Body snatching

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

OK. so there is no historical support for either of the hypotheses then:

Hypothesis A = Death a direct result of her pregnancy and the pregnant body not dissected but dismembered. No sources, no historically established facts to support this.

Hypothesis B = Death a direct result of her pregnancy and the pregnant body dissected for the purpose of scientific knowledge about pregnancy. No sources, no historically established facts to support this.

If we can not make some hypotheses from what is presented here in the forum in the thread "Due date".

"Her 'husband', John/Jack Fairclough/Faircloth/Smith said she was 8 months pregnant when he abandoned her at the end of April, which means she would have been more or less full-term when she met her end at the beginning of June. Yet her mother states that Liz herself said (sometime in May) that she was expecting to be confined in September, which would make it only about 5-6 months. The doctors who examined her remains thought about 6-7 months."

Hypothesis 1) If her husband thought that his wife was full-term and if he did not want to take care of the mother and child, he might have murdered her and dismembered the body.

Hypothesis 2) In any case she could have died of natural causes and then her body could have been dissected and dismembered in a hospital.

Hypothesis 3) In any case she could have been murdered by someone else than Jack the Ripper and not dissected but dismembered.

Hypothesis 4) Jack the Ripper was very active this time period so he killed and dismembered her.

Isnīt it an established historical fact that there was no abortion performed on the body?

In that case, which hypothesis has any support in the sources?

Regards, Pierre

Pierre
You can rule out 1. because he had an alibi which was checked by the police

You can rule out 2, Because had she been dissected in a hospital the body parts would still have been fresh and useable and not disposed of so quickly

4. No comparisons to suggest firstly, she was murdered, and secondly the crimes of JTR are not comparable.

Therefore that leaves 3 as the most likely

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

Have you no answers to the questions in post 86 and 139?

Regards, Pierre

Yes, I do.

Am I interested in debating with you?

No, I am not.

[Pierre]

Hi Fisherman,

Have you no answers to the questions in post 86 and 139?

Regards, Pierre

Fisherman,

and I have another question for you.

When you realized that there were no data connecting Lechmere to Chapman, Stride, Eddowes or Kelly - was your next strategy to try and connect Lechmere to the torso cases?

As I understand it, you work not to try and discard the data. But to keep it. The right way would be to try and disprove your own hypothesis.

When you can not do that, you can 1) say that you think you have found the murderer.

After that, you must 2) prove it.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

Hi Fisherman,

Have you no answers to the questions in post 86 and 139?

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

Pierre

There are no specific historical facts, and we can only work with the ones we do know, and some of them are from newspaper articles which have to be treated with caution.

A is the more plausible as Debra tells us that she was last seen the day before the first part of her remains were discovered. So again Debra highlights the fact that for her body to have been dissected for scientific purposes those using the body would have to have worked pretty dam quick.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

OK. so there is no historical support for either of the hypotheses then:

Hypothesis A = Death a direct result of her pregnancy and the pregnant body not dissected but dismembered. No sources, no historically established facts to support this.

Hypothesis B = Death a direct result of her pregnancy and the pregnant body dissected for the purpose of scientific knowledge about pregnancy. No sources, no historically established facts to support this.

If we can not make some hypotheses from what is presented here in the forum in the thread "Due date".

"Her 'husband', John/Jack Fairclough/Faircloth/Smith said she was 8 months pregnant when he abandoned her at the end of April, which means she would have been more or less full-term when she met her end at the beginning of June. Yet her mother states that Liz herself said (sometime in May) that she was expecting to be confined in September, which would make it only about 5-6 months. The doctors who examined her remains thought about 6-7 months."

Hypothesis 1) If her husband thought that his wife was full-term and if he did not want to take care of the mother and child, he might have murdered her and dismembered the body.

Hypothesis 2) In any case she could have died of natural causes and then her body could have been dissected and dismembered in a hospital.

Hypothesis 3) In any case she could have been murdered by someone else than Jack the Ripper and not dissected but dismembered.

Hypothesis 4) Jack the Ripper was very active this time period so he killed and dismembered her.

Isnīt it an established historical fact that there was no abortion performed on the body?

In that case, which hypothesis has any support in the sources?

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

If there were any instances and I am sure there were many, the likelihood is that they would not be detected unless anyone got caught doing so, and no one is going to dispose of body parts in broad daylight

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes Trevor, that would be true in murder cases certainly; however I was really interested in bodies parts being dumped not related to murder cases.( disposal because of high cost i guess we could say), of which you must admit there are few recorded case of in the 20th century in the uk .

it is an interesting debate on social history, Harry has shown it was happened in Hong Kong, after WWII.

Steve

[Elamarna]

Unfortunately that is not the ONLY reasonable conclusion.

And nobody said it was.

Actually you did:

"The only reasonable conclusion is that the source as such is a useful one, and that Hebbert was probably correct. To weigh it in percentages is impossible, but overall, our best guess is that he was correct on almost everything he wrote when it came to caserelated details."

The old chestnut surfaces, - there is more but I have not told you yet, it proves I am right.

You are making an odd assumption there, and one that I never made myself. I am fully aware that keeping something back is not the same as being correct. I was merely telling you that there is something I am looking into that seems to be the solution to a large part of the two murder series, seemingly joining them together. I wanted you to know that because it forms part of the ground I am arguing from, and since you are spending your days saying that I may be wrong, I think it is only fair that I add that I am not going by what you have been told only.

Fair enough, but given others it can set alarm bells off.

What I would not want to happen is that you would go: "Ah, come on, do you want me to believe that you have proof but you are holding it back?"

I would want you to go: "Oh, okay, that sounds interesting, and I would like to hear more about it when you feel ready."

Again a fair enough comment.

I have never once, for as long as I have posted out here, been anything but straightforward about my thoughts on the case. I have presented my views throughout, and I have shared the work that has been done on Lechmere in great detail (as did Edward, for as long as he could stomach the company).

If you think that I suddenly have changed into a teasing liar, thatīs your prerogative. But bear in mind that it is this exact attitude that has made me disinclined to keep up the generosity.

yes that is true, no one could ever say you have held things back in the past.


regards

Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

Harry

I think you misunderstood

I was looking to see if there were any cases in the uk.

thank you for the information which is of interest in its own right

Steve

If there were any instances and I am sure there were many, the likelihood is that they would not be detected unless anyone got caught doing so, and no one is going to dispose of body parts in broad daylight

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

Steve/Ellerama,
If it isn't relevant,why did ypu ask for details.
It is relevant in this respect,for what Trevor said.Bodies were dumped to avoid cost.In some cases that could occur. The social conditions in London 1888,could be likened to the conditions in Hong Kong 1952.Both were caused by an influx of people in which both places were ill equipped to deal with.

Harry

I think you misunderstood

I was looking to see if there were any cases in the uk.

thank you for the information which is of interest in its own right

Steve

[Fisherman]

If you cant stand the heat get out of the kitchen how appropriate to you !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I was thinking that we could use separate kitchens, Trevor. I want one where the kitchen appliances all work, see.

[Trevor Marriott]

Pierre, I just wanted you to know that I pondered debating with you for some time. Decided against it ultimately, though.

In a perfect world, you and Trevor could debate this while the rest of us have another discussion.

If you cant stand the heat get out of the kitchen how appropriate to you !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Pierre, I just wanted you to know that I pondered debating with you for some time. Decided against it ultimately, though.

In a perfect world, you and Trevor could debate this while the rest of us have another discussion.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman

I am always good to my word, and upon reading my post to you #112,

it appears I did indeed get confused at one point with what I was replying to and gave an answer to something you were not suggesting, when I replied:

"What evidence do you have to support that there was damage to Eddowes eyes?
If Brown does not say there is major damage to the eyes to suggest there is some is guess work at best."


As I did say it is easy for this to happen at times, I think I stopped reply for 20 mins then came back and the rest is history as they say.

However that is no excuse !

If the system allowed I would amend the last lines to read,

No Brown is not sloppy, there is nothing to suggest the eyes were significantly damaged, nor do I see anything to suggest that he lifted the eyelids to cut them.


yours respectfully

Steve

Thatīs no problem, Steve. Thanks for explaining.

[Fisherman]

Elamarna:

Actually while the facts recorded in notes may not change, how they are interpreted can. They can fade, we may not be able to read them back several years after they are written, it is even possible that the writer may have problems with actually reading his own handwriting.

True - but once again, the more LIKELY thing is that this does not come into play, and that Hebbert was perfectly able to use his notes in the correct manner.

Unfortunately that is not the ONLY reasonable conclusion.

And nobody said it was.

The old chestnut surfaces, - there is more but I have not told you yet, it proves I am right.

You are making an odd assumption there, and one that I never made myself. I am fully aware that keeping something back is not the same as being correct. I was merely telling you that there is something I am looking into that seems to be the solution to a large part of the two murder series, seemingly joining them together. I wanted you to know that because it forms part of the ground I am arguing from, and since you are spending your days saying that I may be wrong, I think it is only fair that I add that I am not going by what you have been told only.

What I would not want to happen is that you would go: "Ah, come on, do you want me to believe that you have proof but you are holding it back?"

I would want you to go: "Oh, okay, that sounds interesting, and I would like to hear more about it when you feel ready."

You know, Steve, the answers we give in these kinds of situations say a lot about who we are and what we stand for.

If I was to expand as much as I can as of now, I would say that I think I know the driving force/inspiration behind the deeds, or at least a significant part of it. I can add that I think we are looking at an element that looks like it has ritualistic connotations. It is in no way a proven thing, but I believe that there is so much speaking for it, that it is much more likely to be correct than wrong. It would explain matters that have been regarded as strikingly odd in both murder series if I am on the money.

I have never once, for as long as I have posted out here, been anything but straightforward about my thoughts on the case. I have presented my views throughout, and I have shared the work that has been done on Lechmere in great detail (as did Edward, for as long as he could stomach the company).

If you think that I suddenly have changed into a teasing liar, thatīs your prerogative. But bear in mind that it is this exact attitude that has made me disinclined to keep up the generosity.

[harry]

Steve/Ellerama,
If it isn't relevant,why did ypu ask for details.
It is relevant in this respect,for what Trevor said.Bodies were dumped to avoid cost.In some cases that could occur. The social conditions in London 1888,could be likened to the conditions in Hong Kong 1952.Both were caused by an influx of people in which both places were ill equipped to deal with.