Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim?

[Darryl Kenyon]

So the argument that Mary's killer could not possibly be the same man who murdered Annie and Kate because in their murders he showed anatomical knowledge while in Mary's he did not is now defunct?

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi DK
I too have been trying to figure out Trevors thoughts and I think I got it:

the C5 were all murdered and mutilated(by different people), no surgical skill shown,no organs removed by killer.

Eddowes and chapman had there organs removed by some interloper at the mortuary (not their killer) with surgical skill before the doctors got to them, so that when the doctors did the post mortem they detected surgical skill (and the organs missing).


kelly had no organs removed at all by anyone, even the "interlopers", hence the doctors saw no surgical skill.



sorry Trevor if I got anything wrong here-feel free to correct!

Abby
You got it about right but read the last para of my last post to tie it up

https://www.trevormarriott.couk

[Abby Normal]

Trevor again, your post 273 - Kelly’s body had been treated like a butchers carcass that is a fact

That is what Bond is referring to in his report

It’s also a fact that the doctors in the cases of Eddowes and Chapman saw anatomical knowledge that is a fact and is recorded. If you don’t agree with those doctors that’s your prerogative but those real facts are not going to go away

There is nothing else to debate on this topic

Trevor, You are arguing here that one reason Mary was not killed by Jack was because he showed no anatomical knowledge, Yes or no?
Whereas you are also arguing that Annie and Kates killer showed anatomical knowledge, so he couldn't possibly have murdered Mary whose killer had no surgical skill whatsoever Yes or no?
Yet that same anatomical knowledge shown, is the removal of the organs, Yes or no?
Yet you do not believe the killer removed any organs whatsoever, Yes or no?
So if that is the case then the killer showed no anatomical skill, the doctors were wrong because someone else removed said organs and he showed no skill just as in Mary's murder, Yes or no?
Sorry for being pedantic but you really have me confused on your position
Darryl

Hi DK
I too have been trying to figure out Trevors thoughts and I think I got it:

the C5 were all murdered and mutilated(by different people), no surgical skill shown,no organs removed by killer.

Eddowes and chapman had there organs removed by some interloper at the mortuary (not their killer) with surgical skill before the doctors got to them, so that when the doctors did the post mortem they detected surgical skill (and the organs missing).


kelly had no organs removed at all by anyone, even the "interlopers", hence the doctors saw no surgical skill.



sorry Trevor if I got anything wrong here-feel free to correct!

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor again, your post 273 - Kelly’s body had been treated like a butchers carcass that is a fact

That is what Bond is referring to in his report

It’s also a fact that the doctors in the cases of Eddowes and Chapman saw anatomical knowledge that is a fact and is recorded. If you don’t agree with those doctors that’s your prerogative but those real facts are not going to go away

There is nothing else to debate on this topic

Trevor, You are arguing here that one reason Mary was not killed by Jack was because he showed no anatomical knowledge, Yes or no?
Whereas you are also arguing that Annie and Kates killer showed anatomical knowledge, so he couldn't possibly have murdered Mary whose killer had no surgical skill whatsoever Yes or no?
Yet that same anatomical knowledge shown, is the removal of the organs, Yes or no?
Yet you do not believe the killer removed any organs whatsoever, Yes or no?
So if that is the case then the killer showed no anatomical skill, the doctors were wrong because someone else removed said organs and he showed no skill just as in Mary's murder, Yes or no?
Sorry for being pedantic but you really have me confused on your position
Darryl

I am afraid you are losing me

I do not believe the killer removed any organs and took them away as In Chapman and Eddowes, where anatomical knowledge was displayed in how the organs were removed. There was no anatomical knowledge shown in their actual murders

With regards to kelly there was no anatomical knowledge shown in either her murder, or the removal of the organs that were found scattered around the room.

I hope that clarifies my position

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Darryl Kenyon]

The anatomical knowledge was shown in the killer finding the location of the organs, and then removing them with anatomical knowledge. As the doctors state. I am not to sure what point you are trying to prove?

The murders were simply murder and mutilation in what can be described as blitz attacks on the victims.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor again, your post 273 - Kelly’s body had been treated like a butchers carcass that is a fact

That is what Bond is referring to in his report

It’s also a fact that the doctors in the cases of Eddowes and Chapman saw anatomical knowledge that is a fact and is recorded. If you don’t agree with those doctors that’s your prerogative but those real facts are not going to go away

There is nothing else to debate on this topic

Trevor, You are arguing here that one reason Mary was not killed by Jack was because he showed no anatomical knowledge, Yes or no?
Whereas you are also arguing that Annie and Kates killer showed anatomical knowledge, so he couldn't possibly have murdered Mary whose killer had no surgical skill whatsoever Yes or no?
Yet that same anatomical knowledge shown, is the removal of the organs, Yes or no?
Yet you do not believe the killer removed any organs whatsoever, Yes or no?
So if that is the case then the killer showed no anatomical skill, the doctors were wrong because someone else removed said organs and he showed no skill just as in Mary's murder, Yes or no?
Sorry for being pedantic but you really have me confused on your position
Darryl

[Varqm]

Robert Mann was able to secure Nichol's body from "organ harvesting " then there's no reason to doubt he did it with Chapman's.

----

[Varqm]

It doesnt matter where the body was if it was tampered with in the way I suggest.

Permission was not needed where no relatives could be found.

We dont have the Pc`s testimony, nor do we have any evidence as to how many other people could have had access to the body one way or another, or did have access during that 12 hour window. So my theory cannot be ruled out. But you are entitled to believe what you want, but I would say dont be blinkered in your approach.

The Anatomy Act is very relevant because it goes some way to corroborate this alternative theory.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I guess we have to disagree,your theory can't be entirely dismissed.All I'm saying is Robert Mann,mortuary keeper of the workhouse,was not involved in a scheme to illegally procure organs,he was present in the workhouse where/when Nichols and Chapman's body were sent,if there was a scheme why they/he did not do it in Nichol's case.

Insp. chandler left the "shed' ,left the PC in charge, that instead of guessing what might have occurred,under oath,that "except when twonurses from an infirmary came and undressed the body. No one else touched the corpse" that he instead asked Robert Mann and the Pc if somebody else ,aside from the two nurses ,touched the body.

-----

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor this is post 723 in your reply to Sam
Can I ask again please Trevor, if the killer did not take any organs away what anatomical knowledge do you think the Doctors saw in the murders of Annie and Kate to make them think the murderer displayed such anatomical knowledge? I put it to you Trevor that the very reason they thought he displayed anatomical knowledge was because of the removal of the organs.

The anatomical knowledge was shown in the killer finding the location of the organs, and then removing them with anatomical knowledge. As the doctors state. I am not to sure what point you are trying to prove?

The murders were simply murder and mutilation in what can be described as blitz attacks on the victims.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

It was out in the open, but the nurses cleaned/touched it inside the mortuary,"taken into the shed, and placed on the table".Yes I believed in Chandler that nobody touched it except the nurses more than "no evidence" otherwise and I do not believe the doctor's and coroner got fooled into believing organs were taken by the killer but actually it was taken at the mortuary.Can you give us an instance in 1800's where a post-mortem was conducted,organs were taken, and it turned out to be it was taken illegally at the mortuary?
We do not have that PC's testimony so we do not know what he did.
The Anatomy Act should not be mentioned because it could not have undermined the power of the coroner and the ability to conduct an impartial inquest.And a relative has to approve before the body can be used for "science'.

---

It doesnt matter where the body was if it was tampered with in the way I suggest.

Permission was not needed where no relatives could be found.

We dont have the Pc`s testimony, nor do we have any evidence as to how many other people could have had access to the body one way or another, or did have access during that 12 hour window. So my theory cannot be ruled out. But you are entitled to believe what you want, but I would say dont be blinkered in your approach.

The Anatomy Act is very relevant because it goes some way to corroborate this alternative theory.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Darryl Kenyon]

Sam
You clearly only see what you want to see and heavily biased in favour of the killer removing the organs

Kelly’s body had been treated like a butchers carcass that is a fact

That is what Bond is referring to in his report

It’s also a fact that the doctors in the cases of Eddowes and Chapman saw anatomical knowledge that is a fact and is recorded. If you don’t agree with those doctors that’s your prerogative but those real facts are not going to go away

There is nothing else to debate on this topic

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor this is post 723 in your reply to Sam
Can I ask again please Trevor, if the killer did not take any organs away what anatomical knowledge do you think the Doctors saw in the murders of Annie and Kate to make them think the murderer displayed such anatomical knowledge? I put it to you Trevor that the very reason they thought he displayed anatomical knowledge was because of the removal of the organs.

[DJA]

The most interesting thing about including Stride or Kelly, or not, and believing in an anatomy experienced JtR, or not, is that none of those factors can actually be direct evidence for JtR.

They are circumstantial at best.

Perhaps if one looks at all of the evidence,Kelly and Stride are very important.

Have a good look at Stride's bottom lip and the fact that she died while accepting a packet of cachous.

As nobody can find any Mary Jane Kelly,perhaps the Mary Ann Kelly baptised at Shoreditch Church is an excellent choice.
Odd that her body was sent to the Vestry's mortuary.

So, who is a common factor that also has considerable experience in anatomy?

[Varqm]

Robert Mann is not a reliable witness as highlighted by the coroners comments "“The time has surely come when the police stations of the metropolis shall have proper mortuaries attached to them so that the help of epileptic paupers (referring to Robert Mann) warranted to forget what they have done shall not be brought into requisition.”

Are we expected to believe that he stood with the body all those hours without moving. How do we know he wasn't paid to turn a blind eye

Are we expected to believe that the normal everyday business at the mortuary came to a grinding halt. There is no evidence to show that bona fide medical personnel were refused entry, or that the process of lawfully removing organs from other bodies was curtailed

The Pc was there stood outside to stop onlookers gawking he would not have been aware of anything that was going on inside, and as stated he was not there all the time.

There is a further conflict in the evidence. Dr Phillips says that one of the nurses stated that when she went to the mortuary the body of Chapman was outside the mortuary shed still on the handcart, which had been used to transport the body from the crime scene. Inspector Chandler stated that at 7am the body was taken possession of by Robert Mann the mortuary keeper who locked the body inside the shed.

As I have stated before all throughout the ripper mystery there is so much conflict in the witness testimony it is hard to find the truth among the many lies

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It was out in the open, but the nurses cleaned/touched it inside the mortuary,"taken into the shed, and placed on the table".Yes I believed in Chandler that nobody touched it except the nurses more than "no evidence" otherwise and I do not believe the doctor's and coroner got fooled into believing organs were taken by the killer but actually it was taken at the mortuary.Can you give us an instance in 1800's where a post-mortem was conducted,organs were taken, and it turned out to be it was taken illegally at the mortuary?
We do not have that PC's testimony so we do not know what he did.
The Anatomy Act should not be mentioned because it could not have undermined the power of the coroner and the ability to conduct an impartial inquest.And a relative has to approve before the body can be used for "science'.

---

[Batman]

The most interesting thing about including Stride or Kelly, or not, and believing in an anatomy experienced JtR, or not, is that none of those factors can actually be direct evidence for JtR.

They are circumstantial at best.

[Trevor Marriott]

Inspector Chandler, recalled, said he reached the mortuary a few minutes after seven. The body did not appear to have been disturbed.
He did not stay until the doctor arrived. Police-constable 376 H was left in charge, with the mortuary keeper. Robert Mann, the mortuary keeper and an inmate of the Whitechapel Union Workhouse, said he received the body at seven o'clock on Saturday morning. He 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.

Robert Mann: I have charge of the Whitechapel mortuary. On Saturday last I received the body of the deceased at the mortuary about seven o'clock. I was there most of the day. No one touched the body until the nurses came over and undressed it. I remained at the mortuary until the doctor arrived,and the door was locked. The police were in charge of it. No one touched the body except the nurses. I was not present when they laid the corpse out.

Mr. George Baxter Phillips,
Having received instructions soon after two o'clock on Saturday afternoon, I went to the labour- yard of the Whitechapel Union for the
purpose of further examining the body and making the usual post-mortem investigation

---

In the Chapman case...

1 assumption, Police-constable 376 H left before Phillips arrived.If the PC left then either Robert Mann took the organs or the nurses.For the mean time until disproved I'm going with Chandler,no one touched the body except the nurses.So the nurses took it?

---

Robert Mann is not a reliable witness as highlighted by the coroners comments "“The time has surely come when the police stations of the metropolis shall have proper mortuaries attached to them so that the help of epileptic paupers (referring to Robert Mann) warranted to forget what they have done shall not be brought into requisition.”

Are we expected to believe that he stood with the body all those hours without moving. How do we know he wasn't paid to turn a blind eye

Are we expected to believe that the normal everyday business at the mortuary came to a grinding halt. There is no evidence to show that bona fide medical personnel were refused entry, or that the process of lawfully removing organs from other bodies was curtailed

The Pc was there stood outside to stop onlookers gawking he would not have been aware of anything that was going on inside, and as stated he was not there all the time.

There is a further conflict in the evidence. Dr Phillips says that one of the nurses stated that when she went to the mortuary the body of Chapman was outside the mortuary shed still on the handcart, which had been used to transport the body from the crime scene. Inspector Chandler stated that at 7am the body was taken possession of by Robert Mann the mortuary keeper who locked the body inside the shed.

As I have stated before all throughout the ripper mystery there is so much conflict in the witness testimony it is hard to find the truth among the many lies

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

If these "bona fide medical persons" were secretly purloining the organs at the mortuary, why did Doctors Sequiera and Brown feel the need to perpetuate the 'Ripper and his lightning surgical skills' myth.

Regards,

Simon

The answer is quite simple if the organs had been removed in the way I suggest and the organs were not found to be missing until the post mortem, surely it would be a natural assumption by the doctors, but quite wrong in this instances for them to believe the killer must have removed them.

Clearly Dr Brown had concerns as to whether the killer had enough time in Mitre Square and that is why he engaged an expert to put the time to the test.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Jack-Ripper-Truth-Trevor-Marriott-ebook/dp/B06ZY63JXJ/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1535752176&sr=8-2&keywords=trevor+marriott