Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Q & A - Pat Bennet

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

  • [QUOTE=Patricia Bennet;404820]
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    It does not take any prior skill or knowledge to kill and mutilate a body.

    In the course of my investigation I interviewed a master butcher who started his career as a slaughterman. This is part of the interview the rest can be found in my book Jack the Ripper the real truth, and it is a pig not a sheep that has organs similar to that of humans.

    I doubt there were many pigs slaughtered in Whitechapel in 1888 for obvious reasons!

    "I have been asked whether I could carefully remove these same organs in almost total darkness using a six-inch sharp-bladed knife. If I were to attempt these removals from a human body in almost total darkness I would encounter many problems. The first would be the need for a big enough incision for me to be able to gain access to the stomach. The second would be trying to locate the organs, which would be wet and slippery and covered with blood from the abdomen. This in itself would cause great difficulty in gripping them sufficiently to be able to remove them carefully. I would also not want to be working with a sharp knife in an abdomen not being able to see what I was doing or where my fingers were with where I was attempting to cut. I would also say that I would find it difficult to work with a long-bladed knife and could not remove a kidney using a six-inch bladed knife. If I were in a hurry to remove a kidney and were able to find the renal fat, which encases the kidney, then I would be able to grip it and rip it out by hand.

    This is more evidence in support of my belief that the killer did not remove the organs from Eddowes and Chapman at the crime scenes

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk[/QUOTE
    Hi Trevor! I saw one of you shows years ago, where you suggest the killer just cut the women open at the crime scenes, and that the victims’ organs were removed at the mortuaries’ by mortuary employees who sold the organs. This is a very logical theory. Why do you think so many people don’t agree with it?
    Hi Pat
    In answer to your question there is in my opinion a relatively simple answer.

    On both this board and Casebook there many established and seasoned regular members on both who have followed this mystery since time immemorial, and have in my opinion been indoctrinated in what I term the old accepted facts, one of which being that the killer removed the organs from three victims at crime scenes, and they as you say will clearly not accept or consider anything which goes against that theory despite there now 132 years later there being in existence evidence to question this.

    That being said researchers such as yourself and many members of the public who are interested in this mystery do consider the theory to be plausible.


    What the aformentioned researchers seem to brush aside is that in 1888 in addition to the workings of The Anatomy Act there was also an illicit trade in bodies and body parts orchestrated by body dealers, this practice also involved the cooperation of mortuary attendants. Female body parts were in high demand.

    In fact Elizabeth Hurren a reader in History at Leicester University has published several books on the topic of body dealers in Victorian Times and these make interesting reading.

    As I have said before History is there to be challenged and not readily accepted as being correct.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Comment


    • I think we have to be open minded about Kate's kidney. Trevor has valid points on that. I still think the killer took uteri which would be more available.

      I am no expert on comparative anatomy but did some research and have reasons for saying sheep anatomy is closer to human. First and foremost for the discussion at hand, the pig has a uterus with horns because the pig has large litters. Perhaps this is not terribly important since butchers of slaughtermen in 1888 Whitechapel would likely have wide experience across species. If we want to consider the Jewish ritual slaughterer who provides kosher meat, it is unlikely he would be familiar with hog carcasses.

      I have noted before that the JtR victims that had uteri removed, had had multiple pregnancies and it would be reasonable to suppose those uteri were enlarged and more easily obtained.

      In surgery there is blunt dissection, a tearing and stretching of tissues to be extracted. A similar procedure in butchering is to pull away the tissue and then slice through connecting blood vessels. tendons, etc.

      I do not see any reason to rule out a mortuary attendant swiping Kate's kidney. As for the uteri, due to the multiple pregnancies of the victims, I wonder about their use as anatomical specimens.
      The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Anna Morris View Post

        Hi Anna

        I do not see any reason to rule out a mortuary attendant swiping Kate's kidney. As for the uteri, due to the multiple pregnancies of the victims, I wonder about their use as anatomical specimens.

        Their use would not probably be determined until they arrived at their intended destination, and I would have thought that from a teaching perspective an enlarged uterus would still be of use to compare with a normal sized one.


        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Patricia Bennet View Post
          Hi Trevor! I saw one of you shows years ago, where you suggest the killer just cut the women open at the crime scenes, and that the victims’ organs were removed at the mortuaries’ by mortuary employees who sold the organs. This is a very logical theory. Why do you think so many people don’t agree with it?
          Hi Patricia

          The reason most people discount Trevor Marriott’s theory is because there’s no basis for it.

          There’s no evidence that the organs were removed by anyone but the killer.

          History can always be challenged and rewritten, but it requires empirical arguments.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
            Hi Patricia

            The reason most people discount Trevor Marriott’s theory is because there’s no basis for it.

            There’s no evidence that the organs were removed by anyone but the killer.

            History can always be challenged and rewritten, but it requires empirical arguments.
            I think if you take the time to read my thorough investigative research into this topic you might just change your mind.

            And while you are at it you might want to answer this question that is if the same killer was responsible for all the murders why did he only remove organs from two victims, Eddowes and Chapman?

            The same two victims whose bodies were taken to two different mortuaries

            whose abdomens were opened in two different ways

            Whose organs were removed using two different methods of extraction

            Or was it a case of two different killers both harvesting organs, or one killer simply murdering and mutilating?

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
              Hi Patricia

              The reason most people discount Trevor Marriott’s theory is because there’s no basis for it.

              There’s no evidence that the organs were removed by anyone but the killer.

              History can always be challenged and rewritten, but it requires empirical arguments.
              Hi Kattrup! When you say there is no evidence for Marriott's theory, I have to point out several observations to you, and I'm going to use the murder of Catherine Eddowes to point out these troubling issues. According to police reports Catherine was killed and mutilated between 01:35 and o1:45 in a dark corner that was almost pitch black. Now I know the time of ten minutes is approximate, and the darkness of that corner is also debated. Any person using logic, should know this scenario is ridiculous. Many of these Ripper authors have turned Jack the Ripper into a "super" serial killer, a completely unrealistic super villain. The only way that I have been able to consider that Catherine Eddowes' organs were removed at her murder scene is to consider the police officers did not conduct their rounds every ten minutes as they claimed, giving the Ripper more time. Also that the man and woman that Lawende observed at 01:35 hours was not Eddowes and her killer, but another couple. Also the killer had to have some sort of light source to remove the organs. In summary, Kattrup, for people to believe the Ripper removed Catherine's organs in pitch black darkness, and in less than ten minutes, is absolutely ridiculous. There is no evidence that anyone could do this under those circumstances!

              Comment


              • I have field dressed deer in the dark in five minutes. I would imagine at that time with a large population just removed from a rural life, let alone the slaughter industry, it would not be that difficult. I believe that one of the greatest myths of this case is that the killer needed considerable time - a myth started by Dr. Phillips to some degree.
                Best Wishes,
                Cris Malone
                ______________________________________________
                "Objectivity comes from how the evidence is treated, not the nature of the evidence itself. Historians can be just as objective as any scientist."

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Cris Malone View Post
                  I have field dressed deer in the dark in five minutes. I would imagine at that time with a large population just removed from a rural life, let alone the slaughter industry, it would not be that difficult. I believe that one of the greatest myths of this case is that the killer needed considerable time - a myth started by Dr. Phillips to some degree.
                  The time factor is an important issue, but it is not the only one to consider. When coming to a sensible conclusion you have to also consider the other issues I highlighted in #215, along with the illicit trade in body parts, all of which in my opinion add even more weight to the suggestion that the killer did not remove the organs at the crime scene and that they were removed at the mortuaries before the post mortems.

                  There is a world of difference between dressing a deer and surgically removing organs from two murdered and mutilated females in almost total darkness.

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Patricia Bennet View Post
                    Hi Kattrup! When you say there is no evidence for Marriott's theory, I have to point out several observations to you, and I'm going to use the murder of Catherine Eddowes to point out these troubling issues. According to police reports Catherine was killed and mutilated between 01:35 and o1:45 in a dark corner that was almost pitch black. Now I know the time of ten minutes is approximate, and the darkness of that corner is also debated. Any person using logic, should know this scenario is ridiculous. Many of these Ripper authors have turned Jack the Ripper into a "super" serial killer, a completely unrealistic super villain. The only way that I have been able to consider that Catherine Eddowes' organs were removed at her murder scene is to consider the police officers did not conduct their rounds every ten minutes as they claimed, giving the Ripper more time. Also that the man and woman that Lawende observed at 01:35 hours was not Eddowes and her killer, but another couple. Also the killer had to have some sort of light source to remove the organs. In summary, Kattrup, for people to believe the Ripper removed Catherine's organs in pitch black darkness, and in less than ten minutes, is absolutely ridiculous. There is no evidence that anyone could do this under those circumstances!

                    Hi Pat
                    As you say the time factor has always been a contentious issue and researchers have based their opinions solely on the time factor and totally ignoring other circumstantial evidence to the contrary, which might make the time factor irrelevant. I put the following circumstantial evidence to Kattrup in a previous post to which he, or no one else commented on.

                    If the same killer was responsible for all the murders why did he only remove organs from two victims, Eddowes and Chapman?

                    The same two victims whose bodies were taken to two different mortuaries

                    whose abdomens were opened in two different ways

                    Whose organs were removed using two different methods of extraction

                    Was it a case of two different killers both harvesting organs, or one killer simply murdering and mutilating?


                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                    Comment


                    • I was thinking this morning kind of along the lines of what Pat wrote. In addition to the points she made, I have expounded at length about how the killer had to slash through practically a whole wardrobe tied around Eddowes' waist, just to find the abdomen.

                      It is possible Lawende, et al did not see Eddowes and the killer. It is possible Kate was thimble knocking in Mitre Square and actually exited a building with the killer at the needed time.

                      However all that happened, four of five victims were slashed one way or another. The killer of MJK must have had quite a bit of time in which to indulge himself yet his work was more slashing and ripping.

                      The neat extraction of Kate's kidney, with precise cuts through the renal vessels, has led writers and researchers to devise a whole scenario about JtR having surgical experience, rising to the bait from those who opined he did not have skill, etc. Jack the surgeon, Jack the phantom, the educated gentleman.... All that got a further boost with the Lusk letter and the story of JtR the superhuman villain grew and grew.

                      A butcher, hunter, slaughterman, even a basic cook used to handling knives, could have made a few deft cuts when left alone with victim MJK. Instead we see slashing, tearing and ripping. If Jack was so good at removing a kidney in a dark corner of Mitre Square, why not remove both of Mary's kidneys and show trained surgical skill in the act?

                      I think we really have to keep an open mind on a lot of this.
                      The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

                      Comment


                      • Does anyone know how the Ripper managed to not have another couple (prostitute and her client) walk up on him while he was killing Annie Chapman in the yard of 29 Hanbury Street? I have heard that yard was used by prostitutes and their clients, and if another couple entered, it would have been nearly impossible for him to flee without the couple seeing his face.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Patricia Bennet View Post
                          Does anyone know how the Ripper managed to not have another couple (prostitute and her client) walk up on him while he was killing Annie Chapman in the yard of 29 Hanbury Street? I have heard that yard was used by prostitutes and their clients, and if another couple entered, it would have been nearly impossible for him to flee without the couple seeing his face.

                          Hi Pat
                          A good point, and the answer revolves around the time of death. If it were the earlier time as postulated by the doctor then it could quite easily have happened. If it was the later time as suggested by some researchers then I guess at 5am there would not be much trade in sexual favours at that time of the morning.


                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Patricia Bennet View Post
                            Does anyone know how the Ripper managed to not have another couple (prostitute and her client) walk up on him while he was killing Annie Chapman in the yard of 29 Hanbury Street? I have heard that yard was used by prostitutes and their clients, and if another couple entered, it would have been nearly impossible for him to flee without the couple seeing his face.
                            That question has plagued me for a long time. What Trevor has said makes a lot of sense. Forget about prostitutes and clients using the yard. The privy was in the back yard. Who knew when someone might decide not to use the chamber pot and resort to the privy? Or who got up very early to go to work and emptied the chamber pot before leaving? We see many cases where people arose at 3:00 AM to begin the journey to work. It does not seem that any particular time would have been 'safe' in that backyard.

                            I have a couple ideas. The first is that the killer had association with that address. If he was caught he could explain his way out and if he was known he might be beyond suspicion at the moment. The Lechmere/Cross hypothesis based upon, 'I found her...', would work once, I think.

                            I have also explored exit points in the backyard but it is unclear if the killer could have run out quickly through or over the fence. We can never know the condition of the fence. One thing we can learn from the Lipski case is that criminals were well versed in entering unlocked front doors to access backyards and from those yards, other streets and methods of escape.

                            Recently I have seen some general information about serial killers, about how they form mental fantasies and act out when the impulse moves them. It seems the JtR type killer, who attacks on the streets, cuts and slashes and leaves the victims exposed in order to create outrage, is extremely impulsive. Perhaps he would feel invulnerable or maybe he would not care about consequences. JtR was certainly cunning so maybe he planned to talk/bluff his way out of discovery or maybe he did not care. It seems, 'I found her, go fetch a policeman,' would be an excellent distraction. It's not like everyone had cell phones. Anyone sent for a policeman would have to run into the streets, leaving behind victim and killer if such was the case.
                            The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Anna Morris View Post
                              That question has plagued me for a long time. What Trevor has said makes a lot of sense. Forget about prostitutes and clients using the yard. The privy was in the back yard. Who knew when someone might decide not to use the chamber pot and resort to the privy? Or who got up very early to go to work and emptied the chamber pot before leaving? We see many cases where people arose at 3:00 AM to begin the journey to work. It does not seem that any particular time would have been 'safe' in that backyard.

                              I have a couple ideas. The first is that the killer had association with that address. If he was caught he could explain his way out and if he was known he might be beyond suspicion at the moment. The Lechmere/Cross hypothesis based upon, 'I found her...', would work once, I think.

                              I have also explored exit points in the backyard but it is unclear if the killer could have run out quickly through or over the fence. We can never know the condition of the fence. One thing we can learn from the Lipski case is that criminals were well versed in entering unlocked front doors to access backyards and from those yards, other streets and methods of escape.

                              Recently I have seen some general information about serial killers, about how they form mental fantasies and act out when the impulse moves them. It seems the JtR type killer, who attacks on the streets, cuts and slashes and leaves the victims exposed in order to create outrage, is extremely impulsive. Perhaps he would feel invulnerable or maybe he would not care about consequences. JtR was certainly cunning so maybe he planned to talk/bluff his way out of discovery or maybe he did not care. It seems, 'I found her, go fetch a policeman,' would be an excellent distraction. It's not like everyone had cell phones. Anyone sent for a policeman would have to run into the streets, leaving behind victim and killer if such was the case.
                              You answer raises a few good points the first being time of death, and I know this topic has been covered many times and many have different opinions. The chances of the killer murdering at 3am are far greater than the later time. There is no evidence to suggest any of the other victims were murdered that early in the morning in daylight. So the killer would less likely to be seen and disturbed at that earlier time.

                              That being said if the killer was disturbed at any of the times what would he do, and what would the witness do.

                              Looking at the killer he would want to escape as soon as possible and without the witness being able to get a good long look at him so what are his options.

                              Bluff his way out
                              Escape over one of the fencesThreaten the witness with his knife to allow him to escape down the passage.
                              Or attack the witness with the knife, and attempt to kill him to avoid a later identification.

                              and what would the witness do?

                              Confront the killer
                              Try to apprehend him
                              Turn and run for his life
                              Shout out loudly in the hope of attracting others

                              sadly there is no definitive answer to any of these questions relative to the killer of the witness.

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk.

                              Comment


                              • Hi Trevor and Anna!

                                In a Facebook group a member said, "The Ripper would have heard them (another prostitute and client) coming down the hall by their steps on the wooden floorboards from the back door. If so the Ripper might have simply made a noise of simulating the sex act to inform them that the yard was ‘occupied’." And I also think since the people who lived there knew prostitutes used the yard, they also would have given them privacy, and waited to enter the yard til they left.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X