Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim?

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

  • Originally posted by Varqm View Post
    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.

    ----
    Coles and McKenzie and Nicholls did not have their abdomens ripped open to the extent that organs could be removed un-noticed and the killer blamed as was the case with Chapman and Eddowes.

    Finally on the subject of organs for research, what main organ is only found in females? The answer is the female reproductive organ (uterus and fallopian tubes), so that makes it an organ that would be highly sought after for research, and that is exactly what was removed from Chapman. The uterus on its own was removed from Eddowes. That indicates to me that they were removed by two different persons using two different procedures to extract them at two different mortuaries

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
      Coles and McKenzie and Nicholls did not have their abdomens ripped open to the extent that organs could be removed un-noticed and the killer blamed as was the case with Chapman and Eddowes.

      Finally on the subject of organs for research, what main organ is only found in females? The answer is the female reproductive organ (uterus and fallopian tubes), so that makes it an organ that would be highly sought after for research, and that is exactly what was removed from Chapman. The uterus on its own was removed from Eddowes. That indicates to me that they were removed by two different persons using two different procedures to extract them at two different mortuaries

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
      You are 56 years behind the times there Trevor.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomy_Act_1832
      Bona fide canonical and then some.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Batman View Post
        You are 56 years behind the times there Trevor.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomy_Act_1832
        And you havent been keeping up with the posts on this thread. because I have referred to the Anatomy act many times.

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
          And you havent been keeping up with the posts on this thread. because I have referred to the Anatomy act many times.
          By 1888 students of medicine had access to tissue and organs.

          What that act effectively meant was that a lot of poor people and people who were without families, such as homeless, were used a lot more for medical scientific research, legally. Over the years various groups petitioned against it for reasons such as these, however, in the end, it seems enough people donate their bodies to science, but between legally being able to use a homeless person's dead body and those who gave their bodies to research, 1888 medical students did not have a shortage of organs and tissue to work on.
          Bona fide canonical and then some.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
            Here we go again !


            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.

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
            Sorry Trevor, you do not prove that at all. True you make an argument for it, but that is far different from proving the time the killer had.
            The argument is not without some merit, however it really all depends on how we interpret the evidence and how much credence we give to the times quoted as being anything like synchronized.


            Steve
            Last edited by Elamarna; 11-13-2018, 10:40 AM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
              Coles and McKenzie and Nicholls did not have their abdomens ripped open to the extent that organs could be removed un-noticed and the killer blamed as was the case with Chapman and Eddowes.

              Finally on the subject of organs for research, what main organ is only found in females? The answer is the female reproductive organ (uterus and fallopian tubes), so that makes it an organ that would be highly sought after for research, and that is exactly what was removed from Chapman. The uterus on its own was removed from Eddowes. That indicates to me that they were removed by two different persons using two different procedures to extract them at two different mortuaries

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
              There was only one killer who ripped abdomens that we know of, Jack.There was only one incident/victim then in the history of Whitechapel Workhouse
              mortuary where the abdomen was ripped,Chapman.So this was the only time the "organ harvesters" made money?

              The researchers had better options.The Anatomy Act opened up for research bodies of dead people who died from old age,diseases,and those murdered,intact bodies which would be best for research.

              An "alarm" was raised when they undressed\clean the body,any organ taking would also raised the alarm but this was never in doubt and not an issue.It was clear there was no illegal organ taking.


              -----
              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


              • And Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown.Eddowes:
                [Coroner] Would the parts removed be of any use for professional purposes? - None whatever.

                So what was the point in taking organs,can't make money,can't use it for research.There were intact bodies available.Give it up Trevor.

                ----
                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 Elamarna View Post
                  Sorry Trevor, you do not prove that at all. True you make an argument for it, but that is far different from proving the time the killer had.
                  The argument is not without some merit, however it really all depends on how we interpret the evidence and how much credence we give to the times quoted as being anything like synchronized.


                  Steve
                  Steve
                  I fully agree that we can only work with the times we are left with and fully accept that we do not know if all the time pieces referred to were in sync.

                  However we have nothing to prove any of them were not and so we are left with them to use with any calculation we choose to make. They were stated in inquest testimony, and in my current calculations I have allowed for time discrepancies and still arrive at times which in my opinion as good as dam suggest that the killer could have not had time to do all that he is purported to have done.

                  But it’s nice to see you see some merit in the results

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Varqm View Post
                    And Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown.Eddowes:
                    [Coroner] Would the parts removed be of any use for professional purposes? - None whatever.

                    So what was the point in taking organs,can't make money,can't use it for research.There were intact bodies available.Give it up Trevor.

                    ----
                    If the organs were taken as I suggest they would not be sold on but simply used for research by whatever medical establishment the person who took them
                    was from

                    Maybe it is you that should give it up

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Batman View Post
                      By 1888 students of medicine had access to tissue and organs.

                      What that act effectively meant was that a lot of poor people and people who were without families, such as homeless, were used a lot more for medical scientific research, legally. Over the years various groups petitioned against it for reasons such as these, however, in the end, it seems enough people donate their bodies to science, but between legally being able to use a homeless person's dead body and those who gave their bodies to research, 1888 medical students did not have a shortage of organs and tissue to work on.
                      There was always a shortage of organs for research especially specific female organs.

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                        There was always a shortage of organs for research especially specific female organs.
                        Is there any evidence of the scale of this shortage, Trevor?
                        Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                        "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                          Is there any evidence of the scale of this shortage, Trevor?
                          Sam

                          No there is not, however it should be noted that The Anatomy Act was passed following Burke and Hares exploits where not only organs but bodies were taken and used for medical research because they were in short supply for teaching purposes.

                          That demand still existed thereafter and that is why the Anatomy Act was passed, which allowed not only organs to be freely and lawfully obtained but in some case whole bodies.

                          And as stated the female reproductive organ was one organ which would have been in short supply and in great demand, simply because only females have that specific organ and it would have been an organ which would have been very useful for teaching purposes,

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Batman View Post
                            By 1888 students of medicine had access to tissue and organs.

                            What that act effectively meant was that a lot of poor people and people who were without families, such as homeless, were used a lot more for medical scientific research, legally. Over the years various groups petitioned against it for reasons such as these, however, in the end, it seems enough people donate their bodies to science, but between legally being able to use a homeless person's dead body and those who gave their bodies to research, 1888 medical students did not have a shortage of organs and tissue to work on.
                            But isn't it true that you had to be a member of the medical fraternity to obtain the organs?
                            How would a surgeon who had been struck off, or an aspiring student who failed the grade, how would they get hold of any organs?
                            Regards, Jon S.

                            Comment


                            • Were the organs donated free of charge? If not, they had some monetary value.

                              Comment


                              • One member several years ago posted a price list from some medical source for a variety of organs. I remember talking with Ivor Edwards about it, if anyone remembers who that was.
                                It seemed clear that you had to be a member of the medical society to obtain those organs, yet some on Casebook were talking about how available organs were. They may have been available, but not to the general public.
                                Regards, Jon S.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X