Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim?

[Varqm]

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.


-----

[Elamarna]

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

[Batman]

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.

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Batman]

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

[Trevor Marriott]

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

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.

----

[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

[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]

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]

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.

[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.

[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

[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?

[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.