Lechmere versus Richardson.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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

[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

[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?

[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.

[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?

[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

[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

[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.

[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]

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?

[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.

[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