum amount of time available that exceeds the maximum amount of time estimated by contemporary doctors, who actually saw the body. I just know there's a window of opportunity that provides enough time to include the doctor's estimates of the time required. That's not an opinion, that simply a statement describing the data we have to work with. Given that, there is no necessary conflict within the testimony.

Your stance is based upon assuming that despite the unaccounted amount of time being sufficient within the bounds of the recorded testimonies, that maybe JtR didn't utilize all of that time, or maybe JtR was someone without the ability to do the things the doctor's testified he did, or that the medical testimony that the organs were missing is incorrect. All of those are nothing more than hypotheses because you no more know when JtR and Eddowes entered the square than I do, you do not know who JtR really was or what his skill set was, or what he was capable of doing. We can only infer those based upon the what happened. You want to change what is recorded as happening to fit your hypotheses. I evaluate your hypotheses based upon the evidence we have to work with. Hence, we come to different conclusions.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

I misspoke, yes, Dr. Brown's expert opened the body and removed a uterus, and all of that required 3 minutes. But it is still double dipping because the amount of time to do all the opening and so forth all is part of the time JtR has available. It's still the final cut that is of concern, and that's not 3 minutes, particularly for a mutilator who is hacking things out with no respect for the deceased. And he didn't leave a little bit behind, I believe it is described as 1/3 of it left behind. And JtR damaged the bladder, which to me seems a worse error than than the bladder. Damaging the bladder sounds like Chapman's case. So, yes, given that much of the 3 minutes for the experiment doesn't apply as much of that would be what JtR does in the time we agree upon, it's only the final step of organ removal that JtR needs to do.

Now, try to understand me. I'm not arguing that the old theories must be right because I want them to be right. What I'm saying is that your claims there were not enough time, that the grabbing of bits and cutting them out take 3 or more minutes, and so forth, are not believable nor does what you put forth as evidence appear to be correctly interpreted. And without solid evidence to support your counter-claim, it has nothing to stand on. You haven't proved your case, and the counter-argument that there was enough time is supported (there is enough time unaccounted for available - to prove it was all used would require more evidence, someone having seen Eddowes move into the square, and you're right, we don't have that, but what we do have is enough information that means it appears possible, and given what was done, we can make an inference, which is not to say it's proven true, that she moved into the square pretty much when the rain stopped.

Kelly's heart is reported as absent at the time of the post-mortem. It is not listed among the body parts found in the room. There are a few press statements indicating that an organ was taken, but not the uterus (which was listed among the body parts found in the room). While one or two reports on the day state nothing was missing, one, if not both, report the day after the post-mortem that a piece was missing. Basically, there are multiple indications that something was missing and that something was her heart. Simply repeating that it is not ambiguous doesn't make it ambiguous. It's not.

You are free to believe what you want Trevor. Just remember, belief doesn't make something correct. I know you have a vested interest in maintaining these claims, and that it could have financial repercussions for you if you were to acknowledge that these notions are hypotheticals and not evidence based inferences, so perhaps it's unfair to expect you to publicly agree that your hypotheses have yet to produce a line of inquiry that garners them support.

- Jeff

This will be my last post on this topic.

I am sick and tired of having to keep going over the same things again with you and others who clearly are not prepared to accept anything that goes against the old accepted theories, despite having the flaws in those old accepted theories explained in great detail to you and others, and being told that a great portion of the evidence you seek to rely on being unsafe, yet you blatantly choose to not just ignore those facts, but keep replying by asking for evidence to back up my belief.

Facts and evidence are there to be proved or disproved. Can you prove conclusively the old accepted theory to be correct that the killer removed, and took away the organs, no you cant, Can I prove conclusively he didnt? no I cant, but when you weigh up the evidence and the facts both past and present in my opinion creates a massive doubt, and tips the scales in favor of the killer not taking them, and if the killer didnt take them there has to be another plausible explanation even you must agree on that.

As to Kelly the only evidence from the post mortem was from Dr Brown and his ambiguous statement, and you will recall that after the post mortem the crime scene was revisited by police and medical men. As stated there is no mention from anyone police, medical men, or any other official that the heart was taken away by the killer. Now dont you think that strange with such a high profile case?

In fact the opposite there were numerous press report to corroborate what Insp Reid later said that all the organs were accounted for.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

But that’s the point Trevor. You’re the one making the claim. You’re saying that the evidence points to the fact that the killer didn’t have enough time to have done what he did which therefore infers that the organs were taken in the mortuary. But can you show or prove this? No.

I have already shown the times stated by Dr Brown and Sequeira to be unsafe, and also bearing in mind we dont know what time the killer and Eddowes entered the square. So what you suggest is impossible by reason of the times could have been possible.

Brown Sequeira were there at the scene, but they did not examine the body to see if any organs were missing. If they had have done it would have been in the part of Browns statement which sets out his arrival at the crime scene and what he documented. Both Doctors then speak to the press at some time before the postmortem and give their estimate of the time it would have taken the killer to mutilate the body as they had found it in the square, Brown says at least 5 minutes, Sequeira 3 mins. Thequestion put to them was quite specific "How long would it have taken the killer to mutilate the body as you found it"?

As the post mortem had no taken place at that time the answer is self explantory

;

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

This will be my last post on this topic.

I am sick and tired of having to keep going over the same things again with you and others who clearly are not prepared to accept anything that goes against the old accepted theories,

The fact you've not presented anything acceptable is not reflective of my willingness to accept such a thing.

despite having the flaws in those old accepted theories explained in great detail to you and others, and being told that a great portion of the evidence you seek to rely on being unsafe, yet you blatantly choose to not just ignore those facts, but keep replying by asking for evidence to back up my belief.

Yes, I request evidence to back up your hypotheses. You refuse to supply it, and simply restate your opinions and conjectures, conflating hypotheses with evidence.

Facts and evidence are there to be proved or disproved. Can you prove conclusively the old accepted theory to be correct that the killer removed, and took away the organs, no you cant, Can I prove conclusively he didnt? no I cant,

Exactly, you can't prove they weren't. It's a hypothesis.

Can I point to evidence that they were taken? yes, the medical testimony of the day states they were.

Can you point to evidence that shows that testimony was in error? No, you can only suggest considering that possibility. That is, of course, a wise thing to do, which I've said before. But the way it works, though, is that to change possibility into probability you have to show objective evidence that supports that hypothesis. Not someone's opinion, particularly not simply stating your own that you think it's likely. You need to show there was someone with the skill and motive to steal organs who went to both mortuaries prior to the post-mortem exam at the very least. There is no evidence of such a person, only more conjecture on your part the medically trained theif even existed.

but when you weigh up the evidence and the facts both past and present in my opinion creates a massive doubt, and tips the scales in favor of the killer not taking them,

It's clear that's your opinion. It's also clear that opinions are not evidence.

and if the killer didnt take them

This is pure conjecture, not evidence. If the killer was a baboon, then JtR wasn't human. These are not meaningful lines of reasoning, and are not proof of validity of the solution given to resolve the problem it creates because the problem only exists because you created it through conjecture. That's why your presentation is not convincing me to change my view. It has nothing to do with my being unwilling to change my view, but everything to do with the inadequacy of this line of presenting an argument.

there has to be another plausible explanation even you must agree on that.

Yes, the plausible explanation is that the conjectured starting point is wrong.

As to Kelly the only evidence from the post mortem was from Dr Brown and his ambiguous statement, and you will recall that after the post mortem the crime scene was revisited by police and medical men.

There is nothing ambiguous. It is clearly stated the heart was absent. The crime scene details the placement of all the organs except the heart. The medical people and police revisit the scene, though we don't know why, that is entirely consistent with them looking for something that was found to be missing (i.e. the heart that is indicated to have been absent, but of course there could be other explanations).

As stated there is no mention from anyone police, medical men, or any other official that the heart was taken away by the killer.

Due to the unfortunately short inquest for MJK's murder.

Now dont you think that strange with such a high profile case?

The brevity of the inquest is a shame, but given the police view at the time that with holding evidence from the public was considered best practice, no, I don't think that is strange, particularly in such a high profile case.

In fact the opposite there were numerous press report to corroborate what Insp Reid later said that all the organs were accounted for.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

There are not numerous. There's two that I have seen. And I know at least one of them was corrected the next day to indicate that, indeed, an organ was found to be missing during the post-mortem, but the article doesn't say what it was (though I believe they do indicate it wasn't the uterus, which we know to have been found at the crime scene as it's position is listed). We've covered this before. I can only presume that you have a vested interest to ignore the evidence that her heart was taken, presumably because it doesn't line up with post-mortem uterus thefts. Regardless of your reasons, on this matter you are simply turning a blind eye to the evidence. That, I think, is a shame.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Logic is a foreign country to you isn’t it Trevor?

I’ll try one more time. Forget what happened before the Inquest.....

Brown and Sequeira gave times at the Inquest.

At that time they had discovered via the post mortem that organs were missing.

They were working under the assumption that they had been removed by the killer.

THEREFORE...

When they were asked at the Inquest about the time required by the killer their answers must, absolutely, categorically and without a single, solitary scintilla of doubt, MUST have included the removal of the organs and so we do not have to add extra time onto the times that they stated.

Please acknowledge this Trevor.

[NotBlamedForNothing]

Of course it would have been impossible in trying to locate organs in a blood filled abdomen in the dark, and using a long bladed knife, working with slippery wet organs. Not to mention the killers mental status, He kills Eddowes in a frenzied attack, are we expected to believe that he suddenly regains his composure sufficient enough to carry out a highly skilled and complex removal of a kidney in record time.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Good point!
Perhaps he was a bit tipsy?

[DJA]

In fact,there are no signs of a frenzied attack.

Just the opposite,really.

[Trevor Marriott]

Logic is a foreign country to you isn’t it Trevor?

I’ll try one more time. Forget what happened before the Inquest.....

Brown and Sequeira gave times at the Inquest.

At that time they had discovered via the post mortem that organs were missing.

They were working under the assumption that they had been removed by the killer.

THEREFORE...

When they were asked at the Inquest about the time required by the killer their answers must, absolutely, categorically and without a single, solitary scintilla of doubt, MUST have included the removal of the organs and so we do not have to add extra time onto the times that they stated.

Please acknowledge this Trevor.

Please answer these questions with a yes or a no only as you seem to be ignoring these important points in my posts, and they are important in the grand scheme of things

Do you accept that we cannot prove exactly what time the couple left the spot where they were seen standing?

Do you accept that the later they left that spot the greater the time is reduced which the killer would have had with the victim ?

Do you accept that there is a conflict between the time Levy states he saw them, and the other witness who gives a different time?

Do you accept that with that conflict it makes it even more impossible to accurately calculate what time the couple left to go into the square?

Do you accept that the times stated by Sequeria and Brown are nothing more than guess guesswork ?

Do you accept that the time stated by Brown infers that at least 5 minutes was the minimum time it would have taken, but it could have taken longer?

Do you accept that we do not know under what conditions Dr Browns experts experiment took place?

Do you accept that by making those guesses before the organs were found missing the doctors were simply referring to the murder and mutilations only?

Do you accept that as guesswork these time are unsafe to totally rely on, especially as they are in conflict with each other?

Do you accept that the times estimates given by the doctors were given to the press before the post mortems, at which time the organs were not found missing?

Do you accept that there is no evidence to show the doctors found the organs missing at the crime scene?

Do you accept that Dr Brown had his doubts about whether or not the killer did have enough time based on what he knew at the time to engage another medical expert? and that his assumption was in doubt?

The above are all important issues surrounding this murder and what did or dont go on at Mitre Square. Put them all together which in reality they should be and there has to be a grave doubt about the accuracy of the old accepted theory.

I dont have to prove anything, all I have to do is show the facts and evidence from back then as being unsafe to totally rely on.These questions collectively highlight how unsafe the original old established facts are.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Please answer these questions with a yes or a no only as you seem to be ignoring these important points in my posts, and they are important in the grand scheme of things

Do you accept that we cannot prove exactly what time the couple left the spot where they were seen standing?

Yes

Do you accept that the later they left that spot the greater the time is reduced which the killer would have had with the victim ?

Yes

Do you accept that there is a conflict between the time Levy states he saw them, and the other witness who gives a different time?

Yes

Do you accept that with that conflict it makes it even more impossible to accurately calculate what time the couple left to go into the square?

Yes

Do you accept that the times stated by Sequeria and Brown are nothing more than guess guesswork ?

It was an estimate based on their knowledge and experience.

Do you accept that the time stated by Brown infers that at least 5 minutes was the minimum time it would have taken, but it could have taken longer?

Yes

Do you accept that we do not know under what conditions Dr Browns experts experiment took place?

Yes

Do you accept that by making those guesses before the organs were found missing the doctors were simply referring to the murder and mutilations only?

Yes it would appear so

Do you accept that as guesswork these time are unsafe to totally rely on, especially as they are in conflict with each other?

Id say that it would be unsafe to rely on for exact times but they gives reasonable parameters.

Do you accept that the times estimates given by the doctors were given to the press before the post mortems, at which time the organs were not found missing?

Yes

Do you accept that there is no evidence to show the doctors found the organs missing at the crime scene?

Yes

Do you accept that Dr Brown had his doubts about whether or not the killer did have enough time based on what he knew at the time to engage another medical expert? and that his assumption was in doubt?

No, he expressed no doubt at the Inquest. The other medical expert might have been engaged as a check. Maybe the police asked him to get a second opinion as a precaution.

The above are all important issues surrounding this murder and what did or dont go on at Mitre Square. Put them all together which in reality they should be and there has to be a grave doubt about the accuracy of the old accepted theory.

I dont have to prove anything, all I have to do is show the facts and evidence from back then as being unsafe to totally rely on.These questions collectively highlight how unsafe the original old established facts are.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Theres a difference though Trevor and it’s a big one. Neither Jeff nor I or anyone else as far as I can see are attempting to suggest absolutes. We aren’t for example saying “Lawende said 6.35 so it must have been exactly 6.35.” Or that any suggested time for the murder/mutilation/organ removal must be correct. Or that the couple had to have been Catherine and her killer. We are simply using the only valid information that we have as guidelines. But you cannot infer something unproven to prove a point. For example we can’t say (and I know that you’re not suggesting this) “if the couple stood talking, after the witnesses left, for 4 minutes or so then it would have been impossible to achieve all that the killer did.” Because they might have gone down Church Passage immediately the witnesses passed by.

The fact that is we can’t be certain about exact details of course and yes it would be unsafe to try and do so but that not what we are saying. You are making a positive suggestion - that the killer didn’t have time to remove the organs and that they were taken from the mortuary before the post mortem. Therefore to make that claim you have to, at the very least, show (with positive evidence) that it was, a) very likely that the window of time available was right at the lower end, b) that the time required by the murderer was longer than the times estimated by the medical men at the time, or c) positive evidence of body parts going missing at that mortuary around that time (such as a report of a break in, or body parts being missing from another corpse.)

You can’t do any of a), b) or c). Therefore we have no solid reason to suspect that the organs weren’t removed in Mitre Square. You’re strongest point of course appears to be the time given by Brown to the newspaper being the same as the one given at the Inquest. But as we know for an absolute fact that by the time of the Inquest Brown and Sequeira knew of the missing organs then they must have factored that in to the estimates that they gave. The only explanation that I could come up with is that they had a rethink and felt, on examining the corpse more closely at the PM, that the killing and the injuries alone wouldn't have taken as long as they’d first though and therefore the removal of the organs could have been achieved within their original estimate. This is far more likely than that they forgot about the organs at the Inquest and so didn’t include their removal in their estimation (preposterous of course).

And so taking a balanced view based on what we know I’d say that to say that the organs were taken in the mortuary and not at the scene is totally unsafe! And furthermore I firmly believe that your idea will never establish itself as one of the old established theories. And for good reason.