Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim?

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

  • 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.

    ----
    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 Trevor Marriott View Post
      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 - Kellyís body had been treated like a butchers carcass that is a fact

      That is what Bond is referring to in his report

      Itís 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 donít agree with those doctors thatís 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

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
        Trevor again, your post 273 - Kellyís body had been treated like a butchers carcass that is a fact

        That is what Bond is referring to in his report

        Itís 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 donít agree with those doctors thatís 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

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
          Trevor again, your post 273 - Kellyís body had been treated like a butchers carcass that is a fact

          That is what Bond is referring to in his report

          Itís 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 donít agree with those doctors thatís 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!
          "Is all that we see or seem
          but a dream within a dream?"

          -Edgar Allan Poe


          "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
          quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

          -Frederick G. Abberline

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
            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

            www.trevormarriott.couk

            Comment


            • 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?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
                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?
                If you accept that the killer of eddowes and chapman did not remove the organs the he showed no anatomical knowledge in their murders

                If you also accept that the killer of Kelly did not remove ana take away the heart then you have to accept that no anatomical knowledge was shown in her murder either so that may link the three to the same killer.

                I say may

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                  If you accept that the killer of eddowes and chapman did not remove the organs the he showed no anatomical knowledge in their murders.

                  If you also accept that the killer of Kelly did not remove ana take away the heart then you have to accept that no anatomical knowledge was shown in her murder either so that may link the three to the same killer.

                  I say may

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                  How can we possibly accept these two assertions. The idea that qualified medical professionals would take organs from bodies that are part of the most infamous murder spree of the time, especially where the mutilation and organ harvesting is one of the defining features, beggars belief.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by etenguy View Post
                    How can we possibly accept these two assertions. The idea that qualified medical professionals would take organs from bodies that are part of the most infamous murder spree of the time, especially where the mutilation and organ harvesting is one of the defining features, beggars belief.
                    The qualified medical professionals you refer to were made up of doctors,surgeons, medical students and anatomists, all capable of removing organs in double quick time.

                    Much of what ripperology is made up of also beggars belief

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Varqm View Post
                      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.

                      ----
                      The only mistake was undressing/washing the body.,Phillips complained (Chapman). In Nichols case it was the inmate's fault.In Chapman's case we do not know who was telling the truth/lie.Whether somebody illegally procured organs was a non-issue.

                      Nichols

                      James Hatfield, an inmate of the Whitechapel Workhouse,said he accompanied Mann, the last witness, to the mortuary,
                      and undressed the deceased. Inspector Helson was not there.
                      [Coroner] Who gave you instructions to do all this? - No one gave us any. We did it to have the body ready for the doctor.

                      Chapman

                      Mr. George Baxter Phillips: "No. Sarah Simonds, a resident nurse at the Whitechapel Infirmary ","She was directed by
                      Inspector Chandler to undress it,".

                      Inspector Chandler: "I did not instruct the nurses to undress the body and to wash it."


                      - Chandler had credibility issues with the handkerchief.

                      Inspector Chandler, recalled

                      [Coroner] Did you see the handkerchief taken off the body? - I did not. The nurses must have taken it off the throat.
                      [Coroner] How do you know? - I don't know.
                      [Coroner] Then you are guessing? - I am guessing.
                      The Coroner: That is all wrong, you know. (To the jury). He is really not the proper man to have been left in charge.

                      -----
                      Last edited by Varqm; 11-10-2018, 12:13 AM.
                      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 Varqm View Post
                        The only mistake was undressing/washing the body.,Phillips complained (Chapman). In Nichols case it was the inmate's fault.In Chapman's case we do not know who was telling the truth/lie.Whether somebody illegally procured organs was a non-issue.
                        -----
                        There were no organs found missing from Nichols when they did the post mortem, and why was that? If it was supposed to be the same killer who was intent on harvesting organs, none missing from Tabram, Stride, Kelly any of the later victims

                        The simple answer is that her abdomen was not ripped open enough for anyone at the mortuary to be able to remove organs in a way they were removed from the other two victims without possible discovery, because the doctors would have noticed any later attempt to open up the abdomen more than was first observed at the crime scenes and initially at the mortuaries.

                        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.

                        We simply do not know who came, and went and what they did at the mortuaries during those 12 hours windows when the bodies were left.

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                        Comment


                        • I cant help but notice Trevor that the reason for taking any organs, whether it happened by the killer or after the fact by morticians, is absent from these discussions.

                          Motive.

                          Something delusional would be preferable to me in some of the organ removals, rather than a contrived and sober act, because a sober act would infer a meaningful purpose. To that end, is it your opinion that the organs were for sale or perhaps for research?

                          A trophy, or as a reminder, seems more likely to me. We are in the process here in Toronto of starting a trial for a 60 something year old landscaper who is charged with the murder of 8 individuals over a 7 year period. He planted some of the remains in decorative planters he tended to around his own, and clients, properties. Speculation about why he would do that... rather than much more logically disposing of the remains in a large forested ravine just off his property... has included his desire to revisit the crimes by being able to get in close proximity to the remains.

                          Although I believe Tumblety to be a weakish premise, the jars with uteri does make some sense if trophies were the objective.
                          Michael Richards

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                            I cant help but notice Trevor that the reason for taking any organs, whether it happened by the killer or after the fact by morticians, is absent from these discussions.

                            Motive.

                            Something delusional would be preferable to me in some of the organ removals, rather than a contrived and sober act, because a sober act would infer a meaningful purpose. To that end, is it your opinion that the organs were for sale or perhaps for research?

                            A trophy, or as a reminder, seems more likely to me. We are in the process here in Toronto of starting a trial for a 60 something year old landscaper who is charged with the murder of 8 individuals over a 7 year period. He planted some of the remains in decorative planters he tended to around his own, and clients, properties. Speculation about why he would do that... rather than much more logically disposing of the remains in a large forested ravine just off his property... has included his desire to revisit the crimes by being able to get in close proximity to the remains.

                            Although I believe Tumblety to be a weakish premise, the jars with uteri does make some sense if trophies were the objective.
                            Hi
                            I take on board what you say

                            However if the organs were taken as trophies at the crime scenes the we first have to ask did the killer have time to take them?

                            And if as is suggested why were no organs removed from any other victims other than chapman and eddowes

                            If he did remove the organs from both of the and my latest research shows he didn’t then
                            we have to the ask if organ
                            harvesting was the motive then why did he take the same organ twice,and why did he remove it using two different procedures,that fact alone in my opinion rules out butchers and slaughterers

                            Again I say mitre sq is key to the organ removal issues

                            As to Tumblety the uteri seen were some years previous I believe and if he had a collection would he want more. I would suggest you read the chapter on his suspect viability in my book

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                            Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 11-10-2018, 04:06 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                              ....

                              We simply do not know who came, and went and what they did at the mortuaries during those 12 hours windows when the bodies were left.

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                              We do have an account of a constable posted at the mortuary, as is required, to stop unauthorized people gaining access to the body.
                              Regards, Jon S.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                                We do have an account of a constable posted at the mortuary, as is required, to stop unauthorized people gaining access to the body.
                                As is required ?

                                He would have been stationed outside. That was to stop members of the public from gawking not to curtail the daily workings of the mortuary, and besides he didnt remain there all the time did he?, and doctors, surgeons, medical students, and anatomists were authorized persons to have access to the mortuary and I am sure if any of those did attend as i suggest they would have at least taken a look at the body under its sheet. and could have quickly removed the organ from Chapman.

                                What have you got a mortuary keeper who it would seem wasn't the full ticket, who didnt know his arse from his elbow
                                Evidential conflicts involving all of those who were involved at the mortuary, and we are asked to accept all of this because it props up the old theory, what a load of old tosh.

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                                Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 11-10-2018, 08:31 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X