Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim?

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

  • 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
    There was no aiding an abetting the ripper, that has been done over the years by researchers who have been believing that the killer took the organs from the victims at the crime scenes.

    Remove the organ myth from the mystery and a big chunk of what the Ripper myth has been built upon is destroyed, and if that happened some researchers would be reduced to tears.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
      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.
      Why would they mention it, especially if they had taken the organs from bodies that were not supposed to have been tampered with, that would make their actions unlawful, and that would result in some form or prosecution against them.

      The term needs must when the devil calls spring to mind

      The key to the organs removal is in as follows

      Firstly prove that the killer did not have enough time in Mitre Square to do all that he is supposed to have done. Do that and the theory that the killer removed organs from any of the victims is dashed.

      Accept Insp Reids account that no organs were missing from Kellys room, if you accept that you are left with only two victims that were missing organs

      two victims that were taken to two different mortuaries

      two victims whose bodies were left for 12 hours before the post mortems were carried out

      two victims that had the same organ removed using two different procedures pointing to two different removers of those organs.

      Like i said last night i have nothing more to say on the topic these are the results of my investigation and I stand firmly by them now.

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

      Comment


      • How do you look at a body and determine hatred on the part of the killer as opposed to some other motive? And even if you could somehow do so, how would you determine that it was personal hatred as opposed to say hatred of women in general?

        c.d.

        Comment


        • 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?

          ---
          Last edited by Varqm; 11-08-2018, 05:05 PM.
          Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced, otherwise people run back to the hills,no towns).
          M. Pacana

          Comment


          • 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

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
              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.
              Hello Michael,

              That is a lot of speculation there. Why do the other victims killed that Fall not merit an attempt to establish a personal relationship with their killer as well?
              And if we want to use Occam's razor to put things in perspective a very simple answer would be that in all instances (excluding Stride) we are dealing with a very sick individual who liked to kill women and then cut them up. It doesn't really need to get more complicated than that.

              c.d.
              Last edited by c.d.; 11-08-2018, 05:14 PM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                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...revor+marriott

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Varqm View Post
                  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

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                  Comment


                  • 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.
                    Bona fide canonical and then some.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                      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'.

                      ---
                      Last edited by Varqm; 11-08-2018, 06:35 PM.
                      Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced, otherwise people run back to the hills,no towns).
                      M. Pacana

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Batman View Post
                        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?
                        My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                          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.
                          Last edited by Darryl Kenyon; 11-09-2018, 12:08 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Varqm View Post
                            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.

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
                              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.

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                                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.

                                -----
                                Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced, otherwise people run back to the hills,no towns).
                                M. Pacana

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X