Who did kill Nichols and Kelly ?

[John G]

Edmund Neale, a consultant obstetrician and gynaecoligist, gave this opinion:

"The uterus would be fairly easy to remove with a modicum of knowledge by pulling up hard and cutting down the sides and accross the bottom. It would require more medical knowledge to understand the need to severe the mesentery of the gut in order to identify the kidney and remove it." (Marriott, 2013).

Personally, I am unconvinced by the argument that more skill was apparent at the Chapman murder scene than the Eddowes murder scene-Dr Phillips' comments notwithstanding- which is, of course, central to the different killers argument.

[Fisherman]

Just checked; it was Dr Sequeira:
By Mr. Crawford: I am well acquainted with the locality and the position of the lamps in the square. Where the murder was committed was probably the darkest part of the square, but there was sufficient light to enable the miscreant to perpetrate the deed.

Sequeira did not think the killer had his mind set on any special organ, but I guess that is a conclusion that offers itself easily when a uterus and a kidney goes missing. What the good doctor seems to have missed is the membrane that speaks for the killer having targetted the kidney specifically, the way I see it.

[Fisherman]

Further to my answer to "curious" (there´s a misnomer if I ever heard one...):

Your statement that "we don't have to know what his personality was" is one of the oddest things I have read on these boards. Jimmy Savile brutalized hundreds of girls, fourteen police forces were approached and 400 tips were reported to have streamed in - but Savile was not hauled in and accused.

I´d say it´s pretty useful to "know his personality", contrary to how you do your homework. To you, Savile apparently died an honourable man, "smeared" by peoples allegations.

Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense, as they (wisely) say.

[Trevor Marriott]

Edmund Neale, a consultant obstetrician and gynaecoligist, gave this opinion:

"The uterus would be fairly easy to remove with a modicum of knowledge by pulling up hard and cutting down the sides and accross the bottom. It would require more medical knowledge to understand the need to severe the mesentery of the gut in order to identify the kidney and remove it." (Marriott, 2013).

Personally, I am unconvinced by the argument that more skill was apparent at the Chapman murder scene than the Eddowes murder scene-Dr Phillips' comments notwithstanding- which is, of course, central to the different killers argument.

A more simpler explanation for the marked differences with regards to the organ removals, is that either there were two different killers, which I find hard to accept, because it would then involve two different and unconnected killers targeting the same organ, and that is highly improbable.

Besides if it were the same killer why take the same organ a second time?

The other more plausible explanation is that we know that the bodies of Chapman and Eddowes were taken to two different mortuaries. So if it is to believed that the organs were removed by bona fide medical personnel at both mortuaries, might explain the difference noted in the removal of the same organ from both bodies.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Harry D]

Disregard.

[Wickerman]

Besides if it were the same killer why take the same organ a second time?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Signature?

Ie; It's me again.

[curious]

It would seem both points were totally lost on you - who see your way through to stating that the fact that are no records of him getting into trouble would somehow equal him being a good guy.

Dream on. You have zero possibility to establish anything at all about his mental disposition and his manner of treating his contemporaries. And I mean zero. I know, for I have tried - and drawn the only conclusion that can be drawn: we don´t know.

Thank you. We don't know -- there is not the first whiff against Lechmere and that is what is so "very, very wrong" about his candidacy for JtR.

[Fisherman]

Thank you. We don't know -- there is not the first whiff against Lechmere and that is what is so "very, very wrong" about his candidacy for JtR.

No, it cannot be very wrong at all. Only an assertion that he was a proven benevolent man throughout all his days on earth could accomplish that. Once again, look at Jimmy Savile: his kosher status did not ensure that it would be "very, very wrong" to point to him as a child molester, did it? It would instead be very, very correct.

The element of violence is of interest only when it can be checked. And as long as it can´t, you don´t get to say Lechmere is a wrongful candidate on basis of the violence issue. It is always unsound to establish "truths" from unknown variables.

[Fisherman]

To further clarify to "curious":

Let´s say that we knew for certain that the Ripper was lefthanded. Would the fact that we do not have "a whiff" of any left-handedness on Charles Lechmere´s behalf make it "very, very wrong" to suggest him as the killer? Would it not be a case of either/or? Either he was left-handed or he was not, and we could not rule him out in any way on behalf of not knowing.

The same applies when it comes to violence. Either he was able to perform the kind of violence displayed in the Ripper murders or he was not, and we could not rule him out in any way on behalf of not knowing.

Let´s also establish the fact that there is absolutely no need for him to be known as a violent person to be viable as a bid for the killer´s role. Scores of serialist have not been known as violent men until their deeds were discovered.

[Trevor Marriott]

Signature?

Ie; It's me again.

Then why not take the same organ/organs from all the victims if just one killer ?

Dont forget their is evidence to show that the removals were not carried out in the same way so that as I said suggests two different persons/killers

If 5 mins or under as some suggest was sufficinet time for the killer to murder, mutilate, and remove organs he had ample time with the other murders to do so

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Then why not take the same organ/organs from all the victims if just one killer ?

Dont forget their is evidence to show that the removals were not carried out in the same way so that as I said suggests two different persons/killers

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

What I find interesting is how - if we accept a single killer, and I do just that - we need an explanation for why this killer was not solely a collector of uteri, but instead a Jack of many trades (excuse the pun), who seemingly valued a kidney, a nose-tip, a breast, a liver, the flesh from a thigh and part of a colon on level with the uterus.
If this was so (and I am convinced it was), then it is not the specific organs but instead their roles as parts of the overall female body that drew the killer. If there was sexuality involved, it was a sexuality that answered to disassembling the body on a whole.
There´s a little something for you to chew on, Trevor! You ask a good question, but you fail to see one of the viable answers, I fear.

[Trevor Marriott]

Duplicated post

[Trevor Marriott]

What I find interesting is how - if we accept a single killer, and I do just that - we need an explanation for why this killer was not solely a collector of uteri, but instead a Jack of many trades (excuse the pun), who seemingly valued a kidney, a nose-tip, a breast, a liver, the flesh from a thigh and part of a colon on level with the uterus.
If this was so (and I am convinced it was), then it is not the specific organs but instead their roles as parts of the overall female body that drew the killer. If there was sexuality involved, it was a sexuality that answered to disassembling the body on a whole.
There´s a little something for you to chew on, Trevor! You ask a good question, but you fail to see one of the viable answers, I fear.

There is no evidence that any other body part was "allegedly" taken away by the killer other than the uteri and a kidney.

The other body parts you refer to were clearly damaged as part of the mutilations that were inflicted on the victims, the killer had no specific design on them, or ther fact that they were from a female victim. It seems you have come up with this idea to prop up the one killer theory which you firmly believe in.

And if you take out the organ removals as being the work of the killer, then that might be quite likely, which is what most have failed to do when assessing all of the murders.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Pierre]

QUOTE=Fisherman;404323

Let´s say that we knew for certain that the Ripper was lefthanded.

Would the fact that we do not have "a whiff" of any left-handedness on Charles Lechmere´s behalf make it "very, very wrong" to suggest him as the killer? Would it not be a case of either/or?

Either he was left-handed or he was not, and we could not rule him out in any way on behalf of not knowing.

Hi Fisherman,

If you had data for Lechmere concearning these issues: What would that imply for your research on Lechmere?

The same applies when it comes to violence. Either he was able to perform the kind of violence displayed in the Ripper murders or he was not, and we could not rule him out in any way on behalf of not knowing.

If you had data for Lechmere concearning these issues: What would that imply for your research on Lechmere?

Regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott: There is no evidence that any other body part was "allegedly" taken away by the killer other than the uteri and a kidney.

Nor did I say so - I said that he plucked out and cut away a large variation of parts.

The other body parts you refer to were clearly damaged as part of the mutilations that were inflicted on the victims, the killer had no specific design on them, or ther fact that they were from a female victim. It seems you have come up with this idea to prop up the one killer theory which you firmly believe in.

Aha - so he just happened to cut out the spleen, the liver, the uterus etcetera from Kelly? That was collateral damage only? Like the breasts, taken away with circular incisions, both of them - he did not plan on that, they just happened to get in the way of his knife? And the parts under the head of Kelly crept in under her on their own? There was "no specific design" behind any of it?
A slight reconsideration may be called for here, Trevor.

And if you take out the organ removals as being the work of the killer, then that might be quite likely, which is what most have failed to do when assessing all of the murders.

I think everyone have considered the idea before discarding it.