Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Organ removal ? Warning Graphic Photos

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

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    Fortunately Trevor most of us don’t play by ‘Marriott Rules’ where principle's only apply in certain cases. There’s no evidence that body parts were stolen, all that you have is the existence of a trade. So you’re speculating.

    No one’s trying to prove that the killer had medical knowledge because it can’t be proven. We don’t know. Even if he did have some he was still a maniac with a sharp knife who undoubtedly cut out the uterus and the kidney.
    and you cant cut those organs out from a blood filled abdomen in almost total darkness with a long bladed knife, the organs would be difficult to locate, diffcult to grip and even more dificult to remove

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

      You are another poster here who does not read the posts that have gone before

      There is no evidence to show what time the killer and Eddowes moved off into the square they were seen at 1.35am and that time has been used to wrongly calculate how long the killer had, but the couple could have moved off as late at 1.38 for example thus reducing the time the killer had with Eddowes, the less time he had, the less time he had to do all that he is supposed to have done. its not rocket science

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
      Seriously poor thinking here Trevor.

      Pleeeeeeeeeeese think.

      You’re the one with the theory ok? And it’s a theory that you’ve claimed as proven. So you’re the one who needed to prove that the killer didn’t have enough time. So saying what the couple might have done isn’t approaching good enough because they might not have done that. Lawende and his friends didn’t look back so we don’t know when the couple, if it was Eddowes and her killer, went into Mitre Square. Yes they might have stood around for a while discussing the cricket or they might have moved on as soon as the three witnesses passed. We don’t know.

      When you’re trying to prove a positive you can’t do it with maybe’s. There’s only one way of looking at these timings fairly and that is to include a reasonable margin for error (estimations, clock/watch times and lack of synchronisation) Without allowing for these we can have no honest debate on the subject or indeed any subject connected to the case. It’s simply a fact that the clock in the club was 5 minutes fast for all that we know and Lawende might have set his watch by it. So it might have been nearer 1.30 when he saw the couple. Harvey could have checked at 1.44 giving the killer around 13 minutes. Much as it might irritate it’s nowhere near impossible and as the research posted by Jeff on the other threads showed timing errors or 10 or 15 minutes were quite possible.

      Add this to the fact that he don’t know how long the murder would have taken and we really are stabbing in the dark. You’ve come up with a theory that cannot be categorically disproven. But then again, we can’t categorically disprove that the killer was wearing a rabbit costume but the chances are against it.

      You need to start proving or giving up. I’d suggest the latter.
      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 Aethelwulf View Post

        Given that great store was put by Phillips in his medical opinions elsewhere, Bond, who examined Kelly in her room and at the post mortem and saw the injuries in the flesh, disagrees. Those who say Bond was less experienced should also recognise he was there at the time and saw what we cannot. Also, despite his supposed lack of knowledge he put together a simple profile of the killer which is, in many respects, pretty much the same as the type of man the FBI descirbed 100 years later.

        "I beg to report that I have read the notes of the 4 Whitechapel Murders viz:1. Buck's Row.2. Hanbury Street.3. Berner's Street.4. Mitre Square.I have also made a Post Mortem Examination of the mutilated remains of a woman found yesterday in a small room in Dorset Street -

        1. ''All five murders were no doubt committed by the same hand''. In the first four the throats appear to have been cut from left to right. In the last case owing to the extensive mutilation it is impossible to say in what direction the fatal cut was made, but arterial blood was found on the wall in splashes close to where the woman's head must have been lying.

        2. All the circumstances surrounding the murders lead me to form the opinion that the women must have been lying down when murdered and in every case the throat was first cut.

        3. In the four murders of which I have seen the notes only, I cannot form a very definite opinion as to the time that had elapsed between the murder and the discovering of the body.In one case, that of Berner's Street, the discovery appears to have been made immediately after the deed - In Buck's Row, Hanbury Street, and Mitre Square three or four hours only could have elapsed. In the Dorset Street case the body was lying on the bed at the time of my visit, 2 o'clock, quite naked and mutilated as in the annexed report -Rigor Mortis had set in, but increased during the progress of the examination. From this it is difficult to say with any degree of certainty the exact time that had elapsed since death as the period varies from 6 to 12 hours before rigidity sets in. The body was comparatively cold at 2 o'clock and the remains of a recently taken meal were found in the stomach and scattered about over the intestines. It is, therefore, pretty certain that the woman must have been dead about 12 hours and the partly digested food would indicate: that death took place about 3 or 4 hours after the food was taken, so one or two o'clock in the morning would be the probable time of the murder.

        4. In all the cases there appears to be no evidence of struggling and the attacks were probably so sudden and made in such a position that the women could neither resist nor cry out. In the Dorset Street case the corner of the sheet to the right of the woman's head was much cut and saturated with blood, indicating that the face may have been covered with the sheet at the time of the attack.

        5. In the four first cases the murderer must have attacked from the right side of the victim. In the Dorset Street case, he must have attacked from in front or from the left, as there would be no room for him between the wall and the part of the bed on which the woman was lying. Again, the blood had flowed down on the right side of the woman and spurted on to the wall.

        6. The murderer would not necessarily be splashed or deluged with blood, but his hands' and arms must have been covered and parts of his clothing must certainly have been smeared with blood.

        7. The mutilations in each case excepting the Berner's Street one were all of the same character and shewed clearly that in all the murders, the object was mutilation.

        [B]8. ''In each case the mutilation was inflicted by a person who had no scientific nor anatomical knowledge. In my opinion he does not even possess the technical knowledge of a butcher or horse slaughterer or any person accustomed to cut up dead animals'' [/B]

        9. The instrument must have been a strong knife at least six inches long, very sharp, pointed at the top and about an inch in width. It may have been a clasp knife, a butcher's knife or a surgeon's knife. I think it was no doubt a straight knife.

        10. The murderer must have been a man of physical strength and of great coolness and daring. There is no evidence that he had an accomplice. He must in my opinion be a man subject to periodical attacks of Homicidal and erotic mania. The character of the mutilations indicate that the man may be in a condition sexually, that may be called satyriasis. It is of course possible that the Homicidal impulse may have developed from a revengeful or brooding condition of the mind, or that Religious Mania may have been the original disease, but I do not think either hypothesis is likely. The murderer in external appearance is quite likely to be a quiet inoffensive looking man probably middleaged and neatly and respectably dressed. I think he must be in the habit of wearing a cloak or overcoat or he could hardly have escaped notice in the streets if the blood on his hands or clothes were visible.

        11. Assuming the murderer to be such a person as I have just described he would probably be solitary and eccentric in his habits, also he is most likely to be a man without regular occupation, but with some small income or pension. He is possibly living among respectable persons who have some knowledge of his character and habits and who may have grounds for suspicion that he is not quite right in his mind at times. Such persons would probably be unwilling to communicate suspicions to the Police for fear of trouble or notoriety, whereas if there were a prospect of reward it might overcome their scruples.


        Also, given the mortuary sketch of Eddowes prior to stitching up and the injuries being made neat shows a ragged, hacked incision, I've come to conclusion the killer certainly had no medical knowledge or skill.



        'All five murders were no doubt committed by the same hand''

        . Well at least we can use Dr Bonds medical evidence to show Trevor that all five murders were by the same hand ..

        8. ''In each case the mutilation was inflicted by a person who had no scientific nor anatomical knowledge. In my opinion he does not even possess the technical knowledge of a butcher or horse slaughterer or any person accustomed to cut up dead animals'' [/B]

        Again, any a psychopath with a six inch blade could no doubt inflict all the mutilations on Kellys body, this i believe is what bond is saying , the organs were obviously removed at some point , unmutilated. We have no way of knowing when they were extracted and with what degree of skill .Its a shame Dr Bond wasnt asked if in his opinion were the organs were removed prior to the mutilation ?.

        Dr Bond ''The viscera were found in various parts viz: the uterus and kidneys with one breast under the head, the other breast by the right foot, the liver between the feet, the intestines by the right side and the spleen by the left side of the body. The flaps removed from the abdomen and thighs were on a table.''

        Dr Bond doesnt describe these organs as being mutilated ! . If the killer just hacked away at kelly with the intent to purley mutilate beyond all recognition , how werent these organs damaged to the point where Dr Bond would have noticed and described them as being in such poor condition along with the rest of kellys body .?

        Then theres this from Georges recent post about the way kellys Heart was removed .


        Just for your information and interest, the heart is usually removed by an incision made down the chest over the breast bone, the bone being separated to allow access to the heart. MJK's autopsy stated that "the pericardium was open below and the heart absent". The autopsy also stated that the "intercostals between the fourth, fifth, and sixth ribs were cut through and the contents of the thorax visible through the openings". These openings (cuts to the muscles between the ribs) would not have been of sufficient size to remove the heart. The thorax was opened at the autopsy. There wastaught at the time a very new and rare technique of heart removal which involved removing the heart through the base of the pericardium (the fibrous sack surrounding the heart) via the abdominal cavity, the method used on MJK. The pericardium was still in place so the heart was not removed by just "hacking away".

        To me, this indicates someone with an advanced knowledge of human anatomy and practical experience of dissection. The conundrum is that the mutilations did not indicate any such knowledge. Just my opinion FWIW.




        Its safe to say Kellys murderer removed her organs with some degree of medical knowledge, the evidence that support this should not be completly dismissed in my opinion .
        'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

          Seriously poor thinking here Trevor.

          Pleeeeeeeeeeese think.

          You’re the one with the theory ok? And it’s a theory that you’ve claimed as proven. So you’re the one who needed to prove that the killer didn’t have enough time. So saying what the couple might have done isn’t approaching good enough because they might not have done that. Lawende and his friends didn’t look back so we don’t know when the couple, if it was Eddowes and her killer, went into Mitre Square. Yes they might have stood around for a while discussing the cricket or they might have moved on as soon as the three witnesses passed. We don’t know.

          When you’re trying to prove a positive you can’t do it with maybe’s. There’s only one way of looking at these timings fairly and that is to include a reasonable margin for error (estimations, clock/watch times and lack of synchronisation) Without allowing for these we can have no honest debate on the subject or indeed any subject connected to the case. It’s simply a fact that the clock in the club was 5 minutes fast for all that we know and Lawende might have set his watch by it. So it might have been nearer 1.30 when he saw the couple. Harvey could have checked at 1.44 giving the killer around 13 minutes. Much as it might irritate it’s nowhere near impossible and as the research posted by Jeff on the other threads showed timing errors or 10 or 15 minutes were quite possible.

          Add this to the fact that he don’t know how long the murder would have taken and we really are stabbing in the dark. You’ve come up with a theory that cannot be categorically disproven. But then again, we can’t categorically disprove that the killer was wearing a rabbit costume but the chances are against it.

          You need to start proving or giving up. I’d suggest the latter.
          All I need to prove is that the timings used by you and Jeff and others to suggest the killer had sufficient time to remove the organs are unsafe, and that is what I have done.

          Equally you cannot prove the timings you seek to rely on, so on that basis we have reached an impasse but then to tip the scales all the rest of the evidence has to be considered which tips the scales in favour of the killer not having the time to remove the organs in Mitre Square.

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

            All I need to prove is that the timings used by you and Jeff and others to suggest the killer had sufficient time to remove the organs are unsafe, and that is what I have done.

            Equally you cannot prove the timings you seek to rely on, so on that basis we have reached an impasse but then to tip the scales all the rest of the evidence has to be considered which tips the scales in favour of the killer not having the time to remove the organs in Mitre Square.

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
            That’s not how it works Trevor and you know it. You have proved nothing because we are left with unknowns. Your theory might get a 1% likelihood when all is weighed up but no more. You’re doing what you usually do. You have a theory and you just can’t bear to let it go so you try torturing logic, reason and the evidence to try and keep it in play. You have no evidence Trevor. You have 2 things, 1) maybe he didn’t have time, and 2) there was a market for body parts.

            Case dismissed.
            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes

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

            Comment


            • I'm always led to wonder what the point is of exercises like this? Through all of these debates I've never once seen Trevor convert anyone to his way of thinking, and he's not going to rethink his theory despite locking horns with some of the preeminent Ripperologists down the years. At this point, I can only conclude that Trevor does this for attention, and everyone else bites out of boredom.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Harry D View Post
                I'm always led to wonder what the point is of exercises like this? Through all of these debates I've never once seen Trevor convert anyone to his way of thinking, and he's not going to rethink his theory despite locking horns with some of the preeminent Ripperologists down the years. At this point, I can only conclude that Trevor does this for attention, and everyone else bites out of boredom.
                Was always going to happen (see post#6). Probably applies to every single thread. People have there own theories and prime suspects and understandably are unwilling to budge (including me).

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Harry D View Post
                  I'm always led to wonder what the point is of exercises like this? Through all of these debates I've never once seen Trevor convert anyone to his way of thinking, and he's not going to rethink his theory despite locking horns with some of the preeminent Ripperologists down the years. At this point, I can only conclude that Trevor does this for attention, and everyone else bites out of boredom.
                  I dont think that quite it Harry , the way i see it and others can disagree if they like. The problem is that anyones Theory including my own is just that , a Theory. Its open to debate ,discussion , scutiny, whatever. Most of us dont mind that, its when a poster and not just Trevor there are others who try to convince most of us their theory is the correct one above all others with little if any actual proof .

                  Its that very notion alone, and contempt for all other theorys that must be wrong that has peoples goat up . Just my opinion
                  'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                  Comment


                  • Two possibilities:
                    1) JtR mutilated the victims and removed organs when doing so. Probable
                    2) The organs were removed by unknown persons at the mortuary. Possible but unlikely.

                    The KISS principle suggests the former.
                    Why a four-year-old child could understand this report! Run out and find me a four-year-old child, I can't make head or tail of it.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                      I dont think that quite it Harry , the way i see it and others can disagree if they like. The problem is that anyones Theory including my own is just that , a Theory. Its open to debate ,discussion , scutiny, whatever. Most of us dont mind that, its when a poster and not just Trevor there are others who try to convince most of us their theory is the correct one above all others with little if any actual proof .

                      Its that very notion alone, and contempt for all other theorys that must be wrong that has peoples goat up . Just my opinion
                      But history is there to be challenged, and not readily accepted as being the gospel truth as some on here believe

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Aethelwulf View Post

                        Was always going to happen (see post#6). Probably applies to every single thread. People have there own theories and prime suspects and understandably are unwilling to budge (including me).
                        Yes, and why does it happen ?because certain people do not have the abilty to assess and evaluate the facts and the evidence in unbiased fashion, they become blinkered to all things which go against what they belive to be the truth, which is what is seen here on almost every topic discussed, not calm discusions but heated abusive repetitve arguments which achieve nothing.

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                          But history is there to be challenged, and not readily accepted as being the gospel truth as some on here believe

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                          Thats correct Trevor, just as your own theory has been ''Challenged'', and should also not be readily accepted as truth just because you believe to be so.
                          'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                            Thats correct Trevor, just as your own theory has been ''Challenged'', and should also not be readily accepted as truth just because you believe to be so.
                            I welcome a challenge as long as there is real tangible evidence to challenge it, and not what I see, a constant plethora of " What if`s" "maybe`s" "I think" "Perhaps"

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                              I welcome a challenge as long as there is real tangible evidence to challenge it, and not what I see, a constant plethora of " What if`s" "maybe`s" "I think" "Perhaps"

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                              Well the way I see it , some of your evidence challenges the existing evidence. For me there is just to much uncertainty and questionable discrepencies to over come to positively rule your theory as the "truth" being a solution to the organ harvesting affair. .

                              Pretty much as was the case for those who would support a definitive 5.30 am t.o.d in the Richardson thread . Same scenario here . Not wanting to bring that topic up again ,just making a point of reference.
                              'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by FISHY1118 View Post

                                Well the way I see it , some of your evidence challenges the existing evidence. For me there is just to much uncertainty and questionable discrepencies to over come to positively rule your theory as the "truth" being a solution to the organ harvesting affair. .

                                Pretty much as was the case for those who would support a definitive 5.30 am t.o.d in the Richardson thread . Same scenario here . Not wanting to bring that topic up again ,just making a point of reference.
                                There is so much uncertainty which surrounds the old accepted facts with these murders, for example the medical evidence from 1888 modern day experts tell us that the Victorian doctors opinions were nothin more than guesswork yet those guesses get continually thrown up to support someones own personal theory.

                                Newspaper reports are also used to support own theories but even in todays world they are notorious for not printing the truth so the reports bacl then are unsafe to totally rely on.

                                The inquest testimony is another bone of contention we do not have available to us all of the full inquest testiomony for all the murders and what we do have raises more questions that should have been asked at the inquests which were not, questions and answers which may have assisted reserchers today in assesing the truthfulness of witnesses and the accuray of their testimony

                                The Victorian police investiagtions compared to how things are done now leave a lot to be desired as i have tried to point out, but that was not there fault they did the best they could give the fact that they had not had to deal with these types on murders on such a scale as seen.

                                Having researched these murders for the last 20 years and using not only my investigtive experience but called on the services of modern day medical experts has led me to firmly beleive that the old accpeted theories surrounding these murders are unsafe to heavily rely on. But as I have seen over they years some are not just reluctant to accept that, but are so engrossed in the old accepted theories that they are not able to accept anything that goes against those old theories.

                                Time to let the victims and their killer rest in peace, this case will never now be solved to the satisafaction of those who have their own preferred suspects

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X