Ripperologist 147 December Mary Kelly

[Debra Arif]

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.

[CGP]

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.

[Trevor Marriott]

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

[CGP]

I feel exactly the same

Well, don't get too discouraged. Perhaps you could take a course or something.

[Debra Arif]

Well, don't get too discouraged. Perhaps you could take a course or something.

Or a course of something..

[Wicker Man]

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.

[Debra Arif]

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.

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

[Debra Arif]

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.

[Howard Brown]

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.

[Trevor Marriott]

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


,

[Debra Arif]

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

[Jon Simons]

Fuckin` hell.
Trevor`s leaving, and I just got myself some rose tinted blinkers for xmas.

[Paul]

W You may then look at this in the way I and many others now do.

I'm sorry, Trevor, but what "many others" share your opinion about this? Nobody seems to be sharing your opinion here? And there are a lot of knowledgeable people arguing against you here, not theorists with some agenda to defend.

[Paul]

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.

Sorry, Howard, I really must learn to read down to the bottom of a thread before commenting.