Jack's Escape from Mitre Square

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ok I’ve answered yours so will you answer mine?

Do you accept at the PM the doctors discovered the organs missing?

Do you accept that Brown and Sequeira would definitely have worked from the assumption that they had been removed by the killer?

Do you accept that there’s no way that they could have been so unutterably stupid as to have left out the time required for removing the organs from the time that they provided to the Coroner?

Do you accept that, considering the above, both Doctors felt that the killer had enough time to have done what he did?

Do you accept the possibility that the killer, according to witnesses, might have had anything between 6 and 9 minutes to have done what he did?

Do you accept that, apart from the timings in Mitre Square and discussions of how long it would have taken to remove the organs, there is no evidence of organs being taken in the mortuary?

Do you accept that most things in the case are open to different interpretations?

Do you accept that it’s unsafe to keep using the word unsafe unless someone is stating something as a fact? For eg saying that the killer might have had 7 or 8 minutes is not unsafe. Saying that he definitely did however is unsafe . Do you see the difference? Jeff and are are simply saying what is possible in the timings which is enough because we are not stating definite times.

When you were a police officer did you dismiss every witness as unsafe if you couldn’t prove 100% every single thing that they said or confirm every timing to the minute?

[The Baron]

Hypothesizing that the organs were not removed by the killer needs to add another player to the scene:

One who killed the women

and one who stole the organs.

You cannot add this second man without a safe proof of his existence.



The Baron

[Trevor Marriott]

Ok I’ve answered yours so will you answer mine?

Do you accept at the PM the doctors discovered the organs missing? Yes

Do you accept that Brown and Sequeira would definitely have worked from the assumption that they had been removed by the killer? Yes when they did the post mortem but not before.

Do you accept that there’s no way that they could have been so unutterably stupid as to have left out the time required for removing the organs from the time that they provided to the Coroner? No I dont accept that, because of the fact that after Brown made his pre post mortem estimate of at least 5 minutes he was obvious concerned enough about the time the killer did have available to him to ask his expert to carry out the experiment, otherwise he would have stuck with his original estimate, which if there were any doubts out what had happened to the organs I doubt anyone would have wanted it public knowledge that the organs were taken away at the mortuary and not by the killer, how embarrassing for all concerned !

Do you accept that, considering the above, both Doctors felt that the killer had enough time to have done what he did?
My interpretation of what the doctors said was simply in relation to the murder and the mutilation as when they made their estimates to the reporter the organs had not been found to be missing

Do you accept the possibility that the killer, according to witnesses, might have had anything between 6 and 9 minutes to have done what he did?
There is no definitive answer to that question because we dont know what time the killer and Eddowes entered the square and so there may not even have been 6 or 9 mins whether or not in any event would have been sufficient time. But the witness timings are unsafe because they conflict with each other, and so we are back with that same issue as to what time they left the spot where they were seen standing talking. In any even even if they left as late as 1.38am the killer would have had enough time to carry out the murder and the mutilations within the three minute window suggested by Sequeira

Do you accept that, apart from the timings in Mitre Square and discussions of how long it would have taken to remove the organs, there is no evidence of organs being taken in the mortuary?

Of course there is no evidence of that in this case. If there were it would have been documented, but if you accept that there is a case to suggest the killer may not have had the time to remove them in the square then there has to be another plausible explanation. But we do know that every day organs were acquired on a daily basis from mortuaries for medical research, and as I keep stating we simply do not have any clues as what went on at those mortuaries during those many hours the bodies were left.

Do you accept that most things in the case are open to different interpretations?
Yes it is for each individual to assess and evaluate all that is put before them and for them to make up their own mind in unbiased fashion. The troube is that those who have been following this mystery since time immemorial would seem reluctant to accept anything that goes against the old accepted facts, and that's not just on this issue

Do you accept that it’s unsafe to keep using the word unsafe unless someone is stating something as a fact? For eg saying that the killer might have had 7 or 8 minutes is not unsafe. Saying that he definitely did however is unsafe . Do you see the difference? Jeff and are are simply saying what is possible in the timings which is enough because we are not stating definite times.

No, I use the term unsafe because for the past 30 odd years I have been assessing and evaluating evidence in criminal cases. So I like to think that when I look at a witness statement and identify clear conflicts or flaws in the evidence I can quickly assess whether or not it is safe to rely on from an evidence perspective.

When you were a police officer did you dismiss every witness as unsafe if you couldn’t prove 100% every single thing that they said or confirm every timing to the minute?

When interviewing a witness the secret of being a thorough investigator is to not readily accept what a witness is saying, sometimes their statements can de negated by other witnesses and cause a conflict which is what we see in this case. The problem with this case is that researchers seem to want to readily accept what witnesses say, and when i read some of the statements I can see obvious flaws, which could and should have been cleared up at the time, but that didnt happen and I then highlight those flaws, but because you and others are stuck in 1888, these flaws are never considered because in this case if it were to be accepted that the killer did not remove these organs, that fact would shatter the myth of jack the Ripper, because the organ removal has formed an integral part of this mystery for the past 131 years.

As to minutes being crucial you are right they are, and the witness testimony is not able to tie any times of movement etc down to the minute, so in order for folks to arrive at their opinion, the bigger evidential picture has to be considered, and not just with this murder. Only then in my opinion can we get anywhere nearer to forming positivewhether or not the killer took the organs. Having spent a lot of time and money and listened to a number of medical experts and gone over it all many times I am of the opinion that he did didnt !

And likewise with Kelly despite there being only one ambiguous statement from Brown and it is ambiguos, to show the heart was missing but no evidence to show it was taken by the killer, his ambiguous statement is unsafe, especially when we have Insp Reid who states no organs were found missing along with a plethora of newspaper reports also saying the same.

The Ripper mystery has surrounded the organ removal by a lone killer. If the killer of Kelly didn't remove any organs when he had the opportunity to take any number or organs then it raises a grave doubt about that same killer removing the organs from Chapman and Eddowes.

The uterus and Fallopian tubes from Chapman were removed with someone possessing medical knowledge. The kidney was removed from Eddowes by someone with expert medical knowledge. How many people would have had that kind of knowledge to be able to mutilate and remove those organs in almost total darkness from a blood filled abdomen in 1888 with the skill shown in double quick time? Very few, but those medical personnel who visited mortuaries on a daily basis seeking out organs, would have had enough skills, and how long would it have taken them to remove these un-noticed with ample lighting, just minutes !!!!!!!! Which is what the killer may have had, but of course given the conditions at the crime scene he was faced with, not long enough in my opinion for him to effect these removals.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Hypothesizing that the organs were not removed by the killer needs to add another player to the scene:

One who killed the women

and one who stole the organs.

You cannot add this second man without a safe proof of his existence.



The Baron

You cant even prove that all the women were killed by the same hand !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[The Baron]

You cant even prove that all the women were killed by the same hand !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Agreed!


But the one who killed Tabram or Nicholes will be automatically the prime suspect in the case, and his whereabout during the other murders has to be safely established before we can say there were two killers around.



The Baron

[Trevor Marriott]

Agreed!


But the one who killed Tabram or Nicholes will be automatically the prime suspect in the case, and his whereabout during the other murders has to be safely established before we can say there were two killers around.



The Baron

But we are never going to be able to identify that person, so we are left to look at at he MO relating to the other murders and see if there is a pattern, which there clearly is that being the throat cutting, the times of the murders, the locations, and of course the not to forget the organ removals because if it is accpted that he took them from Chapman and Eddowes and if he did that would establish perhaps a motive, then we have to ask why no attempt was made to take them from any of the other victims even those outside on the accepted five? which the police suggested were the work of the same killer.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Curious Cat]

When interviewing a witness the secret of being a thorough investigator is to not readily accept what a witness is saying, sometimes their statements can de negated by other witnesses and cause a conflict which is what we see in this case. The problem with this case is that researchers seem to want to readily accept what witnesses say, and when i read some of the statements I can see obvious flaws, which could and should have been cleared up at the time, but that didnt happen and I then highlight those flaws, but because you and others are stuck in 1888, these flaws are never considered because in this case if it were to be accepted that the killer did not remove these organs, that fact would shatter the myth of jack the Ripper, because the organ removal has formed an integral part of this mystery for the past 131 years.

As to minutes being crucial you are right they are, and the witness testimony is not able to tie any times of movement etc down to the minute, so in order for folks to arrive at their opinion, the bigger evidential picture has to be considered, and not just with this murder. Only then in my opinion can we get anywhere nearer to forming positivewhether or not the killer took the organs. Having spent a lot of time and money and listened to a number of medical experts and gone over it all many times I am of the opinion that he did didnt !

And likewise with Kelly despite there being only one ambiguous statement from Brown and it is ambiguos, to show the heart was missing but no evidence to show it was taken by the killer, his ambiguous statement is unsafe, especially when we have Insp Reid who states no organs were found missing along with a plethora of newspaper reports also saying the same.

The Ripper mystery has surrounded the organ removal by a lone killer. If the killer of Kelly didn't remove any organs when he had the opportunity to take any number or organs then it raises a grave doubt about that same killer removing the organs from Chapman and Eddowes.

The uterus and Fallopian tubes from Chapman were removed with someone possessing medical knowledge. The kidney was removed from Eddowes by someone with expert medical knowledge. How many people would have had that kind of knowledge to be able to mutilate and remove those organs in almost total darkness from a blood filled abdomen in 1888 with the skill shown in double quick time? Very few, but those medical personnel who visited mortuaries on a daily basis seeking out organs, would have had enough skills, and how long would it have taken them to remove these un-noticed with ample lighting, just minutes !!!!!!!! Which is what the killer may have had, but of course given the conditions at the crime scene he was faced with, not long enough in my opinion for him to effect these removals.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

If the killer is known to have pulled out Annie Chapman's intestines at the scene of the murder, what makes you think they wouldn't remove the organs of later victims at their murder locations?

[Herlock Sholmes]

When interviewing a witness the secret of being a thorough investigator is to not readily accept what a witness is saying, sometimes their statements can de negated by other witnesses and cause a conflict which is what we see in this case. The problem with this case is that researchers seem to want to readily accept what witnesses say, and when i read some of the statements I can see obvious flaws, which could and should have been cleared up at the time, but that didnt happen and I then highlight those flaws, but because you and others are stuck in 1888, these flaws are never considered because in this case if it were to be accepted that the killer did not remove these organs, that fact would shatter the myth of jack the Ripper, because the organ removal has formed an integral part of this mystery for the past 131 years.

As to minutes being crucial you are right they are, and the witness testimony is not able to tie any times of movement etc down to the minute, so in order for folks to arrive at their opinion, the bigger evidential picture has to be considered, and not just with this murder. Only then in my opinion can we get anywhere nearer to forming positivewhether or not the killer took the organs. Having spent a lot of time and money and listened to a number of medical experts and gone over it all many times I am of the opinion that he did didnt !

And likewise with Kelly despite there being only one ambiguous statement from Brown and it is ambiguos, to show the heart was missing but no evidence to show it was taken by the killer, his ambiguous statement is unsafe, especially when we have Insp Reid who states no organs were found missing along with a plethora of newspaper reports also saying the same.

The Ripper mystery has surrounded the organ removal by a lone killer. If the killer of Kelly didn't remove any organs when he had the opportunity to take any number or organs then it raises a grave doubt about that same killer removing the organs from Chapman and Eddowes.

The uterus and Fallopian tubes from Chapman were removed with someone possessing medical knowledge. The kidney was removed from Eddowes by someone with expert medical knowledge. How many people would have had that kind of knowledge to be able to mutilate and remove those organs in almost total darkness from a blood filled abdomen in 1888 with the skill shown in double quick time? Very few, but those medical personnel who visited mortuaries on a daily basis seeking out organs, would have had enough skills, and how long would it have taken them to remove these un-noticed with ample lighting, just minutes !!!!!!!! Which is what the killer may have had, but of course given the conditions at the crime scene he was faced with, not long enough in my opinion for him to effect these removals.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But you are accusing people of doing something which they aren’t doing Trevor and that’s what we keep saying but it’s you that keeps ignoring it. How many times does it need to be repeated? We are not simply accepting what witnesses say. We know that there are conflicts. We know that witnesses can be mistaken or lie. Why do you think that we don’t understand this? The the points is.....and I mean THE POINT....is that we (Jeff, myself and other posters) aren’t just lamely accepting everything that witnesses say. We accept and acknowledge possible errors and variations. That’s why, and again this is THE POINT.... we are making no definite statements regarding timings. We are taking the entirely reasonable position that there is a range of possible times available for the killer to have done what he did. It would only be unsafe if we were saying “well Eddowes and her killer must have got into position at...” We aren’t trying to widen the window of time we are simply saying that it’s entirely possible that the killer might have had 8 minutes or 7 minutes or 6 minutes or 5 minutes. But if you are trying to show that he didn’t have sufficient time you have to prove that the killer musthave only had a shorter time frame and you just can’t do that. Surely you must get this?

What you also are suggesting is that when Brown and Sequeira where asked about whether the killer would have had enough time to have done what he did they completely forgot that those organs were missing at the PM or that they forgot to factor them in to their estimations. Nothing could be more unsafe than this. It’s simply impossible. Therefore both doctors who were there at the time believed that the killer would have had sufficient time to do what had done. How can we, 132 years later, say that they were wrong?

You mention the newspaper quote and yes it’s curious. But it changes nothing. They knew the organs were missing at the PM and made their assessment at the Inquest. As I said before, maybe they came to feel that the murder and mutilations would have taken less time than originally felt and so the removal of the organs could still have been completed within their original estimation. This is likelier than them forgetting about the organs at the Inquest.

On the idea of organs being taken in the mortuary yes we know that organs were used but we have no evidence that it happened here illegally. As you’ve said, the person removing the organs would have had medical/anatomical knowledge so he would also have known the rules as far as taking parts. They would have also known that this was a ripper victim. The focus of attention for the whole country. The reason why the police were under such pressure. If any corpses were plundered by dodgy doctors then surely Catherine Eddowes would have been the least likely.

Its instructive that you seem to feel that Brown and Sequeira were such blithering incompetents and yet Reid (who wasn’t a medical man) is utterly reliable when looking back and says that all of Kelly’s organs were accounted for. Personally I’d say that Reid was extremely unsafe on this issue.

And so we have absolutely no reason to question the fact that the ripper took organs from Eddowes. It’s based on a reasoned, unbiased assessment of what we do know and what the doctors tell us? We’re not stretching or reducing times to suit and we’re not accusing doctors of idiocy. The Ripper took the organs and you haven’t a shred of unbiased evidence that says otherwise.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But we are never going to be able to identify that person, so we are left to look at at he MO relating to the other murders and see if there is a pattern, which there clearly is that being the throat cutting, the times of the murders, the locations, and of course the not to forget the organ removals because if it is accpted that he took them from Chapman and Eddowes and if he did that would establish perhaps a motive, then we have to ask why no attempt was made to take them from any of the other victims even those outside on the accepted five? which the police suggested were the work of the same killer.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Do killers always do exactly the same thing? Can’t circumstances change? Moods change. The killer wasn’t working to The Handbook Of Efficient Serial Killing. There are no rules here. You are trying to knit fog again Trevor.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You cant even prove that all the women were killed by the same hand !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So if they weren’t all killed by the same hand why are you saying “well if he did this at one crime scene why didn’t he do it at another?” Let’s keep the goalposts in the same place shall we.

[Trevor Marriott]

If the killer is known to have pulled out Annie Chapman's intestines at the scene of the murder, what makes you think they wouldn't remove the organs of later victims at their murder locations?

But Eddowes and Chapman were the only two victims whose internal organs were found outside of the abdominal cavities. So you can make a case for them both being killed by the same hand, and not any of the others on that basis. Clearly the killer, if one killer, had the time to rip the abdomens open of the other victims to the point the internal organs spilled out, but we see no evidence of that.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Curious Cat]

But Eddowes and Chapman were the only two victims whose internal organs were found outside of the abdominal cavities. So you can make a case for them both being killed by the same hand, and not any of the others on that basis. Clearly the killer, if one killer, had the time to rip the abdomens open of the other victims to the point the internal organs spilled out, but we see no evidence of that.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The entrails on the table in Mary Kelly's room belonged to somebody else?

[Kattrup]

I doubt anyone would have wanted it public knowledge that the organs were taken away at the mortuary and not by the killer, how embarrassing for all concerned !

I thought your argument was that it was perfectly legal to acquire organs? If that were the case, as you have argued, why would it have been embarrassing?

[Trevor Marriott]

I thought your argument was that it was perfectly legal to acquire organs? If that were the case, as you have argued, why would it have been embarrassing?

Because the bodies should not have been tampered with before the post mortem

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

The entrails on the table in Mary Kelly's room belonged to somebody else?

Her body was not just subjected to the same type of injuries as chapman and eddowes her body was treated like a butchers carcass.chapman and eddowes just had their abdomens ripped open

https://www.trevormarriott