Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim?

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

  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    The entrails were not cut from the body, they were simply outside the abdominal cavity and this suggestion of ritualistic positioning is another misleading fact started by ripper researchers.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    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.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
      If the killer showed anatomical knowledge but didn't remove any organs from Annie and Kate, what knowledge did he show?
      If the killer didnt remove the organs then the anatomical knowledge seen by the doctors at the post mortem was as a result of them being removed at the mortuary before the post mortems by a bona fide medical person acting perhaps unlawfully under the Anatomy Act. These bodies should not have been tampered with but who knows what went on during the 12 hour window when they were left before the doctors came back to carry out the post mortems.

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Harry D View Post
        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.
        I was referring to Chapman and Eddowes only but there is no ritualistic link to any of the bodies, researchers should stop seeing things that are not there to be seen.

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Harry D View Post
          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.
          I would point out to Trevor that you originally asked why the killer appeared to position the organs almost ritualistically. That the organs had been placed around the body is undeniable, whether there was any ritual involved or not.
          Kind regards, Sam Flynn

          "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
            All answers in my original post
            You abandoned trying to explain why the C5 were not all murdered while prostrate as they had their necks slit (some more than once).
            https://forum.casebook.org/showpost....&postcount=684

            All of the C5 are linked by being prostrate before the necks were slit (some more than once)
            https://forum.casebook.org/showpost....&postcount=676
            https://forum.casebook.org/showpost....&postcount=691

            You couldn't show examples of any of your claims in criminology. You just abandoned that one also.
            https://forum.casebook.org/showpost....&postcount=716

            You are trying to sell to people that Mary Jane Kelly was someone's first murder.
            Bona fide canonical and then some.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Batman View Post
              You abandoned trying to explain why the C5 were not all murdered while prostrate as they had their necks slit (some more than once).
              https://forum.casebook.org/showpost....&postcount=684

              All of the C5 are linked by being prostrate before the necks were slit (some more than once)
              https://forum.casebook.org/showpost....&postcount=676
              https://forum.casebook.org/showpost....&postcount=691

              You couldn't show examples of any of your claims in criminology. You just abandoned that one also.
              https://forum.casebook.org/showpost....&postcount=716

              You are trying to sell to people that Mary Jane Kelly was someone's first murder.
              I am saying there are aspects of her murder which may suggest she was not killed by the same hand as the others, but I also said that if you take out the the fact that no organs were taken by the killer from any of the victims. it might then link them to one killer. Just depends on which side of the fence you sit. But the Kelly murder has so much more mystery attached to it than any of the answers and throws out more questions than we have answers to

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

              Comment


              • Mary Kelly only has more mystery because we're not sure who she really was, which lends itself to all kinds of imaginative theories regarding her murder.

                Mary Kelly was younger
                Mary Kelly was murdered indoors
                Mary Kelly was extensively mutilated
                Mary Kelly's uterus wasn't taken by the killer

                ..therefore she wasn't a Ripper victim, because the killer would only ever follow the exact same pattern every time. Obviously, there was just another knife-wielding psychopath waiting in the wings to follow the Ripper's escalatory behaviour.

                Peter Sutcliffe's victims ranged from 16 to 47 years old. Most of his victims were prostitutes, but not all. He used a hammer, knife, hacksaw and screwdriver through the course of his murders. It's a good job that Mr Marriott wasn't working on that case, otherwise Sutcliffe would never have been caught.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
                  Michael can I ask you a question. Who do you think killed Mary and why?
                  I don't have a name in mind Darryl, only a profile. Someone who Mary knew intimately. Someone who had a history of violence with women. Someone who may have been tipped off to her whereabouts by clues the police had in their possession prior to her murder. Someone involved in criminal activities, perhaps terrorist. Someone who felt betrayal, who held Mary responsible for that feeling.

                  I know, not very specific, but that's because I don't know for sure who the woman in the bed really was, and because of that I cant be sure what factors may have contributed to her attack. I would like to find out who this other Joe was though, I personally don't see Flemming as this unknown Joe.
                  Michael Richards

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                    If the killer didnt remove the organs then the anatomical knowledge seen by the doctors at the post mortem was as a result of them being removed at the mortuary before the post mortems by a bona fide medical person acting perhaps unlawfully under the Anatomy Act. These bodies should not have been tampered with but who knows what went on during the 12 hour window when they were left before the doctors came back to carry out the post mortems.

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                    Trevor am I right in thinking that one of the reasons you believe Mary was killed by a different hand than Annie and Kate is because the doctor's believed the killer showed anatomical skill whereas Mary was just hacked to death? But if that anatomical skill shown was the removal of organs how can it be the removal of organs when you don't believe any organs were removed by the killer? So in other words, if no organs were removed by Jack then he showed no surgical skill just like in as you believe the killer of Mary.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                      I don't have a name in mind Darryl, only a profile. Someone who Mary knew intimately. Someone who had a history of violence with women. Someone who may have been tipped off to her whereabouts by clues the police had in their possession prior to her murder. Someone involved in criminal activities, perhaps terrorist. Someone who felt betrayal, who held Mary responsible for that feeling.

                      I know, not very specific, but that's because I don't know for sure who the woman in the bed really was, and because of that I cant be sure what factors may have contributed to her attack. I would like to find out who this other Joe was though, I personally don't see Flemming as this unknown Joe.
                      Michael, This person who killed Mary hacked her to pieces because of for whatever reason, [maybe betrayal etc] the hatred he felt towards her, thus the overkill aspect of the murder with a knife [not bludgeoned to death with a hammer, cudgel etc? with blows raining down on her until her head split open]. Just like the overkill aspect with Kate, Martha and possibly Annie

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
                        Michael, This person who killed Mary hacked her to pieces because of for whatever reason, [maybe betrayal etc] the hatred he felt towards her, thus the overkill aspect of the murder with a knife [not bludgeoned to death with a hammer, cudgel etc? with blows raining down on her until her head split open]. Just like the overkill aspect with Kate, Martha and possibly Annie

                        Martha was overkill too...stabbing overkill, which does not equate with slicing open the body and cutting pieces off/out. In Marys case, how about slashing a face with a knife back and forth, now what purpose would that have? Or placing organs under her head. Annies killer cut her open where he needed to in order to access the organ he eventually takes. "There were no meaningless cuts"...was a quote from the medical examiner.

                        I get your question, (maybe not your conclusion). I think Marys killer lost his cool. I think he had a personal vendetta at work in that room, and in part, he sought to punish and erase Mary Kelly, or whomever it was. So might suggests that the facial wounds and the disassembling of her anatomy was to allow for misidentification. Remember, Barnett claimed he could only recognize 2 features, hair and eyes. The hair however is down her back in the photos, and her eyes are not visible at all. But to take that a step further, the mutilations almost successfully concealed the identity of the dead woman to the extent that a recent live in lover could barely recognize her.

                        Were those cuts an attempt to conceal the identity, or as a result of a personal anger directed at Mary, or whomever it was. I keep saying "whoever it was" because after 30 years studying these cases, and reading all the tremendous research that has been done by our members, the woman who we call Mary Kelly still cannot be traced. I doubt that was her name. And I wonder why she had a backstory if it wasnt real. Simon Wood has suggested that story was provided to Mary, and/or some of those close to her, by the authorities.. and he may be right.
                        Last edited by Michael W Richards; 11-08-2018, 12:02 PM.
                        Michael Richards

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
                          Trevor am I right in thinking that one of the reasons you believe Mary was killed by a different hand than Annie and Kate is because the doctor's believed the killer showed anatomical skill whereas Mary was just hacked to death? But if that anatomical skill shown was the removal of organs how can it be the removal of organs when you don't believe any organs were removed by the killer? So in other words, if no organs were removed by Jack then he showed no surgical skill just like in as you believe the killer of Mary.
                          You have not being keeping up with the threads.

                          In short, if the organs of Chapman and Eddowes were removed at the mortuary before the post mortems by bona fide medical persons with anatomical knowledge, then when the doctors came to do the post mortems and found the organs were missing, they postulated that who ever had removed them must have had anatomical knowledge, that is documented

                          There was no mention of any of the organs of Kelly having been removed from her body with any anatomical knowledge as Bond infers in his report to Anderson.

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                          Comment


                          • Hi Trevor,

                            Are you suggesting that these "bona fide medical persons with anatomical knowledge" aided and abetted the Ripper myth by leading the post mortem doctors to believe that Chapman and Eddowes' murderer had taken the organs which they themselves had only recently removed?

                            Regards,

                            Simon
                            Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                              Hi Trevor,

                              Are you suggesting that these "bona fide medical persons with anatomical knowledge" aided and abetted the Ripper myth by leading the post mortem doctors to believe that Chapman and Eddowes' murderer had taken the organs which they themselves had only recently removed?

                              Regards,

                              Simon
                              I asked basically the same thing some time back, if Trevor's theory explains why none of the people involved in this organ snatching ever mentioned it to anyone - since Trevor insists that according to the anatomy act it was all totally legit and legal, and there was no problem doing it.

                              So why not inform the police that it wasn't, in fact, the Ripper who removed organs, it was medical staff and medical students doing research in an entirely lawful manner?

                              I did not receive a reply.

                              Comment


                              • Hi Kattrup,

                                I should have added " . . . and the doctors fell for it?"

                                Regards,

                                Simon
                                Last edited by Simon Wood; 11-08-2018, 04:44 PM.
                                Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X