Who did kill Nichols and Kelly ?

[Pierre]

Sam

Nichols bowels did not protrude.

Emptying Kellys abdomen is a trait not seen in any of the other victims. Might point to a different killer to the others.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No. The murder of Kelly was the most important murder for the killer. That is why it was so advanced.

[John G]

Sorry John that does not read the way I meant.

I meant that the only reason I can see for any knowledge in the Chapman case is Phillips view on the skill shown.

Eddowes is in my opinion the only one where there is any sort of argument for knowledge. And even there I am far from convinced.


That is better when comparing MJK to the others


Steve

Yes, I would tend to agree, particularly as Trevor's experts seem to be of the opinion that Eddowes' kidney was removed skilfully, i.e very different to the cut and slash method employed at abattoir.

[Elamarna]

Shame on you, Steve.

what for?

not agreeing with you?

was the killer disturbed?

Yes.

Was he disturbed by Lechmere?

Probably, but without without full data, i cannot rule him out completely as being the killer himself.

Did lechmere see someone?

I would suggest yes if he was not the killer, but its an opinion i cannot proves it at present.


Did he tell Mizen a police officer wanted him?

Honestly we cannot know who told the truth, indeed my opinion is neither lied, but neither told the whole truth, there were misunderstanding.


So why shame on me?


steve

[John G]

No. The murder of Kelly was the most important murder for the killer. That is why it was so advanced.

According to your own little theory, for which you seem to lack any concrete evidence.

[Pierre]

what for?

not agreeing with you?

was the killer disturbed?

Yes.

Was he disturbed by Lechmere?

Probably, but without without full data, i cannot rule him out completely as being the killer himself.

Did lechmere see someone?

I would suggest yes if he was not the killer, but its an opinion i cannot proves it at present.

Did he tell Mizen a police officer wanted him?

Honestly we cannot know who told the truth, indeed my opinion is neither lied, but neither told the whole truth, there were misunderstanding.

So why shame on me?

steve

Because PC Mizen testified that Lechmere had told him about the policeman at the murder site and Lechmere did not want to admit that at the inquest. This is given by the sources.

But you choose to ignore the sources.

And the only reason you do this is my research and your little audience here.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

According to your own little theory, for which you seem to lack any concrete evidence.

Hi John,

There is concrete evidence for Nichols, for Chapman, for Stride, Eddowes, Kelly, Jackson (even if I doubt it), McKenzie and Pinchin Street.

Someone in the police force in the relevant time period has seen to it that noone can find out. That person did not have to do much.

Regards, Pierre

[John G]

Because PC Mizen testified that Lechmere had told him about the policeman at the murder site and Lechmere did not want to admit that at the inquest. This is given by the sources.

But you choose to ignore the sources.

And the only reason you do this is my research and your little audience here.

Regards, Pierre

This isn't a proven fact, only your subjective opinion. All we know is that PC Mizen and Lechmere gave different versions of events.

[John G]

Hi John,

There is concrete evidence for Nichols, for Chapman, for Stride, Eddowes, Kelly, Jackson (even if I doubt it), McKenzie and Pinchin Street.

Someone in the police force in the relevant time period has seen to it that noone can find out. That person did not have to do much.

Regards, Pierre

Not that you've provided, therefore this is not an established fact. And, frankly, it's totally absurd that you keep alluding to undisclosed "sources", and research that you may or may not have undertaken, like some sort of get out of jail free card.

[Elamarna]

Well this answer hangs on the fact that either Lechmere was the killer or it was another. If Lechmere then he would have had no more than 5 mins. If another killer then he could have had an unlimited time available to him, unless of course was disturbed by Lechmere. The point is that if the same killer then he could have effected any removal in under 5 mins based on the Eddowes murder. Or the killer had unlimited time and only carried out the murder and mutilations and had no design on any organ

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.

You dont know that see above

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

What evidence? Conjecture on your part

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.

The later editions of the newspapers did not retract the fact that nothing was missing from the body. There is nothing from any official police or otherwise which suport the suggestion that the heart was taken away by the killer




The Newspapers corroborate what Reid says

Some certainly did change, you saying they did not will not change the truth, if wanted we can post all the links, what fun and what a waste of time.

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

Final reply

Final reply?

Can't take the heat ?

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






Steve

[Elamarna]

Because PC Mizen testified that Lechmere had told him about the policeman at the murder site and Lechmere did not want to admit that at the inquest. This is given by the sources.

But you choose to ignore the sources.

And the only reason you do this is my research and your little audience here.

Regards, Pierre

The same sources also say Lechmere denied this, so we have to make a choice,I allow for both being accurate.

If your work is true, this does not effect it at all.

Steve

[Fisherman]

Which of course is strange in itself considering that Eddowes also according to the experts demonstrated knowledge in cutting around the belly button. And additionally knowledge of the position of the kidney.

The view of skill seems to be based on Phillips description of the cuts.


Steve

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.

[Fisherman]

Because no expert that I'm aware of believed that Kelly's murderer had medical knowledge. Now, my favourite suspect, Francis Thompson, trained for 6 years as a surgeon so, unlike Lechmere, he may have had the requisite knowledge.

Unfortunately, he's only closely connected to one murder site-Miller's Court- as he was probably resident at the Providence Row shelter, which obviously presents a problem.

See the above.

[Fisherman]

The ambient light in Mitre Square - which was hardly ideal, by any stretch of the imagination - would not have been enough to penetrate Eddowes' abdominal cavity sufficient to illuminate the back wall of the abdomen, where the kidney is located. There was a single, medial abdominal incision, remember, which - unless the killer were wearing a miners' helmet and using retractors - would have further cast the vicinity of the left kidney into deep shadow.

If the killer were relying largely on touch, however, the amount of light would have been irrelevant.

The light level was sufficient to do what he did, Gareth - or so Sequiera said. Whether the kiler wore a miner´s helmet is something we cannot know. Maybe he lit a match, maybe he had a lantern - who knows.

If the killer relied on touch and managed to feel his way to the kidney, to remove the membrane and then to lift the kidney and cut the renal vessels without seeing anything at all, I´d say we can bank on a skilled man.

[Elamarna]

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.

Fisherman, you may well be right, however we cannot be sure. on what we have there is very little to base any view of skill.

steve

[Fisherman]

Fisherman, you may well be right, however we cannot be sure. on what we have there is very little to base any view of skill.

steve

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.