Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Simon Wood 9 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by packers stem 14 minutes ago.
Non-Fiction: The Mysterious Fred - by Simon Wood 20 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by packers stem 27 minutes ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Joseph Isaacs - by Wickerman 33 minutes ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Joseph Isaacs - by rjpalmer 44 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (18 posts)
Non-Fiction: The Mysterious Fred - (13 posts)
Casebook Announcements: Katherine Bradshaw Amin (1980-2018) - (3 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Joseph Isaacs - (2 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Kansas Physician Confirms Howard Report - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Victims > Mary Jane Kelly

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #191  
Old 07-11-2018, 02:50 PM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 10,024
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
You can argue, hypothesize, or speculate till the cows come home but it is not going to change the facts, the heart was not taken away by the killer.
One can no more say that the heart "was not taken away by the killer" than that it was. Neither are facts, and the evidence is scant and ambiguous.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #192  
Old 07-11-2018, 03:17 PM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,949
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
One can no more say that the heart "was not taken away by the killer" than that it was. Neither are facts, and the evidence is scant and ambiguous.
Sam

The evidence of Bond is scant, and ambiguous, the other evidence against is far from ambiguous and certainly not scant.

For years it has been generally accepted that the heart was taken away by the killer, based solely on the statement of Bond, and the "now" tenuous link to the removal of the organs from Chapman and Eddowes as part of the same series of murders.

Now we have much more at our disposal, to question not only that general acceptance, but also to bring into question the removal of the organs from Eddowes and Chapman by supposedly the same killer.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Last edited by Trevor Marriott : 07-11-2018 at 03:20 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #193  
Old 07-11-2018, 03:30 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
Well we know they did because it is documented, but we do not know why, and it would be wrong to speculate.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Would they be looking for something that was deemed to be missing?

Were the doctors required because whatever was missing was 'medical' and under their purview, not that of the police?

Who best able to identify burned tissue, a policeman or a doctor?

This is not rocket science Trevor.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #194  
Old 07-11-2018, 03:32 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

You can argue, hypothesize, or speculate till the cows come home but it is not going to change the facts, the heart was not taken away by the killer.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
But that in bold IS speculation.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #195  
Old 07-11-2018, 03:38 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
They most probably were, and the heart was probably in the pail along with other organs and produced at the post mortem. But that doesn't change the terminology used by Bond when listing damage to the body organs during the post mortem, including the pericardium which he states the heart was absent from.
If you sent an inaccurate report to your superior on the flimsy excuse of "well, it was already written so I couldn't change it" - you'd be kicked out on yer ass!

The sad part is, you know this.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #196  
Old 07-11-2018, 03:42 PM
DJA DJA is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Some Australian Mountain Range.
Posts: 1,534
Default

Yet Hutchinson's original statement was changed by an unknown hand.
__________________
My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #197  
Old 07-11-2018, 03:51 PM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,949
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
If you sent an inaccurate report to your superior on the flimsy excuse of "well, it was already written so I couldn't change it" - you'd be kicked out on yer ass!

The sad part is, you know this.
I have no idea what you are trying to say in this post

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #198  
Old 07-11-2018, 03:52 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

For years it has been generally accepted that the heart was taken away by the killer, based solely on the statement of Bond, and the "now" tenuous link to the removal of the organs from Chapman and Eddowes as part of the same series of murders.

Now we have much more at our disposal, to question not only that general acceptance, but also to bring into question the removal of the organs from Eddowes and Chapman by supposedly the same killer.
All you have written above is that you have convinced yourself, using your own theory as evidence.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #199  
Old 07-11-2018, 10:45 PM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,949
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
All you have written above is that you have convinced yourself, using your own theory as evidence.
The theory is Supported by facts and evidence, both of which you seem to want to ignore in a desperate attempt to keep alive the old previously accepted theory that the killer took away the heart

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #200  
Old 07-11-2018, 11:14 PM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 10,024
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
The evidence of Bond is scant, and ambiguous, the other evidence against is far from ambiguous and certainly not scant.
Bond gives us a detailed description of (a) the organs extracted and (b) where they were found. The heart appears in category (a) but not in category (b).

As to the "other evidence", it's very thin on the ground.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.