Lechmere versus Richardson.

[GBinOz]

I fully agree. And sometimes I find hearing other people's ideas and interpretations gives me a lot to consider and I may adjust my own thinking accordingly. Even if I don't, it's not a waste of time because it either helps me clarify my own thinking and reasoning as to why I don't get there, or it may be that I still favour my original view but adjust how strongly I prefer it over an alternative. In the end, the evidence we have is simply too incomplete to really draw any firm conclusions, and we have to make too many calls at too many critical points. But, I do think we can try and do our best to work out what the sequence of events were from what is inherently noisy and error prone information. If there's any chance of getting further (i.e. solutions), that can only happen after we know what actually happened; a solution to an event requires knowing what the event was after all. We don't have to know things to exact minute, or be that precise, but we do need to at least get the order of things correct. And to work out what aspects of all the witness statements, or news reports, or medical opinions, are just noise. But as reaching a consensus on anything is nigh on impossible, even reaching that goal doesn't look promising, though it is fun to try.

- Jeff

Insightful post Jeff.

[FISHY1118]

In the case of Eddowes the police conveyed the body to the mortuary accompanied by Dr Brown the body was stripped but no medical examination took place at that time that took place 12 hours later.

In the case of Chapman the body was conveyed to the mortuary by the police and the doctor came back some 12 hours later to carry out the post mortem.
I have stated previoulsy that two differnet methods of extraction of the uteri were carried out, two different mortuaries figured in all of this, that to me shows two differnet persons extarcted the organs.

It is well documented of the body dealers and their activites, and there involvemnt with mortuary keepers in securing body parts.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Then theres the case of Kelly of course, the killer did remove the organs on her,as he did with Eddowes and Chapman .

[GBinOz]

There is absolutely no way you can call 5 minutes after sunrise broad daylight. Sunrise is just that, the sun creeping over the horizon - it would have been mostly dark still, especially in a confined back yard.

Astronomical terms & definitions


Different degrees of twilight.

@timeanddate.com
Civil Twilight, Dawn, and Dusk

Civil twilight occurs when the Sun is less than 6 degrees below the horizon. In the morning, civil twilight begins when the Sun is 6 degrees below the horizon and ends at sunrise. In the evening, it begins at sunset and ends when the Sun reaches 6 degrees below the horizon.

Civil dawn is the moment when the center of the Sun is 6 degrees below the horizon in the morning.

Civil dusk is the moment when the center of the Sun is 6 degrees below the horizon in the evening.

Brightest Form of Twilight
Civil twilight is the brightest form of twilight. There is enough natural sunlight during this period that artificial light may not be required to carry out outdoor activities. Only the brightest celestial objects can be observed by the naked eye during this time.

The weather on 8 September 1888: dawn broke at 4:51 am with sunrise occurring at 5:23 am. It was a "bright morning" with at most 0.01inches of rain and only 30% cloud clover for the day.

[Trevor Marriott]

Then theres the case of Kelly of course, the killer did remove the organs on her,as he did with Eddowes and Chapman .

The killer did not take away any organs from Kelly, nor did anyone else !!!!!!!!!!

Detctive Insp Reid gave an interview with the News of the world in 1896 about the murders. In relation to Kellys murder which at the time he was head of Whitechapel CID and attenened the crime scene he states "I ought to tell you that the stories of portions of the body having been taken away by the murderer were all untrue. In every instance the body was complete. The mania of the murderer was exclusively for horrible mutilation.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Astronomical terms & definitions
Different degrees of twilight.

@timeanddate.com
Civil Twilight, Dawn, and Dusk


Civil twilight occurs when the Sun is less than 6 degrees below the horizon. In the morning, civil twilight begins when the Sun is 6 degrees below the horizon and ends at sunrise. In the evening, it begins at sunset and ends when the Sun reaches 6 degrees below the horizon.

Civil dawn is the moment when the center of the Sun is 6 degrees below the horizon in the morning.

Civil dusk is the moment when the center of the Sun is 6 degrees below the horizon in the evening.

Brightest Form of Twilight
Civil twilight is the brightest form of twilight. There is enough natural sunlight during this period that artificial light may not be required to carry out outdoor activities. Only the brightest celestial objects can be observed by the naked eye during this time.

The weather on 8 September 1888: dawn broke at 4:51 am with sunrise occurring at 5:23 am. It was a "bright morning" with at most 0.01inches of rain and only 30% cloud clover for the day.

4.51am is around the time Richardson states he allegedly went into the yard

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

I, for one, am not so sure about this. As per the evidence, the spot where Nichols was killed seems to have been very dark indeed. The fact that he only waited 8 days before he killed his next victim, may well be an indication of how strong his desire was to kill again and maybe because of the darkness of the crime spot in Buck's Row and, possibly, her clothes/stays having hindered him to some extent, he waited, in Chapman's case, to strike until it was getting light. Or he may have been so fixated on killing and mutilating a woman that night, but just hadn't been able to find a suitable victim any earlier.

Cheers,
Frank

Hi Frank,

I am having difficulty agreeing with your opinion on this point. Dawn was at 4:51 so that is when it started getting light, and the civil twilight finished at 5:23 (sunrise), so at 5:30 it was daylight. As Herlock pointed out he was in a yard with an outdoor toilet, so he was already running a risk. I am not persuaded that he would have added to that risk by being able to be seen in daylight through the windows of No 29, or the neighbouring properties, by the residents. JMO.

Best regards, George

[FISHY1118]

The killer did not take away any organs from Kelly, nor did anyone else !!!!!!!!!!

Detctive Insp Reid gave an interview with the News of the world in 1896 about the murders. In relation to Kellys murder which at the time he was head of Whitechapel CID and attenened the crime scene he states "I ought to tell you that the stories of portions of the body having been taken away by the murderer were all untrue. In every instance the body was complete. The mania of the murderer was exclusively for horrible mutilation.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I didnt say he took them away i merely said he removed them just as he did with the others, now if he chose to leave kellys organs behind all over the room because he could so be it ,or in the other cases he chose to take them with him as a momento we will never know. But he was responsible for all 3 .

[Trevor Marriott]

I didnt say he took them away i merely said he removed them just as he did with the others, now if he chose to leave kellys organs behind all over the room because he could so be it ,or in the other cases he chose to take them with him as a momento we will never know. But he was responsible for all 3 .

You are probably right that the same killer murdered all three, but I have always stated that murder and mutilation was the only motive for the murders, the butchering of Kellys body reflects the escalation in the mutilation simply because he had the time to play with the body.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

I didnt say he took them away i merely said he removed them just as he did with the others, now if he chose to leave kellys organs behind all over the room because he could so be it ,or in the other cases he chose to take them with him as a momento we will never know. But he was responsible for all 3 .

If the killer was harvesting organs with Kelly he had the opportunity to take away with him almost all of the vital organs but he didnt take any.

With regards to the other victims who were missing organs, the doctors stated that anatomical knowledge was shown in removing the organs but none was shown in the butchering of Kelly. I say again the killer did not remove these organs for the victims at the crime scene.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is old news of course Trevor but don’t you find it significant that Bond (who, on medical issues trumps Reid speaking 8 years later) lists where the internal organs were found

“The viscera were found in various parts viz: the uterus & Kidneys with one breast under the head, the other breast by the Rt foot, the Liver between the feet, the intestines by the right side & the spleen by the left side of the body. The flaps removed from the abdomen and thighs were on a table..”

“On opening the thorax it was found that the right lung was minimally adherent by old firm adhesions. The lower part of the lung was broken & torn away..”

And yet we have…

“The Pericardium was open below & the Heart absent”

No mention, like the other organs, that it was located somewhere in the room. He even mentions the location of the breasts and the flaps cut from the abdomen and thighs. This for me pretty clearly points to the heart having been taken away. I don’t see how Reid (a Police Officer), speaking 8 years after these events is considered more reliable than Bond (the Doctor who performed the post mortem examination?)

[Aethelwulf]

“The Pericardium was open below & the Heart absent”

Do you reckon this was just a lucky guess?

29th October MORE WRITING ON A WALL.
It is stated that the words, "I shall do another murder and will receive her heart," have been found written in chalk on the footway in Camplin-street, Deptford.

Hard to explain the location though.

[FrankO]

I am having difficulty agreeing with your opinion on this point. Dawn was at 4:51 so that is when it started getting light, and the civil twilight finished at 5:23 (sunrise), so at 5:30 it was daylight. As Herlock pointed out he was in a yard with an outdoor toilet, so he was already running a risk. I am not persuaded that he would have added to that risk by being able to be seen in daylight through the windows of No 29, or the neighbouring properties, by the residents. JMO.

Hi George,

While I admit the option you favour would be the most logical one for us normal people, I don’t think this necessarily applies to a serial killer. Therefore, I can still imagine that being able to see what he was doing was important to him on that particular morning. He, obviously, felt a great need to strike again only 8 days after Nichols, which might mean that he was also caring less about the risks. And, even though one might have doubts about the testimonies of Long and Richardson, I don’t think this can be said about Cadosh, especially about the sound he heard of a sort of fall against the fence on his second trip to the yard/loo. For these reasons I’m leaning towards a later TOD.

Cheers,
Frank

[Trevor Marriott]

This is old news of course Trevor but don’t you find it significant that Bond (who, on medical issues trumps Reid speaking 8 years later) lists where the internal organs were found

“The viscera were found in various parts viz: the uterus & Kidneys with one breast under the head, the other breast by the Rt foot, the Liver between the feet, the intestines by the right side & the spleen by the left side of the body. The flaps removed from the abdomen and thighs were on a table..”

“On opening the thorax it was found that the right lung was minimally adherent by old firm adhesions. The lower part of the lung was broken & torn away..”

And yet we have…

“The Pericardium was open below & the Heart absent”

No mention, like the other organs, that it was located somewhere in the room. This for me pretty clearly points to the heart having been taken away. I don’t see how Reid (a Police Officer), speaking 8 years after these events is considered more reliable than Bond (the Doctor who performed the post mortem examination?)

Again I dont want to labour this as you said it has been gone over many times but just to reiterate the only mention of the heart being missing is from the pericardium that is an ambiguos statement there is no mention of the missing heart after that in fact it is not even mentioned in Bonds report to Anderson which in my opinion is a major pointer to where the truth lies.

And as you know persumably some organs were later removed from the room and taken to the doctors house, and in addition the room was revisited later. So we dont know the full result of those actions.

It should be noted that there was never any further mention of the heart thereafter by anyone.

As to Reid he was head of Whitechapel CID I would suggest a murder and mutilatrion such as that would have stuck firmly in his mind and somehing such as a missing heart equally stuck for all time.

The reality is that if the killer did not take away the heart, and it was the same killer for the rest of the victims then this murder and the actions of the killer in not taking any organs corrobrates the fact that the killer of the other victims did also not remove their organs

We get back to cherry picking evidence to suit. As an example the marginalia is readily accepted as being penned by Swanson many years later and the content readily accepted. Yet here we have an experienced officer who was directly involved in the investigation and his ablity to recall and event some years later questioned.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FISHY1118]

If the killer was harvesting organs with Kelly he had the opportunity to take away with him almost all of the vital organs but he didnt take any.

With regards to the other victims who were missing organs, the doctors stated that anatomical knowledge was shown in removing the organs but none was shown in the butchering of Kelly. I say again the killer did not remove these organs for the victims at the crime scene.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Who said that there was "NO" anatomical knowledge in the removable of kellys organs ? I dont see that mentioned it at her inquest.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Again I dont want to labour this as you said it has been gone over many times but just to reiterate the only mention of the heart being missing is from the pericardium that is an ambiguos statement there is no mention of the missing heart after that in fact it is not even mentioned in Bonds report to Anderson which in my opinion is a major pointer to where the truth lies.

And as you know persumably some organs were later removed from the room and taken to the doctors house, and in addition the room was revisited later. So we dont know the full result of those actions.

It should be noted that there was never any further mention of the heart thereafter by anyone.

As to Reid he was head of Whitechapel CID I would suggest a murder and mutilatrion such as that would have stuck firmly in his mind and somehing such as a missing heart equally stuck for all time.

The reality is that if the killer did not take away the heart, and it was the same killer for the rest of the victims then this murder and the actions of the killer in not taking any organs corrobrates the fact that the killer of the other victims did also not remove their organs

We get back to cherry picking evidence to suit. As an example the marginalia is readily accepted as being penned by Swanson many years later and the content readily accepted. Yet here we have an experienced officer who was directly involved in the investigation and his ablity to recall and event some years later questioned.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But it’s only an ‘if’ Trevor. Yes it’s certainly an ambiguous phrasing but he’s very specific on the other organs and body parts; mentioning where they were located in the room and yet he doesn’t mention where the heart was ‘found.’ This surely, at the very least, points to the suggestion that it wasn’t found within the room?

If we suggest that ‘if’ there were no body parts removed from Miller’s Court and so why would there have been from the other victims then why couldn’t we conversely suggest that if there were parts missing from other victims (and there were) isn’t it likely that there would have been at least something missing from Kelly?