Tweet
Hi Trevor,
Sigh. And as normal you fail to comprehend that when people assess the evidence and compare it to your explanation and find that explanation to be unnecessarily overly complicated because you have shown no evidence connecting these crimes to any person involved at either end of black market organ sales - at best you have pointed out there was such a trade, but nothing you have presented shows that trade is linked - it's all maybe's, if's, and so forth - it is by your own definition due to lack of any actual proof therefore unsafe. You fail to comprehend that people can assess your theory, find it wanting, and not because they are "blinkered" but because they are not.
Who are these mortuary attendants? What are their names? Show that these people have been arrested, or suspected, of being involved in this organ trade. Something, anything at all, that links someone at the mortuaries with this illegal trade. Show evidence that at the time of these crimes there were cases of medical people or institutions found to be involved in the trade of kidneys and/or uterus - not whole bodies, but just those organs. Show something that this trade was active at the time, and show a link to the case or at least a link to the mortuaries through people who were there. You can't, because as far as we know there isn't such a link, hence your idea is unsafe because there is no evidence for it. There is only a hypothesis that maybe there was a link. That's not sufficient because everything can be explained without inserting this complication for which there is no justification. Your belief is not evidence, it is not facts, it is just an idea that need actual support.
As you are so found of saying, none of that is proof, so it doesn't amount to anything. Show an example of illegal trade in damaged organs. Show that medical researchers actually were known to buy damaged organs. While that doesn't prove these organs were actually sold, it would at least show that damaged organs could be sold. Otherwise, why would they bother to take Eddowes's damaged uterus? That makes no sense, it makes your idea unsafe.
It has been addressed. I covered that earlier, because serial killers who take body parts as trophies don't care if they are perfect speciments - they just want part of the body. They don't even care if they take the same part each time, hence he didn't take Kelly's uterus, but appears to have taken her heart instead. There is no mystery here when viewed as JtR taking body parts as a trophy, but there is a mystery when viewed as a professional medical person taking specimens for sale as damaged goods are worthless to them. Your idea is not well founded, and it is unsafe to rely upon because not only is there no evidence linking the cases to an illegal organ trade, the idea raises questions as to why Eddowes' uterus, being damaged, was taken.
Again, this has all been explained. Obviously in the Stride case he couldn't take organs because he didn't mutilate her. So either Stride is not a victim of JtR, making the lack of organ harvesting moot, or something resulted in JtR leaving before he could start on the abdominal mutilations. We don't know what that something was, but many ideas are floated around, none of which can be proven of course.
And despite your blinkers, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that Kelly's heart was taken, which means, starting from Chapman, every victim who had their abdomen cut open had an organ taken away. Nichols mutilations were not as sever, he didn't remove her intestines for example, but being the first of the series it may be that taking an organ didn't occur to him at that time, or he was interrupted when Cross/Lechmere showed up (a possibility that shouldn't be dismissed - it's not a chesnut, it is something we have to consider as possible because we lack the information to rule it out), or it may even be as simple as the fact that even serial killers who take organs from some victims do not necessarily take organs from all of them. You have an incorrect belief that serial killers who take organs from some victims are somehow obliged to take organs from all of them. They don't work that way, so arguments based upon presuming they do are not only unsafe, they are incorrect.
And as you've said to be, what you believe is not evidence, and there is a lot of evidence that contradicts Reid's claim, which by your own definition (at least when it comes to awkward bits of evidence that contradict your theory) Reid's statements are unsafe to rely upon.
That's the problem with your presentation. Everything, including tone, including style of argument that I'm presenting here, is based upon how you yourself present your theory. When you cry "blinkered" about others, you demonstrate your own "blinkers" because your replies show a clear lack of comprehension of what I've actually said. The reasons I've used to call your theory unsafe, and the evidence you put forth as "unsafe", are the very reasons you cry "unsafe" for any evidence presented that contradicts your view. You can't have it both ways, when your evidence is no closer to "proof" than the evidence against it, then your evidence is as unsafe as you claim the counter evidence is. If you could take your blinkers off, and recognize that, then you might realise that you are just offering an alternative line of speculation to be considered. In that sense, sure, I can see how your theory "works", but your theory also only "works" if almost all of the reports we have are actually not just wrong, but entirely wrong in the polar opposite direction of what actually happened. And that is not realistic, hence, your theory is not realistic given the information we have. If you can supply information that could only exist if you are correct, like a direct link to illegal organ trade and someone who worked at the Chapman mortuary and another person who worked at the Eddowes' mortuary, both of whom had the training in surgical procedures that you say they had to have had to remove the organs, and who can be shown to have been at those mortuaries before the autopsies, then you would start having some evidence for your idea. Until you can show something of that sort of evidence, you've only got an overly complicated idea for which most of the record presents information that goes against it.
You can repeat ad infinitum that Kelly's heart was not missing, but that does not mean there aren't multiple sources of information that point in the direction that it was. As such, you cannot prove her heart was found, making it unsafe to say it was. I'm not saying it definitely was taken away, because I wasn't there, the information is incomplete, but rather I am saying the majority of information points to it being missing, so that is a safer bet than it being present. New information, depending upon what it is, could very well change my view. I'm not confident in saying you are open to the same.
- Jeff
Originally posted by Trevor Marriott
View Post
If as I suggest the organs were not taken by the killer but removed at the mortuaries by two different persons that is a good reason to explain the different extractions of the organs. I am not suggesting that the same person went to the two different mortuaries and was responsible for taking both sets of organs from both victims.
You have to appreciate that there was an illicit trade in organs from mortuaries and I would suspect that each mortuary attendant who was complicit in this trade had their own individual conspirators who they worked closely with. So the level of skill in removing the organs and the nature of the extractions is easily explained by two different persons at the two different mortuaries removing the organs in their own ways, that's what we see the differences in the extractions suggesting two different persons.
You have to appreciate that there was an illicit trade in organs from mortuaries and I would suspect that each mortuary attendant who was complicit in this trade had their own individual conspirators who they worked closely with. So the level of skill in removing the organs and the nature of the extractions is easily explained by two different persons at the two different mortuaries removing the organs in their own ways, that's what we see the differences in the extractions suggesting two different persons.
When you say what use was a damaged uterus, whose to say that the person who removed it thought that he had removed it in a way so that it could be used as a specimen or he had to remove it in haste. After all, we know the kidney was removed and there was no comment from the doctors to say it was a botched removal.
I also have to ask the same two questions I have asked many times which it seems no one wants to answer and that is firstly why if it suggested that the killer was harvesting organs did he remove a second uterus from Eddowes when he had removed a perfect specimen from Chapman?
And if organ harvesting was part of his motive why do we see no evidence of any attempt made to remove any organs from all the other victims, and don't say he was disturbed that old chestnut is wearing thin now. We have only two victims where organs were found missing at the post mortems, the only two victims that had their abdomens ripped open in such a way that organs could be removed at the mortuaries undetected and therefore when the post mortems were carried out the missing organs were attributed wrongly to the killer
And despite your blinkers, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that Kelly's heart was taken, which means, starting from Chapman, every victim who had their abdomen cut open had an organ taken away. Nichols mutilations were not as sever, he didn't remove her intestines for example, but being the first of the series it may be that taking an organ didn't occur to him at that time, or he was interrupted when Cross/Lechmere showed up (a possibility that shouldn't be dismissed - it's not a chesnut, it is something we have to consider as possible because we lack the information to rule it out), or it may even be as simple as the fact that even serial killers who take organs from some victims do not necessarily take organs from all of them. You have an incorrect belief that serial killers who take organs from some victims are somehow obliged to take organs from all of them. They don't work that way, so arguments based upon presuming they do are not only unsafe, they are incorrect.
As to Kelly if Insp Reid is to be believed and I do believe him when he says no organs were taken away by the killer, conversely if you say that the killer was organ harvesting why did he not take away any more organs from Kelly after all he had all the abdomen to choose from?
That's the problem with your presentation. Everything, including tone, including style of argument that I'm presenting here, is based upon how you yourself present your theory. When you cry "blinkered" about others, you demonstrate your own "blinkers" because your replies show a clear lack of comprehension of what I've actually said. The reasons I've used to call your theory unsafe, and the evidence you put forth as "unsafe", are the very reasons you cry "unsafe" for any evidence presented that contradicts your view. You can't have it both ways, when your evidence is no closer to "proof" than the evidence against it, then your evidence is as unsafe as you claim the counter evidence is. If you could take your blinkers off, and recognize that, then you might realise that you are just offering an alternative line of speculation to be considered. In that sense, sure, I can see how your theory "works", but your theory also only "works" if almost all of the reports we have are actually not just wrong, but entirely wrong in the polar opposite direction of what actually happened. And that is not realistic, hence, your theory is not realistic given the information we have. If you can supply information that could only exist if you are correct, like a direct link to illegal organ trade and someone who worked at the Chapman mortuary and another person who worked at the Eddowes' mortuary, both of whom had the training in surgical procedures that you say they had to have had to remove the organs, and who can be shown to have been at those mortuaries before the autopsies, then you would start having some evidence for your idea. Until you can show something of that sort of evidence, you've only got an overly complicated idea for which most of the record presents information that goes against it.
You can repeat ad infinitum that Kelly's heart was not missing, but that does not mean there aren't multiple sources of information that point in the direction that it was. As such, you cannot prove her heart was found, making it unsafe to say it was. I'm not saying it definitely was taken away, because I wasn't there, the information is incomplete, but rather I am saying the majority of information points to it being missing, so that is a safer bet than it being present. New information, depending upon what it is, could very well change my view. I'm not confident in saying you are open to the same.
- Jeff
Comment