Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Organ removal ? Warning Graphic Photos

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    yet again you bury your head in the sand and totally ignore an important issue on timings, which I have posted more than once on here and that is the we have no evidence to show what time the couple seen standing talking moved into the square. All the time relied upon to date revolves around 1.35am which is the time they were seen standing talking, but if they didnt move into the square at that time and the indication is that they did not, then what time did they move off as I have stated the later the time they moved off the less time the killer had with the victim, its not rocket science.

    On the original timings which everyone seems to rely on 1.35-1.44am = 9 mins but the killer could not have had 9 mins because Pc Harvey and his movements have to be factored into those times which reduce the overall time to just 5 mins allowing for the fact the killer would have been able to see and hear him coming down the passge towards him so based on those timing the absolute min the killer could have had with Eddowes was 5 mins.

    But that time is unreliable because it is reliant on the killer and Eddowes moving into the square at 1.35 but we know that didnt happen because they were still standing at the entrance at that time.

    All that needs to be proved is that the killer did not have the time to remove the organs at the crime scene if that is accepted then the smokescreen you have created and what you keep posting about preliminary post mortems etc becomes irrelevant and my theory is proven beyond doubt.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    Trevor, let's assume for the sake of argument, that your theory is correct. Okaaaaay, now what? What exactly does this prove?

    The killer didn't take organs, he just violently mutilated women?

    What about Mary Kelly? Would this prove she was murdered by another killer? Or was the same killer now living up to that reputation (and then some)?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Harry D View Post

      Trevor, let's assume for the sake of argument, that your theory is correct. Okaaaaay, now what? What exactly does this prove?

      The killer didn't take organs, he just violently mutilated women?

      What about Mary Kelly? Would this prove she was murdered by another killer? Or was the same killer now living up to that reputation (and then some)?
      It cannot be ruled out that Kelly was killed by another and the murder made to look like the work of JTR. equally if it was the same killer who was responsible and his motive was simply murder and mutilation then that explains it. After all if it was the same killer and he was alleged to have taken organs from the previous victims he could have in the case of Kelly removed and took away almost every organ in her body but he didnt take any organ despite having the time to do so!

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

        Francis Spurzheim Craig.

        His theory was based on some ancestry work on a relative of his, Elizabeth Davies, a candidate for MJK. He was pursuing the exhumation of MJK's remains. His theory was put to rest last year, I believe it was in Ripperologist. He did a Rippercast where he discusses the medical connection. Well worth a listen to any who haven't done so already.
        I should have realised Al. Wynne Weston-Davies. I have his book.

        Another discredited theory.

        Cheers

        Regards

        Sir Herlock Sholmes

        “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

        Comment


        • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

          Hi Herlock,

          We have Biggs and Neale agreeing with Brown time and having no issue with the killer taking organs.
          Calder and Harrison said more time than Brown allotted but they don’t say how long. We know that the killer would have had longer than 5 minutes so it’s very possible that if you had suggested 8 or 9 minutes they too would have been ok.

          Yes they did. They were working on 9 minutes when commenting that it was not in the realms of possibility.

          Cheers, George

          After studying the postmortem reports on both Eddowes and Chapman, Dr Calder, and Phillip Harrison believed it was not possible within that time frame. In both the removals of the uterus and the kidney Mr Neal says that in his opinion it would not be the skill, but the level of anatomical knowledge that would determine the time needed at the crime scene to effect these removals. Mr Neal also believes that if the killer did remove the organs then he must have had sufficient anatomical knowledge, otherwise, he would not have had the time to search for the organs, and work out how to remove them within that “at least five-minute window
          Hello George,

          It seems clear that they were talking about a 5 minute window rather than a 9 minute one.
          Regards

          Sir Herlock Sholmes

          “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

          Comment


          • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

            The body of Chapman was guarded by PC 376H in a locked shed for which he had the key. Where was 376H when the body was later found by the nurses outside the locked shed in the yard. What went on in the time between Chandler leaving and the nurses finding the body? Was 376H involved, or had he been slipped a cup of tea containing a sedative? Why was this covered up? There was a police guard provided but in the Chapman case he proved ineffective.

            Cheers, George
            Id say that he hadn’t arrived yet so I don’t see how we can call him ineffective. It looks like it was a case of the office and the nurses being sent to the mortuary but the nurses just happen to have arrived first. And the police that took the body to the mortuary (which was little more than a shed) got there before the nurses and left the body knowing that the nurses were due to arrive.

            We can’t know how long the body would have been there but would someone really have stolen organs in that time? Firstly, how could they have got there so soon (how did they find out about the murder?) Then we would have to ask if it’s likely that they’d a begun acquiring the parts knowing full well that nurses or even the Doctors could arrive at any second. It doesn’t seem at all likely to me George.





            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes

            “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

            Comment


            • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post


              In his autopsy report Brown stated that at the crime scene "he looked for superficial bruises and saw none", so he must have had additional lighting available. At this stage the intestines had been removed by JtR allowing a better view of the organs, so, if it was easy to see that the uterus was missing at the "preliminary examination" with the intestines replaced, why didn't the doctors notice its absence at this time?

              I found Prosecutor's dissertation to be very persuasive.

              Cheers, George
              I was just asking the question ‘wouldn’t the missing uterus have been visible by simply looking into the abdomen’ but of course with the intestines being ‘stuffed back inside’ it could have been covered but the point is that it would have been a matter of seconds for the Doctors to have checked. And with Phillips opinion being requested this for me makes it more likely that they would have looked. Of course we can’t state this as a fact though.



              Regards

              Sir Herlock Sholmes

              “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post

                This is exactly what Dr Phillips did at the Annie inquest, i.e. contradicted the witnesses, and as a result had his professional integrity called into question by the coroner.
                No he didn’t. Phillips added a caveat allowing for error which the Coroner heard, understood and took into consideration when arriving at his judgment.
                Regards

                Sir Herlock Sholmes

                “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                  yet again you bury your head in the sand and totally ignore an important issue on timings, which I have posted more than once on here and that is the we have no evidence to show what time the couple seen standing talking moved into the square. All the time relied upon to date revolves around 1.35am which is the time they were seen standing talking, but if they didnt move into the square at that time and the indication is that they did not, then what time did they move off as I have stated the later the time they moved off the less time the killer had with the victim, its not rocket science.

                  You are easily the most frustrating poster on here because with many of your posts it’s impossible to distinguish whether you really aren’t understanding or that you are doing it purposely. Again…….

                  We don’t know when they moved on…..the witnesses are no help because they didn’t look back……they could have stood talking before moving on……..they could have moved on immediately……..we don’t know…..but…….

                  You can’t say “well they might have stood around so that proves that the killer had less time!”

                  The only point that’s relevant is that they could have ,over on immediately, or after a minute or after a few seconds. You’re the one that needs to prove a narrower time. You’re the one with the theory….you have the burden of proof which you clearly aren’t even approaching providing.


                  On the original timings which everyone seems to rely on 1.35-1.44am = 9 mins but the killer could not have had 9 mins because Pc Harvey and his movements have to be factored into those times which reduce the overall time to just 5 mins allowing for the fact the killer would have been able to see and hear him coming down the passge towards him so based on those timing the absolute min the killer could have had with Eddowes was 5 mins.

                  Try re-reading the above. Are you for real? He couldn’t have had 9 because the minimum was 5??? He could have had 10 minutes. That all that I need. If you can’t PROVE a) the exact time that the murder/extractions would have taken, and b) exactly how long the killer actually had then the theory simply cannot be proven. It’s a non-starter….and it’s been a non-starter for years and these boards have thread after thread of people telling you this over the years but every so often you think to yourself “I think I’ll try the body part stealing theory again.”

                  But that time is unreliable because it is reliant on the killer and Eddowes moving into the square at 1.35 but we know that didnt happen because they were still standing at the entrance at that time.

                  We know nothing of the kind. Try thinking. Even if Lawende passed at spot on 1.35 (something we can’t be at all certain of) it might have been 1.35 and 15 seconds, the couple entered the square and arrived at 1.35 and 47 seconds. Stop nitpicking on times Trevor. It’s pointless. No serious discussion can take place without the acceptance of a reasonable margin for error. To assume all clocks/watches were spot on and synchronised and that all time estimates were also exact is to live on Fantasy Island.

                  All that needs to be proved is that the killer did not have the time to remove the organs at the crime scene if that is accepted then the smokescreen you have created and what you keep posting about preliminary post mortems etc becomes irrelevant and my theory is proven beyond doubt.

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                  Your theory can never be close to being proven.

                  We cannot prove how long that the killer required.

                  We cannot prove how long he had available.

                  Therefore…………?





                  Regards

                  Sir Herlock Sholmes

                  “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Harry D View Post

                    Trevor, let's assume for the sake of argument, that your theory is correct. Okaaaaay, now what? What exactly does this prove?

                    The killer didn't take organs, he just violently mutilated women?

                    What about Mary Kelly? Would this prove she was murdered by another killer? Or was the same killer now living up to that reputation (and then some)?
                    It means nothing Harry except that Trevor has a theory and because it’s Trevor’s theory it must be correct. We all know how that end with the apron debacle (which Trevor invented to back this theory up)

                    The simple fact is that we can’t know how long the murder would have taken and we can’t know how long the killer have available. It’s pretty much the definition of unsolvable but because there was a trade in body parts Trevor deduces that his case is proven. It’s hard to credit.
                    Regards

                    Sir Herlock Sholmes

                    “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                      Id say that he hadn’t arrived yet so I don’t see how we can call him ineffective. It looks like it was a case of the office and the nurses being sent to the mortuary but the nurses just happen to have arrived first. And the police that took the body to the mortuary (which was little more than a shed) got there before the nurses and left the body knowing that the nurses were due to arrive.

                      We can’t know how long the body would have been there but would someone really have stolen organs in that time? Firstly, how could they have got there so soon (how did they find out about the murder?) Then we would have to ask if it’s likely that they’d a begun acquiring the parts knowing full well that nurses or even the Doctors could arrive at any second. It doesn’t seem at all likely to me George.
                      You are forgetting dishonest mortuary keepers who would be in a positon to allow organs to be taken.

                      The police officer was there to stop the press and the public from entering, would he have stopped those whose daily work revolved around the mortuary?

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        It means nothing Harry except that Trevor has a theory and because it’s Trevor’s theory it must be correct. We all know how that end with the apron debacle (which Trevor invented to back this theory up)

                        The simple fact is that we can’t know how long the murder would have taken and we can’t know how long the killer have available. It’s pretty much the definition of unsolvable but because there was a trade in body parts Trevor deduces that his case is proven. It’s hard to credit.
                        Its not rocket science, if it can be proved that the killer did not have the time to remove the organs then there must be another explantion and therefore an inference can be drawn as to what did happen to them

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                          Your theory can never be close to being proven.

                          We cannot prove how long that the killer required.

                          We cannot prove how long he had available.

                          Therefore…………?
                          Therefore you cannot prove the killer took them

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                          Comment


                          • My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post




                              Hello George,

                              It seems clear that they were talking about a 5 minute window rather than a 9 minute one.
                              Hi Herlock,

                              Seems we're talking at cross purposes. I was referring to Calder and Harrison. I rewatched the video and they were talking about 9 minutes.

                              Cheers, George
                              “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

                              “Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.” “How do you know I'm mad?” said Alice. “You must be,” said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.”

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                                I was just asking the question ‘wouldn’t the missing uterus have been visible by simply looking into the abdomen’ but of course with the intestines being ‘stuffed back inside’ it could have been covered but the point is that it would have been a matter of seconds for the Doctors to have checked. And with Phillips opinion being requested this for me makes it more likely that they would have looked. Of course we can’t state this as a fact though.
                                I was answering your question with ‘wouldn’t the missing uterus have been visible by simply looking into the abdomen' at the crime scene when the intestines were not obscuring the view?
                                “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

                                “Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.” “How do you know I'm mad?” said Alice. “You must be,” said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X