Organ removal ? Warning Graphic Photos

[Trevor Marriott]

Exactly. All the organs were listed along with their locations except for the heart….because it wasn’t there. But to prop up his theory Trevor stands by the memory a Police Officer 8 years later.

In Bonds letter to Anderson isnt it a coincidence that he makes no mention of the killer taking away organs despite him being asked to give a full overview of all the murders.?

It is suggested that Dr Hebbert actually wrote Bonds report for him, that being the case it adds even more issues to the missing organs because Hebbert was one of the doctors directly involved with Kellys post mortem so we can show two doctors directly involved with Kelly make no mention of a missing heart following the post mortem

Then we have a senior police officer stating that no organs were taken away

www.trevormarriott

[Herlock Sholmes]

bingo Varqm and Herlock

"heart absent"

Hi Abby,

And so we have the three victims who we know definitely weren't disturbed all having organs missing. The rest, Smith - gang/ Tabram - stabbed (victim status debated) Nichols (very likely that the killer was disturbed.) Stride - either not a victim or disturbed, Mackenzie - disputed victim, Coles - disputed victim but killer disturbed by Thompson.

So of those 9 the 3 that definitely weren't disturbed and are generally accepted as victims all had organs missing. Now that's a fair sized coincidence, or.........when the ripper had the opportunity he took organs away. The case for a mortuary thief doesn't exist.

[Abby Normal]

Exactly. All the organs were listed along with their locations except for the heart….because it wasn’t there. But to prop up his theory Trevor stands by the memory a Police Officer 8 years later.

bingo Varqm and Herlock

"heart absent"

[Herlock Sholmes]

In Bond's report the kidney,uterus and one breast where found under the head.One breast was found by the right foot,etc.,etc..Where did they find the heart? It was "absent" they could not find it.Either it was burned along with the hat in the fireplace,the heart is a tough organ to burn,likely they would have found remains of it. Or the killer took it.

Exactly. All the organs were listed along with their locations except for the heart….because it wasn’t there. But to prop up his theory Trevor stands by the memory a Police Officer 8 years later.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes it like your brain and its non abilty to assess and evaluate the most simplest of explantions, and now you are re posting material thats been posted a hundred times before. If you have anything new and construtive to report then please post it otherwise desist from your constant repetition its become a bore with you just as it was on the Richardson thread.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Im simply responding to the same a stuff. We know your theory because you’ve been hawking it around for years so what have you come up with that’s new that gives you the right to criticise me for repeating myself. If you post the same old nonsense of course I’m going to repeat myself.

My brain is fine Trevor and quite capable of assessing and evaluating.

How long would the killer have needed to have done what he did - no one can provide a definitive time.

How long did he have available - we don’t know exactly.

Therefore, as Tristan pointed out, we are at a brick wall. You can’t prove a thing.

There isn’t a single thing that points to organs being removed at the mortuary. It’s an absolutely baseless invention. It was binned when it was first proposed, it’s been binned over the preceding years and it should be binned now.

[Varqm]

Not according to the head of Whitechapel CID who attended the crime scene!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

In Bond's report the kidney,uterus and one breast where found under the head.One breast was found by the right foot,etc.,etc..Where did they find the heart? It was "absent" they could not find it.Either it was burned along with the hat in the fireplace,the heart is a tough organ to burn,likely they would have found remains of it. Or the killer took it.

[Trevor Marriott]

By Brown at the inquest (which took place after the PM!)

[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.

Sp that that nonsense dealt with.

You’re not highlighting flaws. You’re claiming as a fact something that you’ve come by via estimates. And you’re feebly backing it up by pointing out that the trade in body parts existed. You have an empty sack.

Yes it like your brain and its non abilty to assess and evaluate the most simplest of explantions, and now you are re posting material thats been posted a hundred times before. If you have anything new and construtive to report then please post it otherwise desist from your constant repetition its become a bore with you just as it was on the Richardson thread.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

And once again, this is not a fact. This is just your supposition based upon your mistaken belief that the Star article was published on the same day as the PM took place, when in fact it was published the day after.

Exactly

[Herlock Sholmes]

And one again for the last time so please listen. Brown and Sequeira gave the 5 mins and 3 mins estimates before the post mortems were carried out and those times they gave relate solely to the murder and mutilations.

The 5 mins that you and others seem to want to accept for the killer to have committed the murder and removed the organs cannot be verified as being accurate because that time has been calculated with a 1.35am start time which cannot be proven because there is no evidence to show the killer and Eddowes went into the square at that time it could have been as late as 1.38 so even you must accept that the later they moved off the less time the killer had with the victim. So on that basis it is quite right for me to question whether or not the killer had the time with Eddowes to do all that he is purported to have done. Whether or not you agree is immaterial to me. I am simply highlighting the possible flaws in the suggestion that the killer could have done all that he is purported to have done within the time frame suggested

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

By Brown at the inquest (which took place after the PM!)

[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.

Sp that that nonsense dealt with.

You’re not highlighting flaws. You’re claiming as a fact something that you’ve come by via estimates. And you’re feebly backing it up by pointing out that the trade in body parts existed. You have an empty sack.

[Trevor Marriott]

its a moot point he removed and took away her heart

Not according to the head of Whitechapel CID who attended the crime scene!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

Based on the the evidence provided Trevor, most people here on casebook have accepted the theory that the killer did remove the organs from the victims , do you disagree with that ? just a simple yes or no will do .

Please dont come back with'' but ''who'' came up with this accepted theory'' . i dont wish to get into semantics with you, as that is the speciality of certain posters ,im bored and tired of that game. Lets just keep it simple shall we.?



''Well I would be enthralled to hear them''

Well heres one reason Trevor , Maybe because he didnt have the time to marvel at his accomplishments after removing the organs at the Chapman and Eddowes murder scenes so he took them away to study, look at, play with , etc,. But with Kelly he had time to do all that, so in the end he might have possible decided to leave them all over the room after he had his fun with them .

My point is, just because he didnt take kellys organs, doesnt in anyway prove the organ harvesting theory.

its a moot point he removed and took away her heart

[Trevor Marriott]

Based on the the evidence provided Trevor, most people here on casebook have accepted the theory that the killer did remove the organs from the victims , do you disagree with that ? just a simple yes or no will do .

The evidence you and others seek to rely on is unsafe

Well heres one reason Trevor , Maybe because he didnt have the time to marvel at his accomplishments after removing the organs at the Chapman and Eddowes murder scenes so he took them away to study, look at, play with , etc,. But with Kelly he had time to do all that, so in the end he might have possible decided to leave them all over the room after he had his fun with them .

can we stick to factual evidence not opinions, or conjecture

My point is, just because he didnt take kellys organs, doesnt in anyway prove the organ harvesting theory.

Au contraire mon ami

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

''you are right the killer of Kelly did remove many organs but there was ''no anatomical knowledge shown'' in doing so''

Which Doctor said this in regards to the removal of kellys organs ?

Dr Bond in his report to Anderson

“In each case the mutilation was inflicted by a person who had no scientific or 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.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FISHY1118]

You are right the killer of Kelly did remove many organs but there was no anatomical knowledge shown in doing so, unlike Chapman and Eddowes where the doctors agreed that whoever had removed the organs must have had some anatomical knowledge, So if you dont mind I will stick rigidly to the belief that the killers motive for these murders was nothing more than murder and mutilation.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

''you are right the killer of Kelly did remove many organs but there was ''no anatomical knowledge shown'' in doing so''

Which Doctor said this in regards to the removal of kellys organs ?

[FISHY1118]

Well I would be enthralled to hear them

Based on the the evidence provided Trevor, most people here on casebook have accepted the theory that the killer did remove the organs from the victims , do you disagree with that ? just a simple yes or no will do .

Please dont come back with'' but ''who'' came up with this accepted theory'' . i dont wish to get into semantics with you, as that is the speciality of certain posters ,im bored and tired of that game. Lets just keep it simple shall we.?



''Well I would be enthralled to hear them''

Well heres one reason Trevor , Maybe because he didnt have the time to marvel at his accomplishments after removing the organs at the Chapman and Eddowes murder scenes so he took them away to study, look at, play with , etc,. But with Kelly he had time to do all that, so in the end he might have possible decided to leave them all over the room after he had his fun with them .

My point is, just because he didnt take kellys organs, doesnt in anyway prove the organ harvesting theory.