Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim?

[Wickerman]

As we read, Sgt. Badham accompanied the body to the mortuary, and stayed with it until Insp. Chandler arrived, then came Dr Phillips.
This is the chain of custody at work.

[Trevor Marriott]

Final time !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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.

Again you have not been following these posts!

This really is the last time I am going to say this

I said that the bodies should not have been tampered with, but if I am right they clearly were, and it would have taken a medical person only a short time to remove the organs, if that was correct then that would explain the anatomical knowledge described by the doctors when they carried out the post mortems.

If they were taken surreptitiously no one would know would they

We do not know who came and went during those 12 hours. So it is quite possible that the organs were removed in the way I suggest, and there is more evidence to suggest I am right than there is to prop up what you clearly believe that the killer removed them at the crime scene.

Strictures are imposed by the coroner, not granted.
Regardless, whether it was the coroner or the police, someone had to give permission.

Have you any evidence to show there was a stricture imposed in this case or any of the others. In fact I cannot find anything in the Coroners Act 1887 which gives coroners the power to impose such an order.

Why do you assume they had the opportunity to tamper with the body, under the nose of a constable?

The constable would have been stood outside and unaware of what was going on inside, as stated he was there to keep the public out., and as previously stated he was not there for the duration

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

As we read, Sgt. Badham accompanied the body to the mortuary, and stayed with it until Insp. Chandler arrived, then came Dr Phillips.
This is the chain of custody at work.

Do you think for one minute that they sat by the side of a dead body in a smelly shed ?

Insp Chandler did not stay with the body until Philips came, he states he left a constable in charge he does not say anything about guarding the body every second. The officer left was Pc 376H Barnes, and we have no statement from him about what happened, or who came and went, or what his in charge remit equated to.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

Do you think for one minute that they sat by the side of a dead body in a smelly shed ?

The shed was locked, the constable stands outside while no-one is inside.

Insp Chandler did not stay with the body until Philips came, he states he left a constable in charge he does not say anything about guarding the body every second. The officer left was Pc 376H Barnes, and we have no statement from him about what happened, or who came and went, or what his in charge remit equated to.

Yes, what you write only confirms what I said at the start. The police retain custody. It doesn't matter whether the Inspector is there, or a constable. The intent is to protect the body, the evidence.
As we read, Robert Mann....."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."

The police being, PC Barnes, and apart from the female nurses - "No one else touched the corpse".

So, have we found your organ snatchers, a pair of nurses?

The police had custody of the body, all the time. So you have no grounds for pretending some experienced & illusive organ thief could steal organs from under their noses.
It's not like we haven't been over this years ago, but you refuse to listen and continue to peddle fantasy.

[Batman]

That's very compelling evidence that they were indeed more than aware of a need to keep a chain of custody.

I would think in order for the medical examiners to have been able to describe the attacks to the organs, that their internal organs would have been removed from their bodies, laid out on an examination table and each part examined closely. Even an undergraduate in medicine would be able to recognize almost immediately what was missing from such a display. More importantly, looking at how the missing parts were removed would have clued them into how they were removed.

I think since the Whitechapel murders, pathology in lust murders has always been acutely aware that they should look for such medical knowledge examples, but what ends up happening is that lust murders are hardly ever medically experienced people at all. So I don't think we have any such comparisons.

However, the Ripper's injuries are pretty darn close to what we see with these non-medically experienced lust murderers. In fact, we might as well just say they are the same for the most part and rarely if ever the work of a medical person.

Can we name any?

[Trevor Marriott]

The shed was locked, the constable stands outside while no-one is inside.

Ah so now you concur with me on this point as before you were trying to suggest the constable was inside!

But you dont know if anyone went inside, please listen read and digest what I have said previous.

Yes, what you write only confirms what I said at the start. The police retain custody. It doesn't matter whether the Inspector is there, or a constable. The intent is to protect the body, the evidence.
As we read, Robert Mann....."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."

But the body was outside when the nurses came,why do you keep wanting to rely on conflicting evidence?

The police being, PC Barnes, and apart from the female nurses - "No one else touched the corpse".

Can you prove conclusively that was the case? The answers is no you cant, Robert Mann is an unreliable witness, this came from the coroner

Can you prove that no one else entered the mortuary ? The answer is no you cant

Can you prove that Pc Barnes was still there when Phillips arrived? No you cant

So, have we found your organ snatchers, a pair of nurses?

If it keeps you happy yes we have

The police had custody of the body, all the time. So you have no grounds for pretending some experienced & illusive organ thief could steal organs from under their noses.

The police didn't have custody of the body, a police officer was there outside to stop the public gawking,

It's not like we haven't been over this years ago, but you refuse to listen and continue to peddle fantasy.

When i read your posts I have to question which one of us is peddling fantasy its not me so that only leaves you. In each of your posts there is showing an element of desperation in trying to prop up the old theory.

I think you need to take a step back and look at the broader picture not just what happened to Chapmans organs, but Eddowes, and the fact that no other victims were missing organs save the only two that had their abdomens ripped open in such a way that it would be relatively easy for the organs to be removed at the mortuaries, thus accounting for the anatomical knowledge described by the doctors, and especially with Eddowes because if the killer did not have enough time to remove her organs at the crime scene then it would be fair to suggest they went missing also at that mortuary.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Batman]

Jack the Ripper had been disturbed from his crimes several times outdoors and some people are claiming that going indoors is totally at odds with his crimes, when in fact it is the most natural progression of his crimes given people were getting in the way of them when he did them outdoors.

[Harry D]

Trevor, you did not answer my question: if the killer's motive was not to harvest internal organs, why were Chapman & Eddowes splayed open instead of just mutilated like Nichols, McKenzie?

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, you did not answer my question: if the killer's motive was not to harvest internal organs, why were Chapman & Eddowes splayed open instead of just mutilated like Nichols, McKenzie?

You can look at it two ways

If the killer was harvesting organs then why were none of the other victims abdomens attacked in similar fashion to Chapman and Eddowes and organs removed from them? Which is what you ask.

However if the killers motive was simply murder and mutilation then
that in my opinion is a plausible explanation which corroborates the organs not being removed by the killer and allows for the variation of abdominal injuries inflicted on the victims.

It’s a double edged sword is it not if you are going to suggest that the same killer murdered all these women the you have to ask why did he not remove the organs from any others

Now I know the old chestnut will surface that he di£not have time or was disturbed but the answer to all of this lies with the murder of Eddowes. Did the killer have enough time inmitre sq to do all that he is purported to have done,if he didn’t then he did not remove the organs from Chapman.

I would suggest you read the chapter in my book on Eddowes along with some new medical evidence in the medical evidence chapter. It might answer all your questions. I would urge others who post blindly on here without reading what is available on the topic in question to do the same

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Batman]

Now I know the old chestnut will surface that he di£not have time or was disturbed but the answer to all of this lies with the murder of Eddowes.

That's not the argument for anyone other than Stride.

The 'old chestnut' is an escalating lust murderer of which there is a gauntlet of examples in criminology for anyone doubting this to run.

[Wickerman]

Three comments you made...

Ah so now you concur with me on this point as before you were trying to suggest the constable was inside!

But you dont know if anyone went inside, please listen read and digest what I have said previous.

But the body was outside when the nurses came,why do you keep wanting to rely on conflicting evidence?

We are commenting on various steps in a sequence of events.
Yes, the body was outside at the time the nurses arrived, but taken inside to be stripped. Mann locked the shed door and handed the key to the police, so obviously the body was inside, and no-one was with it at that point.
A policeman was present throughout these sequence of events, the body was in their custody.

I think you need to take a step back and look at the broader picture not just what happened to Chapmans organs, but Eddowes, and the fact that no other victims were missing organs.....

We can look at each individual case, but it is clear your mind is made up and all you are doing now is defending your theory. So, apart from identifying weaknesses in your argument nothing else would be gained.

....... that it would be relatively easy for the organs to be removed at the mortuaries, thus accounting for the anatomical knowledge described by the doctors,...

So, this is the crux of the issue. Once we see all those involved in this one case who had access (inmates - Mann & Hatfield; nurses - Simonds & Wright), who can we identify that had any anatomical/surgical skill?
None that I can see.

....and especially with Eddowes because if the killer did not have enough time to remove her organs at the crime scene then it would be fair to suggest they went missing also at that mortuary.

It is not clear at all that the killer did not have time. That argument depends on the victim being the one seen with a man in Duke St., which is a tenuous argument given the known facts.

Watkins being in the square at 1:30, and Harvey reaching the end of Church Passage about 1:41-42.
The killer had 10 minutes for sure, possibly 11-12 at the extreme.
Plenty of time.

You have built a house of cards before you have established the basic premise for your argument.

[Trevor Marriott]

Here we go again !

Three comments you made...

We are commenting on various steps in a sequence of events.
Yes, the body was outside at the time the nurses arrived, but taken inside to be stripped. Mann locked the shed door and handed the key to the police, so obviously the body was inside, and no-one was with it at that point.
A policeman was present throughout these sequence of events, the body was in their custody.

But you cannot prove that no one went into that makeshift mortuary as part of the daily workings of the mortuary.The body was not in the custody of the police this is a term you have acquired from somewhere. So until you can prove that the alternative must stand. The conflicting evidnce as given has been pointed out to you yet you choose to ignore it

As stated Robert Mann is an unreliable witness. but you seem to rely heavily on his testimony.

In the case of Kelly it is documented that a crowd followed the body to the mortuary so the police were in attendance to stop them gawking.

We can look at each individual case, but it is clear your mind is made up and all you are doing now is defending your theory. So, apart from identifying weaknesses in your argument nothing else would be gained.

I am defending my theory because its not just my theory, there are facts which support it, facts which you keep choosing to ignore.

So, this is the crux of the issue. Once we see all those involved in this one case who had access (inmates - Mann & Hatfield; nurses - Simonds & Wright), who can we identify that had any anatomical/surgical skill?
None that I can see.

I would be the first to agree none of those mentioned

It is not clear at all that the killer did not have time. That argument depends on the victim being the one seen with a man in Duke St., which is a tenuous argument given the known facts.

Well no one else came forward and the police who were in the immediate area do not state they saw anyone else in that area so we must assume that it was them.

Watkins being in the square at 1:30, and Harvey reaching the end of Church Passage about 1:41-42.
The killer had 10 minutes for sure, possibly 11-12 at the extreme.
Plenty of time.

Go check out my new updated research into Miter Sq and the times and you will see that in fact the killer had no more than 5 mins max with the victim from walking into the square to making good his escape.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

But you cannot prove that no one went into that makeshift mortuary as part of the daily workings of the mortuary.

Trevor.
You are the one who needs to show or prove that someone else was able to gain unaccompanied access to the body when it was either outside the shed, or inside the shed, all the while in the custody of police.

The body was not in the custody of the police this is a term you have acquired from somewhere. So until you can prove that the alternative must stand. The conflicting evidnce as given has been pointed out to you yet you choose to ignore it

We have three statements by police who swear they handed custody over to each other, Badham then Chandler to Barnes.

As a general rule, when a constable finds a body, as with Nichols, why is the constable required to remain with the body?
He is not allowed to leave, you know that. He must raise attention of another person or constable to go for assistance.
HE, has taken custody of the body and HE must remain with it.

As stated Robert Mann is an unreliable witness. but you seem to rely heavily on his testimony.

You keep saying that, but who said that at the time?

All the coroner said was that.....
"A workhouse inmate is not the proper man to take care of a body in such an important matter as this."
That is not a slant at Mann in particular, but an inmate is not a proper man to be in charge.
Nothing about him being an unreliable witness.
That's just you fantasizing again.

Well no one else came forward and the police who were in the immediate area do not state they saw anyone else in that area so we must assume that it was them.

Is it so strange that the real killer didn't come forward? I think we can guess why the real victim didn't come forward.

Go check out my new updated research into Miter Sq and the times and you will see that in fact the killer had no more than 5 mins max with the victim from walking into the square to making good his escape.

I don't trust your interpretation, my numbers are quite clear.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor.
You are the one who needs to show or prove that someone else was able to gain unaccompanied access to the body when it was either outside the shed, or inside the shed, all the while in the custody of police.

You are overagerting the term custody of the body can you give any other examples of your belief that any of the other bodies were handed over in the chain of custody you so much seek to rely on?

We have three statements by police who swear they handed custody over to each other, Badham then Chandler to Barnes.

The statements say they releived each other nothing about handing the custody of the body over

As a general rule, when a constable finds a body, as with Nichols, why is the constable required to remain with the body?
He is not allowed to leave, you know that. He must raise attention of another person or constable to go for assistance.
HE, has taken custody of the body and HE must remain with it.

[B]That relates to the crime scene only

Is it so strange that the real killer didn't come forward? I think we can guess why the real victim didn't come forward

I have no What idea what this is supposed to mean,are you losing the plot.?


I don't trust your interpretation, my numbers are quite clear.

Clarity would not seem to be one of your strongest attributes

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Varqm]

So in conclusion as both Nichol's and Chapman's bodies were sent to the same mortuary,same mortuary attendant,,as in Nichol's case,no organs were taken illegally from the mortuary in Chapman's case.But in 1888 they did not have a proper mortuary and rules not to undress/wash the body until the doctor arrived,which the inmate (Nichols) and nurses (Chapman) and the inspectors in charge of the bodies naturally were not aware of.

Even Coles and Mckenzie were also brought to the same mortuary and no organs were taken illegally.

----