Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ripperologist 147 December Mary Kelly

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

  • Debra Arif
    replied
    I think when someone as deluded as Trevor Marriott has become the 'expert' voice of this subject then it's time to quit.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Howard Brown View Post
    You may then look at this in the way I and many others now do.
    -Trevor Marriott-

    No offense, because I do my utmost to be objective, Trev, which I think you know....but lets face it...there are no 'many others' who follow your line of thinking on this issue.
    Had there been, at least one of them would speak up.
    Howard

    Well maybe they are silent readers?

    Strong words now need to be said I am very outspoken and say what I feel, that at times does not sit well with some.

    Those who challenge this current topic and have challenged many other similar issues here in the past are in the minority.That minority holds court here day after day. As has been seen they have continually over a long period of time sought to prop up the old accepted facts are are still fighting tooth and nail to keep them alive, and I have to ask why? When so many of these old accepted facts do not now stand up to close scrutiny.

    The old accepted facts are historical, and as you know historical facts are there to be challenged, they are there to be proved or disproved, and for those who believe without question that all of those old accepted facts surrounding these murders are historically correct need a reality check. They also need a course in how to asses and evaluate facts and evidence because this has been clearly lacking in their make up.

    As to that small minority on here, and they know who they are, many seem to have been here almost since time immemorial. They sit here day after day. Almost waiting for someone to post something which goes against there thinking and goes against the old accepted facts.

    Then it almost takes the form of an inquisition to decimate and destroy anything new that goes against the status quo. That is why there is a lack of new posters coming to forums such as this. Yes you may have a large number of members but do we see them posting no we dont. Every time I look I see only a handful of posters on the site made up mainly of that small minority.

    As to myself over my time here as is known, I have put forward a number of challenges to the old accepted facts which are in my opinion challenges that cannot be dismissed lightly. But no, the small minority have closed ranks on the accepted facts in an effort to protect them and has been seen here with this topic gone to great lengths to keep another old accepted fact alive.

    I have been the subject of ridicule and abuse on a regular basis. But does that bother me? No, it doesn't because I see all of that as feeble attempts by those to deflect away from the new and important new issues being raised which question those old accepted facts. an appropriate saying "If you cant discredit what a researcher says, or presents then discredit the researcher"

    But in this recent topic a new ploy by the minority discredit the police officer who was at the crime scene by saying he got it wrong. Now if he didn't, as I have said before the whole ripper mystery has changed drastically as it would do if it were accepted that, the killer did not remove the organs, the killer did not write the graffiti, the killer did not cut the apron piece, the MM may be not genuine, the killer did not kill all the victims etc etc.

    Just look at the impact those would have, and then you see why for some these old accepted facts must be kept alive at all costs. Look at all the books and dissertations that would fall by the wayside. What impact would it have on Ripper tours the impact would be to many incomprehensible.

    I personally have spent a lot of time and money in trying to bring my professional knowledge and expertise to Ripperlogy. Although rejected by the small minority I know that my results and findings are being readily accepted by the general public who only seek the truth withou any agenda and now realise that they may have been misled by what they have previously read in books or seen in documentaries

    I am not going to post anymore, or reply further on this topic and for the time being I do not intend to post further on any Ripper forums.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk


    ,

    Leave a comment:


  • Howard Brown
    replied
    You may then look at this in the way I and many others now do.
    -Trevor Marriott-

    No offense, because I do my utmost to be objective, Trev, which I think you know....but lets face it...there are no 'many others' who follow your line of thinking on this issue.
    Had there been, at least one of them would speak up.

    Leave a comment:


  • Debra Arif
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    What can be more clearer than the reports that say "no part was missing" corroborated by Reid who says the same.That is not going to change despite the futile attempts to discredit Reid.He remains a pivotal witness in all of this.

    Because any unbiased person reviewing all of this is going to look at what he says and say "He was there so he should know"

    You and the other small minority on here perhaps need to look at the overall picture, and take the blinkers off. Don`t just look at the facts that support your theory. When you look at that bigger picture I am sure it will become much clearer than it is now. You may then look at this in the way I and many others now do.
    What couldn't be more clearer? The numerous reports that say 'nothing was found in the ashes'? Yet you blatantly ignore these reports because they don't fit your scenario and tell us that the heart was found during a later search. No source you've posted says that.

    The early reports were concerned with rumours that the uterus was missing and had been taken away in this case too, as in two previous cases.

    I have posted a report from the time the ashes were sifted that says nothing was found and the assumption being made therefore is that the body part is still missing but that the details are being kept under wraps.
    You have yet to post anything that says any body part was found during that search.
    The pail of organs covered in newspaper event happened before the ashes were searched for missing parts.

    After the inquest we see the 17th Nov Telegraph report that a doctor present at the post mortem says the heart was removed by cutting through the diaphragm, which is absolutely correct as we know from Bond's autopsy notes and also that the heart was taken away from the room and not the uterus as had been previously suggested. It is also mentioned in this report that the doctors concluded no anatomical skill was shown in the way the heart was removed.

    I think my track record here shows my ability to be objective and my ability to interpret sources-as does yours, so I would prefer it if you would stick to discussing points made rather than repeatedly going on about blinkers etc. etc. which is not only very tedious now but could be seen that you don't really have any valid counter points to make when challenged by others.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
    Thank you again, Jon. As I repeatedly kept trying to tell Trevor, the earlier reports about a missing organ were concerned with the uterus as it had been rumoured this was again missing in this case.
    What can be more clearer than the reports that say "no part was missing" corroborated by Reid who says the same.That is not going to change despite the futile attempts to discredit Reid.He remains a pivotal witness in all of this.

    Because any unbiased person reviewing all of this is going to look at what he says and say "He was there so he should know"

    You and the other small minority on here perhaps need to look at the overall picture, and take the blinkers off. Don`t just look at the facts that support your theory. When you look at that bigger picture I am sure it will become much clearer than it is now. You may then look at this in the way I and many others now do.

    Leave a comment:


  • Debra Arif
    replied
    Originally posted by Wicker Man View Post


    If you notice, the above directly contradicts the Times which you previously quoted from - I emphasis in bold.
    And naturally so, the Echo is a later edition of the same date, so you now see why I omitted it. The report by the Times was false.

    The "organ hitherto taken away", is the uterus, and yes Kelly's uterus was found in the room, this is not in dispute.
    Thank you again, Jon. As I repeatedly kept trying to tell Trevor, the earlier reports about a missing organ were concerned with the uterus as it had been rumoured this was again missing in this case.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wicker Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    The Echo 12th November
    Nothing of any importance was discovered in the ashes at the deceased's house. A small portion only of the remains is missing,


    If you notice, the above directly contradicts the Times which you previously quoted from - I emphasis in bold.
    And naturally so, the Echo is a later edition of the same date, so you now see why I omitted it. The report by the Times was false.

    while it is noticeable as a special incident in the barbarous murder that the organ hitherto taken away at the mutilations was found in the room, although it had been cut out of the body...
    The "organ hitherto taken away", is the uterus, and yes Kelly's uterus was found in the room, this is not in dispute.

    Leave a comment:


  • Debra Arif
    replied
    Originally posted by CGP View Post
    Well, don't get too discouraged. Perhaps you could take a course or something.
    Or a course of something..

    Leave a comment:


  • CGP
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    I feel exactly the same
    Well, don't get too discouraged. Perhaps you could take a course or something.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by CGP View Post
    Well, at this point I'll give up. If you can't understand the meaning of simple English phrases there's no hope.
    I feel exactly the same

    Leave a comment:


  • CGP
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    I am sorry but you are wrong "body part" is singular. As I stated he is talking about a specific murder and that is certainly not Chapman.
    Well, at this point I'll give up. If you can't understand the meaning of simple English phrases there's no hope.

    Leave a comment:


  • Debra Arif
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    Oh dear another undated newspaper. The dates of the newspaper articles are also relevant. Those in and around the murder date which say nothing was missing. On the other side those much later that suggest an organ was missing. Which are correct ? On face value either could be correct.

    What is noticeable, and relevant in trying to establish which are correct is that if the later articles are correct, it seems all the previous papers chose to ignore this important new revelation. I wonder why? that`s not like the press is it?

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    The wording of the article, up until the point that reporter makes his own assumption that the doctors are holding back, is exactly the same as those published around the 12th that don't include this insight.
    Anyone familiar with the source material can see that, it is describing the event where the ashes were searched, reported on or around the 12th November in most newspapers (weeklys obviously published the same generated story at a later date).
    While others reported that nothing was missing, this astute reporter decided that the doctors were probably covering something up until after the inquest. Ordinarily it would have been revealed at the inquest but we know that for some reason the authorities chose not to do that at MJK's.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by CGP View Post
    I don't wish to be too harsh, but it really does take the biscuit when you tell me I should study the letter in more detail. Only a couple of hours ago you evidently hadn't read it yourself, and weren't even aware it was a letter! And when you did finally read it, you were apparently incapable of understanding why Reid wrote what he did. I had to explain to you what he was responding to.

    Anyhow, I will try again:

    (1) No one is suggesting or has suggested that there's any reference to Eddowes here, except that Reid picks up the error about "Mitre Court" instead of "Mitre Square" in the letter he's responding to.

    (2) When Reid's letter refers to "Chapman" that means George Chapman, who of course the Pall Mall Gazette article had suggested was Jack the Ripper.

    (3) The reference to missing organs in the Pall Mall Gazette article, which Reid was responding to in his letter, was clearly in relation to the murder of Annie Chapman.

    (4) As I've already explained, Reid's response refers to "the series of murders" and states that "at no time was any part of the body missing". Obviously, Reid was wrong about that.

    Surely none of this is hard to grasp.
    Not for me it isn't but for you yes !

    I am sorry but you are wrong "body part" is singular. As I stated he is talking about a specific murder and that is certainly not Chapman. What he is suggesting is that the murder he is however referring to is not comparable to that of Chapman, who in fact as we know was missing two body parts not one (singular)

    Another interpretation put forward on here by some, is that he is referring to Eddowes when he refers to scratches and says no body part was missing, which we know is not correct. So this is another misguided basis for suggesting he got things horribly wrong and he is unreliable.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • CGP
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    Thats your opinion but you need to sit down and study that letter in more detail. The reference to Chapman is a direct comparison to one of the other murder he was discussing which it would appear is either Coles or McKenzie/ Nothing to do with Eddowes.
    I don't wish to be too harsh, but it really does take the biscuit when you tell me I should study the letter in more detail. Only a couple of hours ago you evidently hadn't read it yourself, and weren't even aware it was a letter! And when you did finally read it, you were apparently incapable of understanding why Reid wrote what he did. I had to explain to you what he was responding to.

    Anyhow, I will try again:

    (1) No one is suggesting or has suggested that there's any reference to Eddowes here, except that Reid picks up the error about "Mitre Court" instead of "Mitre Square" in the letter he's responding to.

    (2) When Reid's letter refers to "Chapman" that means George Chapman, who of course the Pall Mall Gazette article had suggested was Jack the Ripper.

    (3) The reference to missing organs in the Pall Mall Gazette article, which Reid was responding to in his letter, was clearly in relation to the murder of Annie Chapman.

    (4) As I've already explained, Reid's response refers to "the series of murders" and states that "at no time was any part of the body missing". Obviously, Reid was wrong about that.

    Surely none of this is hard to grasp.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Wicker Man View Post
    Where do you want me to begin?

    The ashes found in the fireplace of the room rented by the deceased woman were also submitted to a searching examination, but nothing likely to throw any light on this shocking case could be gleaned from them.
    Times, Nov. 12th.

    The rest of the Times article Nov 12 which you conveniently omitted

    The Times 12th November

    As early as half past 7 on Saturday morning, Dr. Phillips, assisted by Dr. Bond (Westminster), Dr. Gordon Brown (City), Dr. Duke (Spitalfields) and his (Dr. Phillips') assistant, made an exhaustive post-mortem examination of the body at the mortuary adjoining Whitechapel Church. It is known that after Dr. Phillips "fitted" the cut portions of the body into their proper places no portion was missing.

    At the first examination which was only of a cursory character, it was thought that a portion of the body had gone, but this is not the case. The examination was most minutely made, and lasted upwards of 2 ½ hours after which the mutilated portions were sewn to the body, and therefore the coroner's jury will be spared the unpleasant duty of witnessing the horrible spectacle presented to those who discovered the murder.

    The ashes found in the fireplace of the room rented by the deceased woman were also submitted to a searching examination, but nothing likely to throw any light on this shocking case could be gleaned from them.



    Nothing of any importance was discovered in the ashes at the deceased's house. A small portion only of the remains is missing,..
    Echo. Nov. 12th.

    Later edition of The Echo? or another part you deliberaly omitted ?

    The Echo 12th November
    Nothing of any importance was discovered in the ashes at the deceased's house. A small portion only of the remains is missing, while it is noticeable as a special incident in the barbarous murder that the organ hitherto taken away at the mutilations was found in the room, although it had been cut out of the body...



    ...and the ashes, which have been carefully sifted, reveal no traces of human burnt flesh.
    Morning Advertiser, Nov. 12th.

    the refuse had been passed through a sieve it was subjected to the closest scrutiny by the medical gentlemen. Nothing, however, was found at the examination which is likely to afford any assistance or clue to the police.
    Daily News, Nov. 12th.

    Insp. Reid was wrong, and so are you Trevor.
    It does you no good to back a horse that has been disqualified.
    Well that`s better than one that doesnt know what to do and falls at the first fence !

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X