Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim?

[Batman]

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?

[Michael W Richards]

1.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?

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

Hi again Trevor,

For # 1 above, I believe that there was not time in Bucks Row, that there was time in the Hanbury Backyard, that there was time in the passageway at Berners Street, that there was probably not time IF it was indeed Kate that was seen with Sailor Man, and plenty o time in Millers Court. Thats 3 venues where the evidence allows for that time, and 1 that is a question mark.

On #2, presuming that Marys heart wasnt taken by the killer, as your theory suggests...then my answer would be in Chapmans case its because its the same killer that wanted to take organs from Polly. I dont believe that the same man killed Kate, so I guess he took something to mimic the prior acts.

[spyglass]

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?

Or just one killer, with the murder of Kelly being not what it seems.
What if you asked one or even two doctors with knife skills and on the police (LE ) pay role to fake a murder and construct a crime scene.
Only they don't actually have the mind of a serial killer, and so get it wrong......In fact they are so incompetent that they can't remember who had the keys to the room and get their story's mixed up....ie Kelly , clothed or not.

Regards

[Wickerman]

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?,...

Yes Trevor, by "as is required" I mean to protect the evidence. The body is evidence in a murder case. 'Chain of custody', a term more familiar today, I assume, still applied in the late 19th century.
Once the police had charge of the 'evidence' it was their responsibility to secure that evidence up until the inquest, at the very least.
Can you tell me that is not true?

.....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 makes you think that any "doctors, surgeons, medical students, and anatomists", could come and go as they pleased?
From what I understand the body is under the jurisdiction of the coroner, and it is the coroner who grants his custody to the surgeon who will conduct the autopsy for the inquest.
No-one has permission to access the body unaccompanied by either the police, the surgeon, or his assistant.
Isn't that the way it worked?

In fact, (going on memory here) didn't Dr Bond once complain to the Home Office that another surgeon had accessed a body under his charge, without his permission?

What have you got a mortuary keeper who it would seem wasn't the full ticket, who didnt know his arse from his elbow

Is this imbecile(?) your organ thief?

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes Trevor, by "as is required" I mean to protect the evidence. The body is evidence in a murder case. 'Chain of custody', a term more familiar today, I assume, still applied in the late 19th century.
Once the police had charge of the 'evidence' it was their responsibility to secure that evidence up until the inquest, at the very least.
Can you tell me that is not true?

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.

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

What makes you think that any "doctors, surgeons, medical students, and anatomists", could come and go as they pleased?
From what I understand the body is under the jurisdiction of the coroner, and it is the coroner who grants his custody to the surgeon who will conduct the autopsy for the inquest.
No-one has permission to access the body unaccompanied by either the police, the surgeon, or his assistant.
Isn't that the way it worked?

No that isnt the way it worked back then and there is no evidence to support that view

In fact, (going on memory here) didn't Dr Bond once complain to the Home Office that another surgeon had accessed a body under his charge, without his permission?

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

Is this imbecile(?) your organ thief?

Hardly but he also isnt your star witness you seek to rely on

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Geddy2112]

I 'heard' the whole MJK murder was staged using a dummy and red paint to force the government to take more action in the East End to reduce poverty and give more power to the police, a scare tactic... hence you could not identify the body or that we know too much about here...

[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

[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'?

[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

[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.

[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

[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."

[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".


----

[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.

[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.