Organ removal ? Warning Graphic Photos

[FISHY1118]

Maybe not, but it has to be given some credence and not dismissed outright just because certain parties are not even prepared to consider it thoroughly. I think i have made more than a good case to suggest the killer did not remove the organs from Eddowes and Chapman and that he didnt take away Kellys heart whether anybody agrees with my reasoning and explantion is for others to accept or rejct the facts and evidence I have submitted, but at the end of the day people will believe what they want to beleive and not what the facts and evidence tells them

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes but Trevor your facts and evidence leave to many unanswered questions, until such time they can all be answered without any doubt or discrepencies im afraid the mystery and truth about how the murders were committed goes on .

Look at poor old Ike over the Maybrick thread, his been claiming for years about how his facts and evidence make the diary authentic.

Just look at all the post that have been pointed out with so many discrepencies on that theory .

If both theories are the truth, how come no ones else sees it as plainly as you and Ike?

But anyway its your theory ,you're entitled to have one like all of us , but to call it the truth is too difficult for most people to believe .

[Herlock Sholmes]

No I am going to stay here and do what you do to me and other posters

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Tell uncomfortable truths you mean.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Maybe not, but it has to be given some credence and not dismissed outright just because certain parties are not even prepared to consider it thoroughly. I think i have made more than a good case to suggest the killer did not remove the organs from Eddowes and Chapman and that he didnt take away Kellys heart whether anybody agrees with my reasoning and explantion is for others to accept or rejct the facts and evidence I have submitted, but at the end of the day people will believe what they want to beleive and not what the facts and evidence tells them

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I tend to disagree with Mary's heart.

I do agree that you have a decent theory with Annie and Catherine.

What is almost certain to me is that there is something odd going on with this case. What that odd is, is open to debate. You may be right. I don't discount it at all, 'just needs that final bit of source material that gives us an example of organs being removed at mortuaries.

[jmenges]

Stop the name calling and personal attacks, please.

Let’s review:

Personal Attacks Policy:

If you are not sure what constitutes a personal attack, as a general rule anything with the pronouns "you" or "your" that is not a compliment should just be avoided. If a negative statement is about the person and not the topic, it constitutes an attack. "This idea is silly" is not a personal attack. "Your silly idea" or "You keep repeating the same silly ideas...." is.

JM

[Trevor Marriott]

So no more books, documentaries or speaking engagements from you then Trevor? And you won’t bother posting on here or on JTRForums?

No I am going to stay here and do what you do to me and other posters

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

You accuse others of things that you don’t see in yourself.

I can see through you and what you are but I am not going to lower myself to your level.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

You just cant help yourself can you, i wonder do you have to practice to be the clown you portray or does it come naturally

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You accuse others of things that you don’t see in yourself.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Maybe not, but it has to be given some credence and not dismissed outright just because certain parties are not even prepared to consider it thoroughly. I think i have made more than a good case to suggest the killer did not remove the organs from Eddowes and Chapman and that he didnt take away Kellys heart whether anybody agrees with my reasoning and explantion is for others to accept or rejct the facts and evidence I have submitted, but at the end of the day people will believe what they want to beleive and not what the facts and evidence tells them

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

We believe what the evidence tells us and not what you tell us.

[Trevor Marriott]

A perfect description of yourself.

You just cant help yourself can you, i wonder do you have to practice to be the clown you portray or does it come naturally

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Staggering from a man who spent ages defending Dr. Phillips TOD estimate at the Chapman murder.

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.

Yet you pick and choose.

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

So we dismiss the newspapers and we dismiss the inquest transcripts and none of the witnesses can be trusted except the ones that might support your theory. Ok.

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.

Wrong. You’ve decided that you want to be ‘the man’ on coming up with new theories. So you’ve set out to create a couple. Neither of which hold water and no one agrees with them.

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

So no more books, documentaries or speaking engagements from you then Trevor? And you won’t bother posting on here or on JTRForums?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

A perfect description of yourself.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

If there’s reason to do it. Not just for the sake of it. Most of what you label ‘the old established theories’ are old and established because they have been thoroughly investigated and found to be sound.

[Trevor Marriott]

I agree with you in part Trevor, most of the evidence in the murders and there subsequent inquest testimonies which we have seen, to be a highly contested issue due to there constant differences in posters interpretation. That being said , somewhere in all that lies the truth i have no doubt about that,so it just can't be easily dismissed as old and outdated and unreliable simply because
a new modern day theory such as yours comes along which claims to be the correct one. One doesn't prove the other wrong when there is too many discrepencies and differences that can't be explained . Its just not as clear cut as all that to hoist up the victory flag that this modern day theory of yours is the truth ,forsaking all others.

Maybe not, but it has to be given some credence and not dismissed outright just because certain parties are not even prepared to consider it thoroughly. I think i have made more than a good case to suggest the killer did not remove the organs from Eddowes and Chapman and that he didnt take away Kellys heart whether anybody agrees with my reasoning and explantion is for others to accept or rejct the facts and evidence I have submitted, but at the end of the day people will believe what they want to beleive and not what the facts and evidence tells them

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FISHY1118]

I agree with you in part Trevor, most of the evidence in the murders and there subsequent inquest testimonies which we have seen, to be a highly contested issue due to there constant differences in posters interpretation. That being said , somewhere in all that lies the truth i have no doubt about that,so it just can't be easily dismissed as old and outdated and unreliable simply because
a new modern day theory such as yours comes along which claims to be the correct one. One doesn't prove the other wrong when there is too many discrepencies and differences that can't be explained . Its just not as clear cut as all that to hoist up the victory flag that this modern day theory of yours is the truth ,forsaking all others.

[Trevor Marriott]

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

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk