Lechmere versus Richardson.

[GBinOz]

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

Hi Frank,

You make a very valid point.

I originally thought that in Cadosch testifying "They are packing-case makers" he was referring to Bayley's at No 23 and wondered how he could be hearing " a great case goes up against the palings" at 5:20 when the workers there, Kent and Green, testified they usually started at 6am and were late that day. In The Times account of the inquest Cadosch clarified that he was referring to No 29, and Mrs Richardson stated that she carried on the business of a packing-case maker in the yard and cellar. She added that her employee, Tyler, was due to start at 6am.

So how can Cadosch claim that he was used to hearing bumps against the fence before he went to work at about 5:30am, when the workman to whom he attributed the source of those noises didn't start until 6:00am? Leaving that conundrum to one side, it is certain that on the morning of the murder there were no packing cases involved in falling against the fence. Short of classifying Cadosch as a totally unreliable witness, it is very difficult to argue any other solution than the one you propose - the bump against the fence was produced by the murder in progress of Chapman.

Best regards, George

P.S. I've just tried some imported Hollandia Premium.....you guys can certainly make great Lager.

[GBinOz]

From the Daily Telegraph account of the inquest of Catherine Eddowes:

Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown
Mr. Crawford: I understand that you found certain portions of the body removed? - Yes. The uterus was cut away with the exception of a small portion, and the left kidney was also cut out. Both these organs were absent, and have not been found.
[Coroner] Would you consider that the person who inflicted the wounds possessed anatomical skill? - He must have had a good deal of knowledge as to the position of the abdominal organs, and the way to remove them.
[Coroner] Would the parts removed be of any use for professional purposes? - None whatever.
[Coroner] How long would it take to make the wounds? - It might be done in five minutes. It might take him longer; but that is the least time it could be done in.
[Coroner] Can you, as a professional man, ascribe any reason for the taking away of the parts you have mentioned? - I cannot give any reason whatever.

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

From the Daily Telegraph account of the inquest of Catherine Eddowes:

Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown
Mr. Crawford: I understand that you found certain portions of the body removed? - Yes. The uterus was cut away with the exception of a small portion, and the left kidney was also cut out. Both these organs were absent, and have not been found.
[Coroner] Would you consider that the person who inflicted the wounds possessed anatomical skill? - He must have had a good deal of knowledge as to the position of the abdominal organs, and the way to remove them.
[Coroner] Would the parts removed be of any use for professional purposes? - None whatever.
[Coroner] How long would it take to make the wounds? - It might be done in five minutes. It might take him longer; but that is the least time it could be done in.
[Coroner] Can you, as a professional man, ascribe any reason for the taking away of the parts you have mentioned? - I cannot give any reason whatever.

Cheers, George

"None whatsoever" ,makes you wonder why then someone removed them at the mortuary if that be the case. Im sure someone will come up with the answer and try to convince everybody that be the real truth .

[FISHY1118]

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 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So you know for a ''fact'' the killer only knew ''one'' way to remove organs? .The fact that you claim that two different types or methods used in removing the organs is exactly why the same person who was removing them might also have known different ways, and could just as easily have done so with two different womens bodies. So in the end all you have is THEORY [which as someone has pointed out already] and not fact that youve solved the mystery of jack the ripper .

[Trevor Marriott]

So you know for a ''fact'' the killer only knew ''one'' way to remove organs? .The fact that you claim that two different types or methods used in removing the organs is exactly why the same person who was removing them might also have known different ways, and could just as easily have done so with two different womens bodies. So in the end all you have is THEORY [which as someone has pointed out already] and not fact that youve solved the mystery of jack the ripper .

But the fact that two differenet methods were used, and the bodies taken to two differnet mortuaries, and given the illegal trade in body parts, and given the fact that mortuary keepers were also involved in this illegal trade all speaks for itself are irrefutable facts.

The sugestion that the killer removed the organs is not an irrefutable fact !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

From the Daily Telegraph account of the inquest of Catherine Eddowes:

Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown
Mr. Crawford: I understand that you found certain portions of the body removed? - Yes. The uterus was cut away with the exception of a small portion, and the left kidney was also cut out. Both these organs were absent, and have not been found.
[Coroner] Would you consider that the person who inflicted the wounds possessed anatomical skill? - He must have had a good deal of knowledge as to the position of the abdominal organs, and the way to remove them.
[Coroner] Would the parts removed be of any use for professional purposes? - None whatever.
[Coroner] How long would it take to make the wounds? - It might be done in five minutes. It might take him longer; but that is the least time it could be done in.
[Coroner] Can you, as a professional man, ascribe any reason for the taking away of the parts you have mentioned? - I cannot give any reason whatever.

Cheers, George

Brown was not likely to go public and say that they could be used for medical research, that would put the cat firmly among the pigeons and opened up a can of worms which the police would not want for obvious reasons.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

But the fact that two differenet methods were used, and the bodies taken to two differnet mortuaries, and given the illegal trade in body parts, and given the fact that mortuary keepers were also involved in this illegal trade all speaks for itself are irrefutable facts.

The sugestion that the killer removed the organs is not an irrefutable fact !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And the suggestion that these body parts were removed in the mortuary is not an irrefutable fact, Trevor. Just because something exists (like the trade in body parts) it doesn’t mean that it must have occurred in this case. We might ask why no body parts were stolen from Nichols or Stride?

[Trevor Marriott]

And the suggestion that these body parts were removed in the mortuary is not an irrefutable fact, Trevor. Just because something exists (like the trade in body parts) it doesn’t mean that it must have occurred in this case. We might ask why no body parts were stolen from Nichols or Stride?

I have already answered these points

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have already answered these points

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Have you answered why no parts were taken from Nichols or Stride in the mortuary? Ok.

[Trevor Marriott]

Have you answered why no parts were taken from Nichols or Stride in the mortuary? Ok.

Yes the reason being is that their abdomens were not opened up to the point that organs coud be removed un-noticed

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes the reason being is that their abdomens were not opened up to the point that organs coud be removed un-noticed

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So that means that those wishing to acquire internal organs could only do so if there was a body in the mortuary that had undergone ripper-like mutilations?

[Trevor Marriott]

So that means that those wishing to acquire internal organs could only do so if there was a body in the mortuary that had undergone ripper-like mutilations?

Your being silly now. you know as well as i do that with a post mortem the abdomen is usually opened up to determeine the cause of death, and organs would be removed and examained for that purpose. Follwoing this the organs were simply placed back in the abdominal cavity and the abdomen stitched up. The task of that would i would imagine fall with the mortuary attendants, and so you can see how mortuary attendants became involved with the body dealers in the illegal trade in organs.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;n782335]

Allow me to put things in the correct perspective with regards to the organ removals because it seems some including are having difficulty in comprehending.
I will start with the murder of Chapman if all the original evidence if to be believed she was murdered at a time between 5.30am and 5.45am. There are those who challenge this but as you and others seem to keep quoting the original testimony this is what I am working with.

Given those times would it have been physically possible within that time window for the killer to have murdered her and then removed the organs as per the old accepted theory.

On the topic of the specific organ removed it was the uterus but not just the uterus it was removed with the fallopian tubes attached an extraction which needs a considerable amount of anatomical knowledge and time to remove intact.

Dr Phillips reiterates this in his testimony

Dr. Phillips: “I think I can guide you by saying that I myself could not have performed all the injuries I saw on that woman, and affect them, even without a struggle, under a quarter of an hour. If I had done it in a deliberate way, such as would fall to the duties of a surgeon, it would probably have taken me the best part of an hour.
Clearly in my opinion based on the witness testimony and timings the killer would not have had the time to carry out the murder and the mutilations and then remove the uterus and the fallopian tubes still attached.

I now refer to one of my medical experts Edmond Neale a consultant gynaecologist who has reviewed the Victorian Doctors inquest testimony and on the topic of the removal of Chapmans uterus and the appendages he states

“I note that in this case it is reported that the appendages were removed. Also, the uterus and cervix were removed, the transverse incision cutting through the vagina. However, in this case, a portion of the bladder was also removed.
Anatomically the bladder is loosely attached in front of the cervix and must be reflected out of the way when performing a hysterectomy, (removing the uterus). In patients who have had a pelvic infection (as a prostitute may well have done), this attachment may be quite dense and tough. The removal of a portion of the bladder suggests to me that speed was important, but does not help determine where or when it was done. However, I note that in this case, it seems to have been important to remove the female pelvic organs intact (i.e. uterus, cervix, ovaries and fallopian tubes), which could, in conjunction with a nephrectomy suggest removal for experimentation”
Turning to Eddowes it is readily accepted if the original evidence is to be believed that she was murdered between 1.35am-1.44am approx when the body was found, and not allowing for the time taken for her to walk with the killer to the murder spot and for the killer to murder and mutilate her. Even 1.35am, is a calculated guess bearing in mind the couple seen were stationary and so it cannot be established how long after that they moved off, any time after 1,35am when they were seen affects the time the killer had with the victim

The time stated between 1.35am-1.44am is also ambiguous because another police officer Pc Harvey came down Church Passage at around 1.40am and as likely as not disturbed the killer who made good his escape. If that is to be accepted the killer had approx. 4 minutes with the victim.
9 mins being the extreme or 4 mins was that enough time for the killer to remove a uterus and a kidney in almost total darkness from a blood-filled abdomen without any light. I say no !!!!!

Now if we look at the Drs Brown and Sequeiras interview with the Star Newspaper which took place clearly before the post mortems were carried out and organs found to be missing.

When asked the “How long would it have taken him (the killer) to mutilate the body as you found it”
Brown replied “At least five minutes” Sequeira when asked the same question and states “three minutes”.

My belief is those statements this simply related to the murder and mutilation of the victim because there is no way those organs could have been removed in that time frame and neither doctor examined the body at the crime scene to establish if any organs were missing.

I know medical experts will at times disagree but if Phillips stated it would have taken at least 15 minutes to remove a single uterus are we expected to believe that a uterus and a kidney were removed within a 4–9-minute window? In 3 Mins or 5 mins?

I have also attached an image taken during the experiments and tests done in conjunction with my medical expert, The image shows and highlights the uterus and the fallopian tubes and also where it is located. This test and the image were taken under controlled conditions with full light available and retractors to hold the abdomen open. None of these were available in 1888 so you can imagine the problems the killer would have encountered by trying to remove these organs quickly.
Mr Neale concludes by saying “In both the removals of the uterus and the kidney Mr Neal says that in his opinion it would not be the skill, but the level of anatomical knowledge that would determine the time needed at the crime scene to effect these removals”

How many people in 1888 would have had that skill and knowledge to remove these organs in double quick as the old accepted theory suggests?
I have to say again that the evidence to show the killer took these organs if far outweighed by the evidence to show he didn’t. If we are going to believe he did then we might as well start believing in fairies at the bottom of the garden.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Your being silly now. you know as well as i do that with a post mortem the abdomen is usually opened up to determeine the cause of death, and organs would be removed and examained for that purpose. Follwoing this the organs were simply placed back in the abdominal cavity and the abdomen stitched up. The task of that would i would imagine fall with the mortuary attendants, and so you can see how mortuary attendants became involved with the body dealers in the illegal trade in organs.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And so these thefts would normally have occurred after the post mortem and not before?

[Abby Normal]

And so these thefts would normally have occurred after the post mortem and not before?

hi herlock
i beleive trevors theory is that the internal organs were removed and stolen by the mortuary attendants before tje post mortem.