Lechmere versus Richardson.

[Trevor Marriott]

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?

The room was revisited after the intial post mortem which was scribed by the other Doctor who was Bonds assistant whose name eludes me at this time. That doctor never did anymore after that because he left and did not go back to the room. The report sent to Anderson was written by that doctor later.So whose to say it was not found when they revisted the room, the inference being that it was found at some point because there is no mention of the missing heart therefater and Reid confirms that

The killer didnt remove the organs from the other victims they were taken at the mortuaries.

With Kelly the organs had already been ripped out and I dont know what really happend to the body when it arrived at the mortuary but clearly by the state of the body no body parts were of any use to body dealers

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

The killer didnt remove the organs from the other victims they were taken at the mortuaries.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The problem is that that’s just your opinion Trevor and there’s nothing wrong with that of course but I just don’t see any positive evidence for it.

[GBinOz]

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

Hi Frank,

While a serial killer's urges are different, he escaped detection by weighing the odds. I think that the daylight factor increased the odds against him to a level that he would have been unwilling to accept. Attacking in daylight was not part of his MO.

I agree that Cadosh's story seems compelling, except that Cadosh himself is saying that nothing out of the ordinary was happening. I'm inclined to agree with the foreman of the jury

[Coroner]

It is not usual to hear thumps against the palings? - They are packing-case makers, and now and then there is a great case goes up against the palings. I was thinking about my work, and not that there was anything the matter, otherwise most likely I would have been curious enough to look over.

The Foreman of the Jury

: It's a pity you did not." Here we have a man who was used to hearing occasional ‘thumps’ against the fence. He did not see what caused the noise and admitted that he was uncertain from which yard (No.29 or No.25) the word, ‘no’, was uttered. Some doubt on his credibility can be cast also.

As for Long:

"[Coroner] Was it not an unusual thing to see a man and a woman standing there talking? - Oh no. I see lots of them standing there in the morning.

[Coroner]

At that hour of the day? - Yes; that is why I did not take much notice of them."

She had no reason to notice anyone, until she heard that there was a murder.

Best regards, George

[Trevor Marriott]

The problem is that that’s just your opinion Trevor and there’s nothing wrong with that of course but I just don’t see any positive evidence for it.

Its a valid opinion based on assesing the facts and the evidence

Dr Phillips stated that it would have taken him at least 15 mins to remove the uterus for Chapman, yet Dr Brown and Sequeira state that it would have only taken 5mins and 3min respectivley to remove not only a uterus but a kidney as well. But of course Dr Bowns and Sequeiras interviews were given befote the post mortems were carried out and the organs were found to be missing. So on that basis the killer of Eddowes would not have had time to remove the organs from Eddowes

And the killer of Eddowes had not more than 5 mins with the victims to do all that he is said to have done

and can you explain how if the killer is harvesting organs after killing the victims, no attempt was made to remove organs from any of the other victims other than Chapman and Eddowes. and dont say he was probably disturbed because if you include Tabram Stride, Mckenzie and Coles thats a lot of other victims where there were no signs at the crime scenes of any attempt to remove organs and murders committed in the dead of night when very few people about to disturb the killer.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

Hi Jeff,

As usual, your post is logical and elegant in presentation, but I still find myself unpersuaded.

Looking at the photo I see three steps, the top, the middle and the bottom. The top step is actually the floor of the room so it would be most qualified to be thought of as "not in the yard". I would eliminate the bottom step as the one on which he was sitting. I agree that the Daily Telegraph transcription gives the most reliable account, so it should be accepted that there was some sitting on steps involved.

I'm not sure that Richardson could be perceived as being reticent in the inclusion of details in a story. Looking at his inquest testimony he is very loquacious with details of the knife, down to its role in the preparation of the rabbit's breakfast. But if his testimony is taken at face value, let us examine a scenario. He opens the door and, facing the cellar he visually checks the lock while standing on either the top or middle step. He then decided to do a little cobbling and sits on one of those steps. The photo of the yard show the door wide open but Richardson has testified that it was self closing, so the door is in contact with his body. I would suggest that he was turned to the right so that his hands were clear of the door while attending to his boot, so the door was actually against his shoulder. If he then stood up and swivelled right to exit he could very well have missed the body.

Alternatively, you raise the question of why he should introduce the knife into his story. Suppose he didn't do any boot repair until he arrived at work and borrowed knife. An hour or so later he is informed by a friend at the market of the murder and returns and views the body from the adjoining yard. He is now thinking that the police might find out he was there earlier, and that he borrowed knife and view him as a suspect. He then decides to move his boot repair to the earlier time to explain the knife, and vehemently insist that the body was not there at that time. He then gets in a pickle having not anticipated that the coroner would want to see the knife and another story has to be concocted to explain it's unsuitability for purpose.

But my preferred explanation is your "he could be innocent but also irritated that he's being doubted, and so he makes up a story about trimming his boot".

The overriding factor in my doubting of the testimony of Richardson, Long and Cadosch is that I don't believe that the ripper would have killed Chapman at or after 5:30 in broad daylight. I favour the testimony of the doctor would indicate 4:30 at the latest, probably before.

Cheers, George

so you think Richardson was lying or just missed her? do you think he killed chapman?

[Abby Normal]

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

totally agree with this Frank. The 8 days later/urge point is an astute observation. he wasnt able to get at the inards of nichols, so strikes again soon. similar to the double event. good eye.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Its a valid opinion based on assesing the facts and the evidence

Dr Phillips stated that it would have taken him at least 15 mins to remove the uterus for Chapman, yet Dr Brown and Sequeira state that it would have only taken 5mins and 3min respectivley to remove not only a uterus but a kidney as well. But of course Dr Bowns and Sequeiras interviews were given befote the post mortems were carried out and the organs were found to be missing. So on that basis the killer of Eddowes would not have had time to remove the organs from Eddowes

And the killer of Eddowes had not more than 5 mins with the victims to do all that he is said to have done

and can you explain how if the killer is harvesting organs after killing the victims, no attempt was made to remove organs from any of the other victims other than Chapman and Eddowes. and dont say he was probably disturbed because if you include Tabram Stride, Mckenzie and Coles thats a lot of other victims where there were no signs at the crime scenes of any attempt to remove organs and murders committed in the dead of night when very few people about to disturb the killer.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But we can’t be certain who was or wasn’t a victim. C5 is a possibility of course and so if that was the case then we have just two victims Nichols and Stride who both have reasonable candidates for the ‘disturber.’ And of course there’s an debate on whether or not Stride was a victim or not.

Have any other cases been reported of people stealing organs before the post mortem was performed?

[Trevor Marriott]

The problem is that that’s just your opinion Trevor and there’s nothing wrong with that of course but I just don’t see any positive evidence for it.

But the evidence my opinon is based on is far plausible than the the one you cleary support that being the killer performing complexed removal of organs in double quick time in almost total darknes.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

But we can’t be certain who was or wasn’t a victim. C5 is a possibility of course and so if that was the case then we have just two victims Nichols and Stride who both have reasonable candidates for the ‘disturber.’ And of course there’s an debate on whether or not Stride was a victim or not.

Have any other cases been reported of people stealing organs before the post mortem was performed?

If the organs were acquired as I suggest by and for body dealers there would be no record of organs being taken.I keep saying that the abdomens of Chapman and eddowes were ripped open to the point that easy access would have been there for the organs to be removed un-noticed. None of the others were in that state so if someone had tried I have no doubt it would have been detected because If the doctor looked at a body at the crime scene he would be able to see the extent of the injuries and then when he came to do the PM he would surley notice the additional injuries that were not previoulsy there

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

But the evidence my opinon is based on is far plausible than the the one you cleary support that being the killer performing complexed removal of organs in double quick time in almost total darknes.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Then we would have to ask why no one else backs your version of events Trevor? Has any shown that it was impossible, and I do mean absolutely physically impossible that the killer could have done what he did to Chapman and Eddowes in the time available? Tight timing isn’t enough. As long as it was possible then that’s enough.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If the organs were acquired as I suggest by and for body dealers there would be no record of organs being taken.I keep saying that the abdomens of Chapman and eddowes were ripped open to the point that easy access would have been there for the organs to be removed un-noticed. None of the others were in that state so if someone had tried I have no doubt it would have been detected because If the doctor looked at a body at the crime scene he would be able to see the extent of the injuries and then when he came to do the PM he would surley notice the additional injuries that were not previoulsy there

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But wouldn’t there have been a record of someone breaking into the mortuary? Yes it was only a shed but someone would have needed access in the relatively short space of time between the bodies being first taken there and the PM examinations. So no broken locks or report of things being moved or tampered with? And as Chapman and Eddowes has been so badly ripped open wouldn’t our parts thief, if he was someone with official access to the mortuary, have been taking a huge risk that the doctor at the crime scene hadn’t looked closely enough and then noticed at the PM that additional work had been done on the body?

[FISHY1118]

But the evidence my opinon is based on is far plausible than the the one you cleary support that being the killer performing complexed removal of organs in double quick time in almost total darknes.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Thats just it ,there isn't any evidence ,it just a theory bases around a story where by 3 murders had a common theme having organs removed. All this organ havesting talk is just nosense . Kelly is your Achilles heel , and thats just for starters.

[Trevor Marriott]

Then we would have to ask why no one else backs your version of events Trevor? Has any shown that it was impossible, and I do mean absolutely physically impossible that the killer could have done what he did to Chapman and Eddowes in the time available? Tight timing isn’t enough. As long as it was possible then that’s enough.

The reason is that there are so many that are so immersed in the old accpted theory, and they dont want that to change. You realise that to accept what I am saying puts a big dent in the whole ripper mystery, and waters down the actions of the killer.Because the suggestion that the killer removed these organs has been a big part of this mystery, and how many serial killers do we know over the last 132 years that have murdered victims on the street and removed vital organs from the bodies?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

But wouldn’t there have been a record of someone breaking into the mortuary? Yes it was only a shed but someone would have needed access in the relatively short space of time between the bodies being first taken there and the PM examinations. So no broken locks or report of things being moved or tampered with? And as Chapman and Eddowes has been so badly ripped open wouldn’t our parts thief, if he was someone with official access to the mortuary, have been taking a huge risk that the doctor at the crime scene hadn’t looked closely enough and then noticed at the PM that additional work had been done on the body?

No one would have needed to break into the mortuaries the bodies were left for 12 hours we do not know what went on during those hours. We do not that on one side of the coin bona fide medical persons were allowed to go and acquire bodies and body parts lawfully under the anatomy act, so that is one possible explantion. Now i know the bodies of these were not supposed to be tampered with but as stated we do not know what went on during those 12 hours, so that cannot be dismissed

I have said this before that there were two differnet methods of extraction of the uterus both showing signs of anatomical knowledge in both Chapman and Eddowes, and coincidentally the bodies were at two different mortuaries. Now ask yourself one killer, or two killers or another explantion?

The other side of the coin is also what i have stated previous and that is in relation to the illegal activities of body dealers who would work in concert with dishonest mortuary attendants. Again it pains me to have to keep repeating and posting materials again and again but set out below are just two examples to show how dishonest mortuary attendants were.

I make mention of a documented case from 1887 where a body dealer who was simply referred to as ‘Ward’ who was masquerading as an ‘undertaker’ acquired the corpse of “Patrick O’Brian, a male, aged 66, who died in St. Giles and Bloomsbury Workhouse on 27th October 1887” the deal to acquire the body was made with a nod and handshake at “7pm on the 29th of October” in person with mortuary staff. At the time the body was intact. On arrival at the back of St. Bartholomew’s Hospital later that night, the body was found to be missing a limb. I am sure it didn’t fall off en route to the hospital.

Two other cases of similar note relate to the deaths of two separate females Mary Beckett and Elizabeth Murphy both died at the Mile End Infirmary on the 13th and 14th March 1888 respectively, a body dealer named ‘Slade’ arranged to discretely collect their bodies for sale on “16th March 1888 at 6.15pm” from the mortuary attendant who was paid a supply fee.

I think I have made a good enough case to dismiss the old accpted theory dont you?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FISHY1118]

Again ,two different methods of organ extraction doesnt prove two different people !!.