Lechmere versus Richardson.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, I just noticed this.

“Dr. Phillips: I think the mode in which they were extracted did show some anatomical knowledge.

Coroner: You do not think they could have been lost accidentally in the transit of the body to the mortuary?

Dr. Phillips: I was not present at the transit. I carefully closed up the clothes of the woman.

Some portions had been excised.“

……

Dr. Phillips is clearly saying that when he closed up the victims clothes (in situ and before transit to the mortuary) some portions of the body had been cut out surgically.

No thats not what he meant. he meant that the organs could not have dropped out in transit because he closed the clothes up, and the latter remark was about what he found at the post mortem there is no way he could or have examined the body at the scene to discover the organs missing and no way he could have discovered that anatomical knowledge was used because he did not conduct a throrough exmanination, if he had have done he would have disclosed that in his evidence in chief at the inquest.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

It’s impossible to come up with a logical reason why Maxwell or Lewis might have lied but, as you’ve said, it’s even more difficult to explain how Maxwell might have got her times wrong when she was interviewed so close to the event. If I recall correctly didn’t she say that she’d just been to return some plates? So, on the face of it, a lie seems likelier than an error perhaps. Unless she was correct of course.

Hi Herlock
I agree it seems pretty clear she had the right day but IMHO its a classic case of mistaken identity. maxwell didnt even know her "kelly" very well. only said she had seen her a couple of times before this encounter. mary let other women stay at her place and I think maxwell thought one of these women was kelly. Plus the time is just to tight for mary to have picked up a punter, brought him back to her place, started a fire, the man to kill and mutilate her that extensively and get away unseen in full morning daylight (and busy midmorning time) before she was discovered by bowyer. and (like chapman) we have other witnesses, the cries of murder, hearing footsteps of a man leaving etc that point to her murder occuring much earlier. also, I just dont see it very possible that someone who is basically in the throes of alcohol poisening is going to be in any shape to want to solicit and have sex. Theres also the very distinct possibility that maxwell was just another lying(or embellishing) attention seeker. The coroner seemed to have concerns with her story.
I place little faith in maxwell.

[Herlock Sholmes]

When the post mortems were conducted and the organs found to be missing of course the doctors belived that the killer had taken them. because they would have had no idea what went on at the morturaries within that 12 hour window.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor, I just noticed this.

“Dr. Phillips: I think the mode in which they were extracted did show some anatomical knowledge.

Coroner: You do not think they could have been lost accidentally in the transit of the body to the mortuary?

Dr. Phillips: I was not present at the transit. I carefully closed up the clothes of the woman.

Some portions had been excised.“

……

Dr. Phillips is clearly saying that when he closed up the victims clothes (in situ and before transit to the mortuary) some portions of the body had been cut out surgically.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

I am not adamant either, but Maxwell was, even in the face of a hostile coroner. I wonder what reason they could have had for making up stories. On that basis we can dismiss any witness that does not conform to our theories.

From my reading there is a suggestion that Barnett made his identification looking through the broken window. That seems unlikely to me but I am struggling to find anything that refutes it.

I don't subscribe to Mr Knight's theories but I find it difficult to believe that someone would not be shaken up by another person being murdered in their home.

Cheers, George

It’s impossible to come up with a logical reason why Maxwell or Lewis might have lied but, as you’ve said, it’s even more difficult to explain how Maxwell might have got her times wrong when she was interviewed so close to the event. If I recall correctly didn’t she say that she’d just been to return some plates? So, on the face of it, a lie seems likelier than an error perhaps. Unless she was correct of course.

[FISHY1118]

Hi George , if you think the millers court victim wasnt Kelly, then whats your thoughts on my post 410 ?.

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

To be honest I’m not adamant on this point point I’d just say that the likelihood favours the body being that of Kelly. It’s not impossible of course that someone could have been staying there (as we know occurred occasionally via Barnett)

1) I agree that Maxwell is probably the most difficult witness to dismiss in the case as simply ‘mistaken.’ The ‘mixed up the days’ suggestion appears weak at best as you say and of course Maxwell claimed to have had a short face to face conversation with Kelly (a person that she knew) Maxwell and Lewis could have lied but of course any witness could have lied. We can’t come up with an obvious reason for lying except that some people just like to be ‘involved,’ so it’s possible that they just made up their stories without knowing Kelly’s estimated TOD. A lie appears more likely than an error in this case perhaps? Unless they were telling truth of course (and they could have been)

2) and 3) My sympathies on losing your brother George. All that I can say about Kelly from the photo is that it’s possible that a general impression could have been arrived at, meaning that the body would have had to have been someone with a real resemblance to Kelly.

4) My only point there George would be that this was a well publicised series of random murders so it’s difficult to see why she would think that she might be an intended victim. (Have you been reading Mr Knight again, George?)

5) I wonder who this is?

https://www.wikitree.com/photo/jpg/Kelly-12712

Hi Herlock,

I am not adamant either, but Maxwell was, even in the face of a hostile coroner. I wonder what reason they could have had for making up stories. On that basis we can dismiss any witness that does not conform to our theories.

From my reading there is a suggestion that Barnett made his identification looking through the broken window. That seems unlikely to me but I am struggling to find anything that refutes it.

I don't subscribe to Mr Knight's theories but I find it difficult to believe that someone would not be shaken up by another person being murdered in their home.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

It appears that we are doomed to be forever on the opposite side of the fence on these discussions. I will proffer my views on your questions:

1) I think you meant to ask why only two people were reported as seeing her. As you would be aware, the coroner cut the inquest short with many people's evidence to come which may have cast more light on the possibility that she was seen after her ToD. I recall during our extensive debates on the Stride case you asked the question " Why would they lie?" so I volley that question back over the net for your consideration. A common excuse is that Maxwell and Lewis mixed up the days, but their assertions were being reported on that very afternoon, so that is at best feeble reasoning.

2) and 3) In 1980 when I was 31, my brother was killed crossing the street by a hit and run driver. He died of head injuries. I was asked to identify the body and was unable to look at his devastated remains for more than a few seconds. Besides, I knew who I was there to identify. I believe it would have been the same for Barnett. He said he identified her from eyes and ears, not hair. Who knows how much of her hair would have been visible behind her head and body, and how long he could have endured looking at her tortured remains to make his identification.

4) Consider that she returned to her lodgings on the morning of the murder and discovered that some one who had used her dwelling that night had been brutally murdered. Would not she have feared that the murderer may have been after her, and taken the opportunity to vanish and be presumed dead?

5) I don't know the logistics of how she may have contrived to vanish. I find the Hull Daily Mail article on her return to Pennington St to be curious. Her past prior to Miller St was steeped in mystery, so why not her future?

Cheers, George

Hi George,

To be honest I’m not adamant on this point point I’d just say that the likelihood favours the body being that of Kelly. It’s not impossible of course that someone could have been staying there (as we know occurred occasionally via Barnett)

1) I agree that Maxwell is probably the most difficult witness to dismiss in the case as simply ‘mistaken.’ The ‘mixed up the days’ suggestion appears weak at best as you say and of course Maxwell claimed to have had a short face to face conversation with Kelly (a person that she knew) Maxwell and Lewis could have lied but of course any witness could have lied. We can’t come up with an obvious reason for lying except that some people just like to be ‘involved,’ so it’s possible that they just made up their stories without knowing Kelly’s estimated TOD. A lie appears more likely than an error in this case perhaps? Unless they were telling truth of course (and they could have been)

2) and 3) My sympathies on losing your brother George. All that I can say about Kelly from the photo is that it’s possible that a general impression could have been arrived at, meaning that the body would have had to have been someone with a real resemblance to Kelly.

4) My only point there George would be that this was a well publicised series of random murders so it’s difficult to see why she would think that she might be an intended victim. (Have you been reading Mr Knight again, George?)

5) I wonder who this is?

https://www.wikitree.com/photo/jpg/Kelly-12712

[FISHY1118]

Who then vouchers for the Jane Doe in Kellys bed ? She had to be someones? . Also, if she knew MJK well enough to sleep over that night why didnt someone report her missing after kellys murder ?

[GBinOz]

Just a few general questions on the suggestion that the body that was discovered in Miller’s Court wasn’t Kelly.

1) She was known in the area so isn’t it strange to say the least that only 2 people saw her after her death?
2) Coincidences do occur of course but isn’t it a sizeable one that the alternative victim had the same luxurious hair?
3) Even in her condition could Barnett really have mistaken her for someone else?
4) Why didn’t she simply ‘turn up after the body had been discovered? (Unless we enter conspiracy territory of course)
5) As she wasn’t seen in the area she must have a distance away. Not an easy task for the penniless Kelly?

Hi Herlock,

It appears that we are doomed to be forever on the opposite side of the fence on these discussions. I will proffer my views on your questions:

1) I think you meant to ask why only two people were reported as seeing her. As you would be aware, the coroner cut the inquest short with many people's evidence to come which may have cast more light on the possibility that she was seen after her ToD. I recall during our extensive debates on the Stride case you asked the question " Why would they lie?" so I volley that question back over the net for your consideration. A common excuse is that Maxwell and Lewis mixed up the days, but their assertions were being reported on that very afternoon, so that is at best feeble reasoning.

2) and 3) In 1980 when I was 31, my brother was killed crossing the street by a hit and run driver. He died of head injuries. I was asked to identify the body and was unable to look at his devastated remains for more than a few seconds. Besides, I knew who I was there to identify. I believe it would have been the same for Barnett. He said he identified her from eyes and ears, not hair. Who knows how much of her hair would have been visible behind her head and body, and how long he could have endured looking at her tortured remains to make his identification.

4) Consider that she returned to her lodgings on the morning of the murder and discovered that some one who had used her dwelling that night had been brutally murdered. Would not she have feared that the murderer may have been after her, and taken the opportunity to vanish and be presumed dead?

5) I don't know the logistics of how she may have contrived to vanish. I find the Hull Daily Mail article on her return to Pennington St to be curious. Her past prior to Miller St was steeped in mystery, so why not her future?

Cheers, George

[Trevor Marriott]

A couple obvious points here - you often speak about the reliability of witnesses and that’s fair enough of course but you still take as gospel (or, rely on, to use your own phrase) the memory of Inspector Reid recalling events that occurred 8 years previously. At at a crime scene where body parts and internal organs were left on display around the room which would have been collected and noted by the Doctors. So is it really a great leap that he simply misremembered the heart? We could of course produce a list of errors made by officers thinking back to that time so while I agree that the wording used in relation to Kelly’s heart is ambiguous it can’t exclude the suggestion that the killer had taken away the heart. Especially when we can’t avoid the fact that the Doctor had been at pains to list the locations of the other body parts and organs that had been removed.

Inspctor Reid was the head of Whitechapel CID he attended the crime scene. He would have been repsonsible for reporting directly to Swanson. I stand to be corrected but I dont hink there is any mention by Swanson of the missing heart being taken away

You mention Reid could have misremembered I dont subscribe to that fact. The murder of Kelly was the most horrific of all the murders and so with all the previous occurrences of organs going missing I would have expected the police and the doctors to be extra vigilant in dealing with the kelly murder and assesing whether or not organs were taken.

Following the post mortem and the subsequent revisiting of the room, and not forgetting the pail of what is belived to have been organs that were taken from the crime scene direct to Dr Phillips home address for examination, in the absence of anything to corroborate the ambiguos comment by Dr Brown at the time or therafter there is no reason to reject what Reid said in later years.

As stated i dont buy the misremebering I can speak from experience I can still recall cases and unusual aspects of some of my case going back to the 1970`s and I am sure that the Kelly murder would be one such case that Reid would not have forgotten.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just a few general questions on the suggestion that the body that was discovered in Miller’s Court wasn’t Kelly.

1) She was known in the area so isn’t it strange to say the least that only 2 people saw her after her death?
2) Coincidences do occur of course but isn’t it a sizeable one that the alternative victim had the same luxurious hair?
3) Even in her condition could Barnett really have mistaken her for someone else?
4) Why didn’t she simply ‘turn up after the body had been discovered? (Unless we enter conspiracy territory of course)
5) As she wasn’t seen in the area she must have a distance away. Not an easy task for the penniless Kelly?

[Aethelwulf]

Throw in the likelihood that a killer who escaped everyone's notice would risk a murder in daylight with the possibility of being seen by any one of dozens of potential witnesses overlooking the yard and being trapped in those yards.

Cheers, George

Farmer

[Herlock Sholmes]

It doesnt fall apart because if no organs were taken away from Kelly, when clearly the killer had the time and the opportuntiy to remove and take away almost all of the abdominal organs and if the same killer it shows that the killer did not remove the organs from the other victims at the crime scenes.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

A couple obvious points here - you often speak about the reliability of witnesses and that’s fair enough of course but you still take as gospel (or, rely on, to use your own phrase) the memory of Inspector Reid recalling events that occurred 8 years previously. At at a crime scene where body parts and internal organs were left on display around the room which would have been collected and noted by the Doctors. So is it really a great leap that he simply misremembered the heart? We could of course produce a list of errors made by officers thinking back to that time so while I agree that the wording used in relation to Kelly’s heart is ambiguous it can’t exclude the suggestion that the killer had taken away the heart. Especially when we can’t avoid the fact that the Doctor had been at pains to list the locations of the other body parts and organs that had been removed.

And even if the killer didn’t remove body parts in Miller’s Court this still doesn’t prove that he didn’t take away body parts in Hanbury Street or Mitre Square. For a start aren’t we just assuming that we know the reason that the killer might have taken them - as souvenirs? Might he just have taken them for the ‘shock\horror’ effect or even to raise the spectre of cannibalism? And so if that was the case the killer might have felt that he could create enough ‘shock/horror’ because he had time to create the scene of carnage that he did, with body parts and organs displayed around the room?

I just think that, even though you’re making fair points, you are too confident in your conclusions.

[GBinOz]

Yes, but it not just about comparing one side against the other, There are other factors to be considered, which in my professional opinon tip the scales in favour of Chapam being killed at a time in line with the other victims and not as late is as you and others suggest.

I said in the previous post its the balance of probabilities and there is really no point in continuing to flog this TOD topic to death.

You and anyone else can look at it anyway you choose and come to whatever conclusion you wish to come to that is you perogative and I now have nothing further to add to this TOD topic its been done to death (no pun intended)

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

I have to agree with what you are saying. Richardson, and Cadosch if you look at what he said before the inquest, were altering their story as they went along. Long just isn't believable. I'm less sceptical than others about doctor's ToDs as many were close to correct, unless they knew the answer in advance and were conducting a little medical insider trading. Throw in the likelihood that a killer who escaped everyone's notice would risk a murder in daylight with the possibility of being seen by any one of dozens of potential witnesses overlooking the yard and being trapped in those yards.

As you said, it all comes down to "the balance of probabilities" and, IMO, they point to a ToD of 3:30 to 4:00.

Cheers, George

[Trevor Marriott]

Why do you say that we ‘rely’ on witnesses? Why don’t you say that you ‘rely’ on the Doctor?

How many times does this have to be said Trevor but why do you keep trying to characterise these debates as one side saying that the witnesses must have been correct? What I’m saying (and others are too) is that just because there are questions against the witnesses this doesn’t mean that they should be dismissed. They might have been correct.

On one side we have 3 imperfect witnesses whilst on the other we have a Doctor using unsafe methods.

Yes, but it not just about comparing one side against the other, There are other factors to be considered, which in my professional opinon tip the scales in favour of Chapam being killed at a time in line with the other victims and not as late is as you and others suggest.

I said in the previous post its the balance of probabilities and there is really no point in continuing to flog this TOD topic to death.

You and anyone else can look at it anyway you choose and come to whatever conclusion you wish to come to that is you perogative and I now have nothing further to add to this TOD topic its been done to death (no pun intended)

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk