Who did kill Nichols and Kelly ?

[Trevor Marriott]

The important word here is COULD,

If not Lechmere, we have no way of saying how long he had.

True a maximum of 30 mins, but no real figure for how long we can work with

Why do you say less than 5 minutes?

The obsession that only certain timings are correct is truly amazing.

Its not an obsession, the 5 minutes has been created by those who suggest one killer for all the victims. That takes into account the murder of Eddowes where the killer is supposed to have done all that he did in around 5 minutes so if the same killer, he has proved what he could do in limited time by his actions at that crime scene.

So if he had wanted to remove organs from Nicholls without being disturbed he could have done so in under 5 minutes, equally he could have killed Nichols much earlier and simply left the body having no design on the organs, which is what could have happened if the organs were not removed from Eddowes and Chapman by the killer.



It a conclusion reached from studing the wounds in great detail, and taking all the blood evidence into account, both Biggs and Payne-James.

The evidence is what I am working on, my pet project at present.

If you understood the wounds, you could find it yourself.

When I have completed, it will be on here.

Conjecture? certainly just like all yours, but based on the evidence.

How can you study wounds or comment on them or draw conclusions from descriptions, when there are no pics to work with. You cannot tell the size of knife used, the angle of the cuts, what side the killer was in relation to the wounds et etc. still if it keeps you from arguing just for the sale of arguing good luck

Reid was talking many years after the event and his interview contains errors but we went over all this recently. and you convinced few then.

There is only one error in the part of the article relating to the Kelly murder, that is only in relation to a time, the rest of the article is spot in, read it an weep

Final reply?

Can't take the heat ?

Hard is it not when people don't just roll over and accept stuff
Steve

I love the heat, I simply cant be bothered to keep arguing with you, when you seem to want to argue for the sake of arguing and we keep revisitinbg th same issue over and over again. You may have nothing better to do that sit here all day and night but I do have a life and other vocations in life.

[Trevor Marriott]

We do not know whether the killer cut around the umbillicus of Kelly. He may well have - he took away the abdominal wall in three sections, and we do not know how they were shaped. Equally, I think we can be certain that Kelly lost her kidneys the same way Eddowes did - by localizing them, by removing the membrane and by taking them out from the front.

If so, surely Kelly is as skilfully cut as Eddowes was.

And so says Fisherman, casebooks resident forensic pathologist

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

Taking the kidneys out from the front is the exact thing that awarded Eddowes´ killer a degree of medical knowledge. Kelly´s killer did that too. Ergo, he was as skilled as Eddowes´ killer in that respect - and arguably also the same man.

I have no issue with that.


steve

[John G]

We do not know whether the killer cut around the umbillicus of Kelly. He may well have - he took away the abdominal wall in three sections, and we do not know how they were shaped. Equally, I think we can be certain that Kelly lost her kidneys the same way Eddowes did - by localizing them, by removing the membrane and by taking them out from the front.

If so, surely Kelly is as skilfully cut as Eddowes was.

According to Philip Harrison the reports indicate that Eddowes' kidney was skilfully removed. In fact, he notes, "to remove the kidney from its membrane as is documented shows a high level of skill and anatomical knowledge." (Marriott, 2013).

And, crucially, Dr Brown notes that the left kidney was "carefully taken out and removed." (The emphasis is mine.)

No such skill was apparent in respect of Kelly.

[Sam Flynn]

The light level was sufficient to do what he did, Gareth - or so Sequiera said.

I'm sure Sequeira was right, but that doesn't mean that light was NECESSARY for what he did, nor does it mean that he couldn't largely have relied on touch, which is all I've been saying. I'd have thought that was pretty clear by now.

Read the rest of my post - (partial) joke about the miner's lamp aside - and you'll see why. Don't take my word for it either: common sense will tell you that it would have been PRETTY GLOOMY in that small, bloody cavity around Eddowes' kidney, for all sorts of reasons. Of course it was!

PS: And don't come back with what Dr Sequeira said, because I've already answered that in this very post. Here it is again: "I'm sure Sequeira was right, but that doesn't mean that light was NECESSARY for what he did."

[Elamarna]

Its not an obsession, the 5 minutes has been created by those who suggest one killer for all the victims. That takes into account the murder of Eddowes where the killer is supposed to have done all that he did in around 5 minutes so if the same killer, he has proved what he could do in limited time by his actions at that crime scene.

No the 5 minutes comes from you, others suggest a different time period, see Gavin Bromley's article Ripperologist #74 and 75 as one example.

So if he had wanted to remove organs from Nicholls without being disturbed he could have done so in under 5 minutes, equally he could have killed Nichols much earlier and simply left the body having no design on the organs, which is what could have happened if the organs were not removed from Eddowes and Chapman by the killer.

Now that is pure conjecture, based on wishful thinking; Not on the facts!

How can you study wounds or comment on them or draw conclusions from descriptions, when there are no pics to work with. You cannot tell the size of knife used, the angle of the cuts, what side the killer was in relation to the wounds et etc. still if it keeps you from arguing just for the sale of arguing good luck.

There are very full descriptions of the wounds if one bothers to look, one does not need to say where the killer was, or knife size if one is purely looking at possible interruption and intent.

By the way are there any pictures to work with in the Chapman case?
The experts are happy to make comments based on the written evidence, I see no difference.

There is only one error in the part of the article relating to the Kelly murder, that is only in relation to a time, the rest of the article is spot in, read it an weep

Been here before in the last 3 months, And only you believed you were correct I think, if wrong, hands up.
It is certainly not spot on, more than one mistake. just wishing it to be correct, does not make it so.

Would be good if you actually read it, and understood it, a bit like how you failed to understand another article which you claimed had a non existent interview with another officer supporting your view.

I love the heat, I simply cant be bothered to keep arguing with you, when you seem to want to argue for the sake of arguing and we keep revisitinbg th same issue over and over again. You may have nothing better to do that sit here all day and night but I do have a life and other vocations in life.

Well I will still be here, and if you will not respond so be it, others will see the truth.

You have no idea about my life, yet another attack on someone who wont agree.


Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;404460][COLOR="Red"]

Hi Trevor,

You wrote to Steve:

"You may have nothing better to do that sit here all day and night but I do have a life and other vocations in life."

The difference between you and Steve is that you speculate but Steve is contributing to the case.

Regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

I'm sure Sequeira was right, but that doesn't mean that light was NECESSARY for what he did, nor does it mean that he couldn't largely have relied on touch, which is all I've been saying. I'd have thought that was pretty clear by now.

Read the rest of my post - (partial) joke about the miner's lamp aside - and you'll see why. Don't take my word for it either: common sense will tell you that it would have been PRETTY GLOOMY in that small, bloody cavity around Eddowes' kidney, for all sorts of reasons. Of course it was!

PS: And don't come back with what Dr Sequeira said, because I've already answered that in this very post. Here it is again: "I'm sure Sequeira was right, but that doesn't mean that light was NECESSARY for what he did."

I am not going to take your advice about not returning to Sequeira, partly because I want to make my calls myself, but more pertinently because you are suggesting that Sequeira may have meant that light may not have been a necessity at all.
So, once more, Sequeira, but this time from the ad verbatim Morning Advertiser.
"The place where the murder was committed would probably be the darkest corner. There would be plenty of light for the perpetrator of the deed to inflict the injuries without the aid of any additional light."

So Sequeira was NOT suggesting that the killer went by feel only - he very clearly says that there would have been plenty of light, and this plentiful light meant that no additional light was needed.
So light was what Sequeira thought governed the killer - not touch.

[Fisherman]

And so says Fisherman, casebooks resident forensic pathologist

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Are you suggesting that Kellys kidneys were taken out from the back, Trevor?

[Fisherman]

According to Philip Harrison the reports indicate that Eddowes' kidney was skilfully removed. In fact, he notes, "to remove the kidney from its membrane as is documented shows a high level of skill and anatomical knowledge." (Marriott, 2013).

And, crucially, Dr Brown notes that the left kidney was "carefully taken out and removed." (The emphasis is mine.)

No such skill was apparent in respect of Kelly.

What does "carefully" mean in this context? That the membrane was opened up and the kidney retracted through it? Because the same thing happened to Kelly. What other care could be observed? What other care is on record?

[Sam Flynn]

I am not going to take your advice about not returning to Sequeira

It was an instruction, not advice. And that instruction was based on the fact that I'd already answered the point. Here it is again, for the third time:

"I'm sure Sequeira was right, but that doesn't mean that light was NECESSARY for what he did."

I stand by what I say, because it happens to be a true statement.

So Sequeira was NOT suggesting that the killer went by feel only

Nor did he suggest anything to the contrary, because the question wasn't asked.

he very clearly says that there would have been plenty of light

No, he didn't. He said there was "sufficient" light to conduct the mutilations. NB: "mutilations" in general; you're surely not going to argue that the killer would need "sufficient" light to slash the face?

and this plentiful light meant that no additional light was needed

Sequeira emphatically did NOT say that the light was "plentiful", so you cannot make that assertion.

[Fisherman]

It was an instruction, not advice. And that instruction was based on the fact that I'd already answered the point. Here it is again, for the third time:

"I'm sure Sequeira was right, but that doesn't mean that light was NECESSARY for what he did."

I stand by what I say, because it happens to be a true statement.
Nor did he suggest anything to the contrary, because the question wasn't asked.No, he didn't. He said there was "sufficient" light to conduct the mutilations. NB: "mutilations" in general; you're surely not going to argue that the killer would need "sufficient" light to slash the face?Sequeira emphatically did NOT say that the light was "plentiful", so you cannot make that assertion.

Once again Sequeira quoted ad verbatim in the Morning Advertiser:

There would be plenty of light for the perpetrator of the deed to inflict the injuries without the aid of any additional light."

To me, that is discussion over. It tells us that much as there may be instances where ADDITIONAL light is required to see (not feel) what to do, this was not such a case. There was light enough as it was.

Other papers speak about sufficient light. Sufficient light to see, that is - not to feel. Total darkness is sufficient light to feel.

PS. I did ot amke any assertion that Sequeira used the word plentiful. I said that the Morning Advertiser used the words "plenty of light", and plenty of light means that I am allowed to say that the light according to Sequeira was plentiful enough to see what he did.

[Elamarna]

It was an instruction, not advice. And that instruction was based on the fact that I'd already answered the point. Here it is again, for the third time:

"I'm sure Sequeira was right, but that doesn't mean that light was NECESSARY for what he did."

I stand by what I say, because it happens to be a true statement.
Nor did he suggest anything to the contrary, because the question wasn't asked.No, he didn't. He said there was "sufficient" light to conduct the mutilations. NB: "mutilations" in general; you're surely not going to argue that the killer would need "sufficient" light to slash the face?Sequeira emphatically did NOT say that the light was "plentiful", so you cannot make that assertion.

Hi he actally said "to do the deed"

If one accepts all was done on site. Throat, face , cuts and organ removal . He is saying enough light to do all of that in his opinion.
But was certainly not well lit.


Steve

[Sam Flynn]

Once again Sequeira quoted ad verbatim in the Morning Advertiser:

There would be plenty of light for the perpetrator of the deed to inflict the injuries without the aid of any additional light.".

Ah, there's maybe a grammatical nuance you're missing here, Fish. "Plenty" and "sufficient" are almost synonymous; however, "plentiful" (your choice of words) implies "loads" of light... which is not quite the same thing. Certainly, Sequeira didn't imply there was "loads" of light in what he himself acknowledged to be the darkest corner of the square.

I was going by Sequeira reported in the Times, where the word "sufficient light" is used, albeit in a précis style of report. the Morning Advertiser appears to be more verbatim, as you suggest, but we can't be entirely sure that the journalist didn't substitute "sufficient" for "plenty" (or vice versa, to be fair). Either way, it was nowhere stated that the light was "plentiful", which has significantly different implications.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: Ah, there's maybe a grammatical nuance you're missing here, Fish. "Plenty" and "sufficient" are almost synonymous; however, "plentiful" (your choice of words) implies "loads" of light... which is not quite the same thing. Certainly, Sequeira didn't imply there was "loads" of light in what he himself acknowledged to be the darkest corner of the square.

Okay, I didn´t know that. So "plenty" can mean two things, apparently. For the record, I do not think there was much light - but light enough. And certainly, light is what Sequeira points to as a necessity - and he says there was enough of the commodity.

I was going by Sequeira reported in the Times, where the word "sufficient light" is used, albeit in a précis style of report. the Morning Advertiser appears to be more verbatim, as you suggest, but we can't be entirely sure that the journalist didn't substitute "sufficient" for "plenty" (or vice versa, to be fair). Either way, it was nowhere stated that the light was "plentiful", which has significantly different implications.

I accept that, Gareth. Thanks for pointing it out! It tallies perfectly with other reports, for example the Daily News, where the event is portrayed as a question asked by the coroner whether there was light enough, and Sequeira answers "Quite".
In my view, it suggests a situation where there was doubt about whether what the killer did could have been done with the availabe light, but where Sequeira (who claimed to be well aquainted with the lighting conditions of Mitre Square) took it upon himself to establish that the killer worked by the aid of light, and that this light was around in sufficient amounts. If he thiught the killer worked by touch only, the issue of the amount of light available would have been a non-issue.