Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim?

[Trevor Marriott]

The shed was locked, the constable stands outside while no-one is inside.

Ah so now you concur with me on this point as before you were trying to suggest the constable was inside!

But you dont know if anyone went inside, please listen read and digest what I have said previous.

Yes, what you write only confirms what I said at the start. The police retain custody. It doesn't matter whether the Inspector is there, or a constable. The intent is to protect the body, the evidence.
As we read, Robert Mann....."remained at the mortuary until Dr. Phillips came. The door of the mortuary was locked except when two nurses from an infirmary came and undressed the body. No one else touched the corpse. He gave the key into the hands of the police."

But the body was outside when the nurses came,why do you keep wanting to rely on conflicting evidence?

The police being, PC Barnes, and apart from the female nurses - "No one else touched the corpse".

Can you prove conclusively that was the case? The answers is no you cant, Robert Mann is an unreliable witness, this came from the coroner

Can you prove that no one else entered the mortuary ? The answer is no you cant

Can you prove that Pc Barnes was still there when Phillips arrived? No you cant

So, have we found your organ snatchers, a pair of nurses?

If it keeps you happy yes we have

The police had custody of the body, all the time. So you have no grounds for pretending some experienced & illusive organ thief could steal organs from under their noses.

The police didn't have custody of the body, a police officer was there outside to stop the public gawking,

It's not like we haven't been over this years ago, but you refuse to listen and continue to peddle fantasy.

When i read your posts I have to question which one of us is peddling fantasy its not me so that only leaves you. In each of your posts there is showing an element of desperation in trying to prop up the old theory.

I think you need to take a step back and look at the broader picture not just what happened to Chapmans organs, but Eddowes, and the fact that no other victims were missing organs save the only two that had their abdomens ripped open in such a way that it would be relatively easy for the organs to be removed at the mortuaries, thus accounting for the anatomical knowledge described by the doctors, and especially with Eddowes because if the killer did not have enough time to remove her organs at the crime scene then it would be fair to suggest they went missing also at that mortuary.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Batman]

That's very compelling evidence that they were indeed more than aware of a need to keep a chain of custody.

I would think in order for the medical examiners to have been able to describe the attacks to the organs, that their internal organs would have been removed from their bodies, laid out on an examination table and each part examined closely. Even an undergraduate in medicine would be able to recognize almost immediately what was missing from such a display. More importantly, looking at how the missing parts were removed would have clued them into how they were removed.

I think since the Whitechapel murders, pathology in lust murders has always been acutely aware that they should look for such medical knowledge examples, but what ends up happening is that lust murders are hardly ever medically experienced people at all. So I don't think we have any such comparisons.

However, the Ripper's injuries are pretty darn close to what we see with these non-medically experienced lust murderers. In fact, we might as well just say they are the same for the most part and rarely if ever the work of a medical person.

Can we name any?

[Wickerman]

Do you think for one minute that they sat by the side of a dead body in a smelly shed ?

The shed was locked, the constable stands outside while no-one is inside.

Insp Chandler did not stay with the body until Philips came, he states he left a constable in charge he does not say anything about guarding the body every second. The officer left was Pc 376H Barnes, and we have no statement from him about what happened, or who came and went, or what his in charge remit equated to.

Yes, what you write only confirms what I said at the start. The police retain custody. It doesn't matter whether the Inspector is there, or a constable. The intent is to protect the body, the evidence.
As we read, Robert Mann....."remained at the mortuary until Dr. Phillips came. The door of the mortuary was locked except when two nurses from an infirmary came and undressed the body. No one else touched the corpse. He gave the key into the hands of the police."

The police being, PC Barnes, and apart from the female nurses - "No one else touched the corpse".

So, have we found your organ snatchers, a pair of nurses?

The police had custody of the body, all the time. So you have no grounds for pretending some experienced & illusive organ thief could steal organs from under their noses.
It's not like we haven't been over this years ago, but you refuse to listen and continue to peddle fantasy.

[Trevor Marriott]

As we read, Sgt. Badham accompanied the body to the mortuary, and stayed with it until Insp. Chandler arrived, then came Dr Phillips.
This is the chain of custody at work.

Do you think for one minute that they sat by the side of a dead body in a smelly shed ?

Insp Chandler did not stay with the body until Philips came, he states he left a constable in charge he does not say anything about guarding the body every second. The officer left was Pc 376H Barnes, and we have no statement from him about what happened, or who came and went, or what his in charge remit equated to.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Final time !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Before the inquest?
What you are talking about is after the body is discharged by the police.
And, with the required consent.
Once again you try to mix apples & oranges in defending your theory.

Again you have not been following these posts!

This really is the last time I am going to say this

I said that the bodies should not have been tampered with, but if I am right they clearly were, and it would have taken a medical person only a short time to remove the organs, if that was correct then that would explain the anatomical knowledge described by the doctors when they carried out the post mortems.

If they were taken surreptitiously no one would know would they

We do not know who came and went during those 12 hours. So it is quite possible that the organs were removed in the way I suggest, and there is more evidence to suggest I am right than there is to prop up what you clearly believe that the killer removed them at the crime scene.

Strictures are imposed by the coroner, not granted.
Regardless, whether it was the coroner or the police, someone had to give permission.

Have you any evidence to show there was a stricture imposed in this case or any of the others. In fact I cannot find anything in the Coroners Act 1887 which gives coroners the power to impose such an order.

Why do you assume they had the opportunity to tamper with the body, under the nose of a constable?

The constable would have been stood outside and unaware of what was going on inside, as stated he was there to keep the public out., and as previously stated he was not there for the duration

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

As we read, Sgt. Badham accompanied the body to the mortuary, and stayed with it until Insp. Chandler arrived, then came Dr Phillips.
This is the chain of custody at work.

[Wickerman]

Inspector Chandler stated that he did not instruct the witness to wash the body, which was done at the direction of the clerk to the Board of Guardians."

Agreed. The issue here is who gave permission.
Chandler did not say he was not present, had that been the case it would have been his first response.

[Wickerman]

For the last time because you are not listening, and you seem to have your own agenda. As I have said before the anatomy act allowed bona fide medical personnel to acquire organs from mortuaries for medical research.

Before the inquest?
What you are talking about is after the body is discharged by the police.
And, with the required consent.
Once again you try to mix apples & oranges in defending your theory.

Have you any evidence that any strictures were granted by the coroners in any of the cases?

Strictures are imposed by the coroner, not granted.
Regardless, whether it was the coroner or the police, someone had to give permission.

But they had the opportunity to tamper with the body did they not, and if they had wanted could have removed organs, un-noticed? In the same way any other medical persons could have from Chapman

So your attempt at trying to suggest no one could have done this because they were not authorized does not stand up to close scrutiny.

Why do you assume they had the opportunity to tamper with the body, under the nose of a constable?

You keep saying this, but if the police were not there all the time, and the coroner had yet to be informed who knows what did go on, or who came and went. We know the body was tampered with by the nurses, they said police had given them permission, the police denied this. I am sure they didn't go off their own backs, another example of conflicting evidence from police.

But what the nurses said indicate the police were present, they had to be.

You should stop citing and relying on 21st Century procedures involving police and coroners in murder cases. It was a different world back then in 1888.

I haven't quoted any 21st century sources.

[Varqm]

Baxter alluded to they did not have a proper mortuary and perhaps the rules that went with it.It's clear the inspector(s) in charge of the body in the mortuary(Nichols and Chapman)did not give clear instruction to Robert Mann,mortuary keeper or the policeman left in charge to not let anybody touch the body.But this was in 1888, with no importance to DNA/fingerprints/etc this was a minor mistake,the Coroner moved on,it did not affect the "whole" post-mortem.

Chapman's body was found outside, nurses "found the body of the deceased on the ambulance in the yard". Chandler,seems to me,ordered the nurses or somebody to put the body inside the mortuary,lock it,or at the very least to also undress it which was the mistake.
Phillips: "She was directed by Inspector Chandler to undress it"
Chandler:"The door of the mortuary was locked except when two nurses from an infirmary came and undressed the body".


----

[Joshua Rogan]

Daily News 14th Sept

"Mary Elizabeth Simonds said - I am a nurse at the Whitechapel Union Infirmary. On Sept. 8 I was requested to attend the mortuary with the senior nurse, whose name I think is Frances Wright. I first saw the body on the ambulance in the yard. It was afterwards taken to the shed and placed on a table.

Were you directed to undress it? - Yes; by the inspector, I think. (Inspecter Chandler was identified as the officer who gave the instruction.) I took the clothes off. I left the handkerchief round the neck.

Did you wash the body at all? - Yes, we washed the stains of the blood from the body. There were stains over the lower part of the body and the legs. There was blood about the chest, which seemed to have run down from the throat. I found the pocket tied round the deceased's waist.

Inspector Chandler stated that he did not instruct the witness to wash the body, which was done at the direction of the clerk to the Board of Guardians."

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, so who is authorized?
Is your organ thief a person authorized (by police or coroner) to have unaccompanied access to the body?

There is nothing to say that authorization was required or imposed because the coroner would probably as not have not been informed until after the body had been removed to the mortuary in any event this is 1888 not 2018.

For the last time because you are not listening, and you seem to have your own agenda. As I have said before the anatomy act allowed bona fide medical personnel to acquire organs from mortuaries for medical research.

With that, bona fide medical personnel would attend mortuaries on a daily basis for that specific purpose. They would have to attend in person otherwise they would not know if organs would become available. They therefore had authorized access to the mortuary for that purpose, unless it was closed by the police to all, and there is no evidence to corrobrate that, and if that had have been the case then the police would have been there all the time, and we know that wasn't the case

The mortuary had no permanent staff, so no-one had 'daily duties' in the 'shed' which was used as a make-shift mortuary.

The mortuary you referred to in the Chapman case was a shed but nevertheless was used as a permanent mortuary at that time, and not solely used just for the purpose of taking in the body of Chapman.

My communication in question concerned the Mylett case. The sentence I referred to reads:
"...refers to the coroner's strictures upon the action of the police in "sending down doctor after doctor without his sanction".

Note: - a "stricture" is a restriction imposed by the coroner.

Have you any evidence that any strictures were granted by the coroners in any of the cases?

However, this all turned out to be a miscommunication between Bond's assistant Hibbert, and himself.
But this does permit you to rest on your laurels, those other doctors were sent by the police.
So did not gain unauthorized access.

But they had the opportunity to tamper with the body did they not, and if they had wanted could have removed organs, un-noticed? In the same way any other medical persons could have from Chapman

So your attempt at trying to suggest no one could have done this because they were not authorized does not stand up to close scrutiny.

I asked about Mann (& or, Hatfield?) being your organ thief/thieves because they did appear to have access to the body, although the mortuary was locked up after the body arrived. So again, no-one had unauthorized access.
Though from the contradictory inquest testimony we can't be sure if there were any police present or not.

Ergo, as I pointed out, no-one was permitted to access a body without permission from either the police or the coroner/surgeon in charge.

You keep saying this, but if the police were not there all the time, and the coroner had yet to be informed who knows what did go on, or who came and went. We know the body was tampered with by the nurses, they said police had given them permission, the police denied this. I am sure they didn't go off their own backs, another example of conflicting evidence from police.

You should stop citing and relying on 21st Century procedures involving police and coroners in murder cases. It was a different world back then in 1888.

I am not resting on my laurels, but I am not going to keep going over the same things again and again every time you come up with some lame brain explanation in an attempt to prop up the old theory.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

The police code only states what a police officer should do at a crime scene. As stated police officers as is the case of Chapman were at times posted outside mortuaries to stop unauthorized person gaining entry to gawk at the bodies.

Yes, so who is authorized?
Is your organ thief a person authorized (by police or coroner) to have unaccompanied access to the body?

As I stated it would not stop authorized persons from going about their normally daily routines at the mortuary and there is no evidence to suggest that was the case

The mortuary had no permanent staff, so no-one had 'daily duties' in the 'shed' which was used as a make-shift mortuary.

Bingo !!!!!!!!!! You have now corroborated what I have been saying all along that bodies at mortuaries could be accessed by other bona fide medical persons who were not authorized. I rest my case

My communication in question concerned the Mylett case. The sentence I referred to reads:
"...refers to the coroner's strictures upon the action of the police in "sending down doctor after doctor without his sanction".

Note: - a "stricture" is a restriction imposed by the coroner.

However, this all turned out to be a miscommunication between Bond's assistant Hibbert, and himself.
But this does permit you to rest on your laurels, those other doctors were sent by the police.
So did not gain unauthorized access.

I asked about Mann (& or, Hatfield?) being your organ thief/thieves because they did appear to have access to the body, although the mortuary was locked up after the body arrived. So again, no-one had unauthorized access.
Though from the contradictory inquest testimony we can't be sure if there were any police present or not.

Ergo, as I pointed out, no-one was permitted to access a body without permission from either the police or the coroner/surgeon in charge.

[Busy Beaver]

So not only do we have people proposing multiple Jack the Rippers, but now also an added "Organ thief of Whitechapel".

Why not add in a few vampires and werewolves and dragons too while you are it?

Yup Batman, I despair too

[Harry D]

It should also be noted that in support of the above out of all the victims it is strange that the only two who were found missing organs were the only two who had their abdomens ripped open to the extent anyone wanting to remove organs would not have had to open the abdomens any further to be able to access the organs and remove them.

Not strange. Those victims were splayed open by the killer to give access to the internal organs.

Answer me this, Trevor, if organ harvesting was not the result of an escalating serial killer, and they were in fact taken by mortuary attendants, why didn't all the victims' wounds resemble Nichols'?

[Batman]

Even the Yorkshire Ripper, who murdered mostly outdoors, murdered indoors one time.

Her name is Patricia Atkinson. http://www.execulink.com/~kbrannen/victim10.htm