Lechmere versus Richardson.

[GBinOz]

I'm not going to buy into Trevor's organ harvesting theory, but I just point out the following from the inquest without further comment:

Sergeant Baugham [Badham], 31 H, stated that he conveyed the body of the deceased to the mortuary on the ambulance.
[Coroner] Are you sure that you took every portion of the body away with you? - Yes.
[Coroner] Where did you deposit the body? - In the shed, still on the ambulance. I remained with it until Inspector Chandler arrived.

Inspector Chandler, recalled, said he reached the mortuary a few minutes after seven. The body did not appear to have been disturbed. He did not stay until the doctor arrived. Police-constable 376 H was left in charge, with the mortuary keeper. Robert Marne, the mortuary keeper and an inmate of the Whitechapel Union Workhouse, said he received the body at seven o'clock on Saturday morning. He remained at the mortuary until Dr. Phillips came. The door of the mortuary was locked except when two nurses from an infirmary came and undressed the body. No one else touched the corpse. He gave the key into the hands of the police.

[Coroner] It had not the appearance of having been tied on afterwards? - No. Sarah Simonds, a resident nurse at the Whitechapel Infirmary, stated that, in company of the senior nurse, she went to the mortuary on Saturday, and found the body of the deceased on the ambulance in the yard. It was afterwards taken into the shed, and placed on the table.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

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

Hi Abby,

My opinion at this stage is that he missed her. I think it likely that he added the boot story as an after thought, perhaps to provide a reason for the borrowed knife, or if his boot story was genuine I think that he would have sat on the middle step angled to the right with the self closing door obscuring his view of the body. At the time the police certainly suspected him but their investigations did not provide any proof against him so, given that there is no proof against anyone, I have to include Richardson in that category.

Swanson's report on the murder indicated that the police had doubts about the testimony of Richardson, Cadosch and Long, and placed more credence on the doctor's estimate of TOD. I think the over-riding factor is that JtR wouldn't have risked being seen in daylight by any of the dozens of residents in the buildings overlooking the yard at a time when men were getting ready for work and using the outdoor toilet.

Cheers, George

[Trevor Marriott]

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

I would suggest that in 1888 it would, and if the same killer extracted a uterus from Chapman why would he not extract the uterus from Eddowes in the same way?

Too many coincidences !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FrankO]

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.

Hi George,

I agree with you about Long, but Cadosh is a different matter for me. He wasn’t sure about where the “No” came from, the garden of No. 25 or 29, but had no doubts about that the thud against the fence came from the yard of No. 29. Whether such a sound was nothing out of the ordinary is irrelevant as far as I’m concerned. What’s relevant is that he heard the sound and the question we have to answer is: how likely is it that the sound was made by someone who who’d entered the garden, saw a mutilated Chapman and then didn’t go for the police/help, but instead disappeared into anonymity?

Cheers,
Frank

[FrankO]

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.

Thanks, Abby.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Trevor, you’ve suggested an alternative scenario but that’s not enough to ‘dismiss’ anything. If you have 2 or 3 or even 100 different possible explanations for something it doesn’t mean that any can be dismissed unless categorical proof can be produced.

A first point that I’d make, and it’s one that I’ve made numerous times, is that it’s a myth to suggest that ripperologists are somehow ‘attached’ to a particular version of events. I get criticism for accusing certain posters of ‘conspiracy theorist’ thinking which leads some to see almost ever aspect of the case in a sinister light but I think it’s a more valid criticism for some than the accusation that some are ‘attached’ to a version of events (unless they adhere to a certain theory) which I don’t. We all look for new information or new discoveries or things that might have been overlooked so I can’t see why I or anyone else would reject something without good reason. It doesn’t ‘bother’ me at all how many victims are potentially attributed to the ripper for example. If proof were forthcoming that the graffito was definitely not by the ripper for example it wouldn’t bother me one jot (actually I’d be glad of having one mystery crossed off the list) I just think it’s a ‘cop out’ to make this accusation just because someone might disagree with a point. Most people look at a point, weigh up the evidence, and come to a conclusion (right or wrong) So I’m not ‘attached’ to any version of events but I need more than just a ‘possible scenario’ to start dismissing anything.

Second, you ask which is likelier in the case of Chapman and Eddowes. One killer or two killers? This for me is as close to a no-brainier as possible Trevor. The odds against there being two killers committing such horrendous throat cutting/mutilating/body part-removing/prostitute/street murders in such close proximity and within such a narrow time frame must be vanishingly small. A can’t think of a single valid reason for doubting this.

Thirdly is your point about people taking body parts from mortuaries. George’s post #301 seems to show a level of security for a body at the mortuary. Surely we would have to consider that the spotlight of publicity would have been on these victims far more than it would have been on other bodies that ended up there? How could someone intent on removing body parts have known how much information the doctor had acquired at the crime scene? Wouldn’t it have affected trade for any body parts dealer or mortuary intendant or nurse if a doctor had pointed out that a body had been tampered with?

You’ve put forward a theory Trevor but there’s not enough to dismiss the suggestion that the killer removed body parts at the scene. No one has proved that removing body parts under those circumstances were impossible and no one has proved that parts were removed from the mortuary on these specific occasions. So we can’t state that body parts weren’t removed by the killer. You can suggest it as a theory of course but it can’t be stated as a fact. Everyone can form their own opinion of course but I think it far more likely that the killer did indeed remove body parts (as the Police and Doctors did at the time) and that we have reasonable explanations for the lack of such in Nichols and Stride. Others might agree with your theory though.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, you’ve suggested an alternative scenario but that’s not enough to ‘dismiss’ anything. If you have 2 or 3 or even 100 different possible explanations for something it doesn’t mean that any can be dismissed unless categorical proof can be produced.

A first point that I’d make, and it’s one that I’ve made numerous times, is that it’s a myth to suggest that ripperologists are somehow ‘attached’ to a particular version of events. I get criticism for accusing certain posters of ‘conspiracy theorist’ thinking which leads some to see almost ever aspect of the case in a sinister light but I think it’s a more valid criticism for some than the accusation that some are ‘attached’ to a version of events (unless they adhere to a certain theory) which I don’t. We all look for new information or new discoveries or things that might have been overlooked so I can’t see why I or anyone else would reject something without good reason. It doesn’t ‘bother’ me at all how many victims are potentially attributed to the ripper for example. If proof were forthcoming that the graffito was definitely not by the ripper for example it wouldn’t bother me one jot (actually I’d be glad of having one mystery crossed off the list) I just think it’s a ‘cop out’ to make this accusation just because someone might disagree with a point. Most people look at a point, weigh up the evidence, and come to a conclusion (right or wrong) So I’m not ‘attached’ to any version of events but I need more than just a ‘possible scenario’ to start dismissing anything.

Most people readily accept the evidence without question and through rose tinted glasses. Maybe you should look at it in reverse and dismiss the old accpted theory and then start again with the alternative theory and try to dismiss that I think you wil find it harder to dismiss that than the old accpted theory

Second, you ask which is likelier in the case of Chapman and Eddowes. One killer or two killers? This for me is as close to a no-brainier as possible Trevor. The odds against there being two killers committing such horrendous throat cutting/mutilating/body part-removing/prostitute/street murders in such close proximity and within such a narrow time frame must be vanishingly small. A can’t think of a single valid reason for doubting this.

I mention this because of the two differnet methods of extraction from two different mortuaries!!!!!!!!!!

Thirdly is your point about people taking body parts from mortuaries. George’s post #301 seems to show a level of security for a body at the mortuary. Surely we would have to consider that the spotlight of publicity would have been on these victims far more than it would have been on other bodies that ended up there? How could someone intent on removing body parts have known how much information the doctor had acquired at the crime scene? Wouldn’t it have affected trade for any body parts dealer or mortuary intendant or nurse if a doctor had pointed out that a body had been tampered with?

The doctors only conducted a cursory exmamantion at the crime scene that was not sufficient to notice organs missing, In some cases the doctors accompnaied the bodies to the mortuaries, and still they did not exmanie the bodies to asceratin if organs were missing, So that being said we simply do not know what went on at the mortauries after that we have no idea of who came and who went in that 12 hour window so that 12 hours is a window of opportunity

You’ve put forward a theory Trevor but there’s not enough to dismiss the suggestion that the killer removed body parts at the scene. No one has proved that removing body parts under those circumstances were impossible .

I keep having to use this term but the evidence to suggest the killer removed these organs is totall flawed for the reasons i have alreday stated many times and I dont inted to repeat

If you cant accept that the body parts were removed from the mortuaries, you certainly cant accept that the killer took them because the evidnce to show the killer took them is far outweighed by the evidnce to show he didnt and I therefore rest my case !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

. The doctors only conducted a cursory exmamantion at the crime scene that was not sufficient to notice organs missing,

But how would someone stealing body parts have known this?

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Second, you ask which is likelier in the case of Chapman and Eddowes. One killer or two killers? This for me is as close to a no-brainier as possible Trevor. The odds against there being two killers committing such horrendous throat cutting/mutilating/body part-removing/prostitute/street murders in such close proximity and within such a narrow time frame must be vanishingly small. A can’t think of a single valid reason for doubting this.

I mention this because of the two differnet methods of extraction from two different mortuaries!!!!!!!!!!

The chances of 2 different methods pale into insignificance compared to the suggestion that Chapman and Eddowes were killed by 2 different killers. Why couldn’t he same killer have used 2 different methods? Let’s face it he wasn’t working to a text book.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Most people readily accept the evidence without question

But this is what you’re doing Trevor. Basically you are saying “I have suggested a possible alternative scenario therefor it must be true and any other scenarios should be dismissed.” How is that productive? A scenario isn’t a solution. It’s a proposed solution according to one persons interpretation. The fact that there was a market for body parts isn’t proof that this is what happened in this case. Suggesting that the time period was tight to perform the mutilations isn’t proof that the killer couldn’t have performed them.

There’s no ‘evidence’ that body parts were removed in the mortuary.

[FrankO]

The fact that there was a market for body parts isn’t proof that this is what happened in this case.

I wonder what Chapman's piece of belly wall would have been worth on this market, Mike.

Cheers,
Frank

[Herlock Sholmes]

I wonder what Chapman's piece of belly wall would have been worth on this market, Mike.

Cheers,
Frank

Come on Frank. They did a lot of belly wall replacement operations in late Victorian England. I think we were a bit ahead of the Dutch in that field.

[FrankO]

Come on Frank. They did a lot of belly wall replacement operations in late Victorian England. I think we were a bit ahead of the Dutch in that field.

You're quite right, Mike: we had the polders, but you had the belly wall replacement operations!

[Trevor Marriott]

The chances of 2 different methods pale into insignificance compared to the suggestion that Chapman and Eddowes were killed by 2 different killers. Why couldn’t he same killer have used 2 different methods? Let’s face it he wasn’t working to a text book.

Well then ask yourself if the killer had taken a uterus from Chapman, why would he take another one from Eddowes?

I have not suggested there were two different killers you have rasied that as an issue

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

But this is what you’re doing Trevor. Basically you are saying “I have suggested a possible alternative scenario therefor it must be true and any other scenarios should be dismissed.” How is that productive? A scenario isn’t a solution. It’s a proposed solution according to one persons interpretation. The fact that there was a market for body parts isn’t proof that this is what happened in this case. Suggesting that the time period was tight to perform the mutilations isn’t proof that the killer couldn’t have performed them.

There’s no ‘evidence’ that body parts were removed in the mortuary.

Well we wil agree to disagree, and have you taken my advice and looked at the organs removal as fact and then try to negate that fact, You will then see that the evidence to show the organs were not taken by the killer far outweighs the evidence to show he did.

and just to show the evidence you seek to rely on is that

1. 3 murders took place
2. In the case of two organs were found missing when the post mortem was carried out some 12 hours later.
3. The inference was from the post mortem that the killer had removed the organs

Not very good is it ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk