Lechmere versus Richardson.

[FISHY1118]

Jeff

I have set out many times on this topic why the evidence of Cadoch and Long is flawed and I am not going to go over it again. If we remove them from the equation what is left, only Richardson, and as has been stated the accuracy of his testimony is questionable given the fact the lies which have been highlighted.

For my money I will stick with Dr Phillips estimated time of death which is more in line with the other murders.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And what of the other murders , is your hard earned going on those doctors est T.O.D ? Or only this one when it suits.

Just as long as i can do the same . And when i do, dont jump up and down about how doctors in victorian times are guessing / pinch of salt ,and all the rest ok ,. If it good for you its good for everyone ,no matter what the theory.

[GBinOz]

Hi George,



Yes, good point. The steps are outside, but "in the yard", at least how I'm used to using that phrase, would mean out into the backyard itself, so one is inside, outside on the steps, or outside in the yard (having gone down the steps and out onto the grass area. If one considers being on the steps as being "in the yard" it would read differently as the phrase "in the yard" means a different concept). So, I don't see a problem with him saying he was sitting on the steps but simultaneously indicating he was not in the yard. It would be like saying one went out on the deck but not into the yard (meaning onto the grass).

And he would have checked the lock while standing, then sat to trim his boot, then left. That sequence is a bit clearer in the Telegraph's transcript version, but appears a bit muddled in the Times summary version.



I agree, but the confusion comes from the Times presentation. The Telegraph, which presents a transcript version and so is closer to Richardson's actual words, is clearer. He checked the lock (probably standing), found it was ok, sat on the steps with his feet on the flagstones (the Times gives that last detail), trimmed his boot, left for work. The coroner, realising the importance of ascertaining the accuracy of his testimony about there being no body, wants more details about exactly what he did. If he just glanced out the door and looked to the cellar then went back inside he might not have seen it even if it was there. Through questioning it becomes clear Richardson did more than just that, including sitting down on the steps for a few minutes.

Again, witnesses will tell their "story" starting with what details they themselves presume to be the details important to the crime. What most people don't realise is that every detail, no matter how trivial it may appear, is important. For example, I'll make something up to illustrate. Let's pretend the police of 1888 did finger printing, and Richardson had a glass of water when he sat on the steps rather than trimmed his boot. He doesn't tell the police about drinking some water while there in the first instance, because it seems trivial and not relevant to the fact he checked the lock (his purpose for being at the house at all). But, he has forgotten that he left the glass on the steps, and the police have found his prints on it. It's going to look a lot more suspicious when he now has to explain why his prints are on a glass on the steps when he said he just looked at the lock because it looks like he's making something up in response to police evidence. Had he mentioned the water in the first place, though, it might still draw attention to him but it would not raise quite so many questions from the police, and he wouldn't appear to be responding to deal with incriminating evidence but rather the evidence would be consistent with what he told. It complicates things for the investigation when incomplete descriptions are given because the "mundane and trivial" events leave their mark, however small, and while the witness can explain them the police are left with having to decide if the witness is "reacting to evidence against them" or "filling in details they had left out before". Richardson's boot story comes across to me like the latter.

Here's why. One could view his boot story similar to the finger print fictional story I presented. So, if he's guilty he's "reacting to evidence against him" but if he's innocent he's either just making something up in response to his previous claim of "no body" being doubted or he's filling in details he originally omitted providing a more complete picture of his actions.

What if he was guilty. Is he reacting to evidence against him? Not really. If the police don't believe him then that means they think the body was already there when he checked the lock; he just didn't see it. That means, of course, they don't suspect him of the murder, so that would be good for him and he has no need to add anything. It's not "evidence against him", rather it would be evidence away from him.

If he's innocent, though, and he is very sure there was no body there (again, his high confidence does not guarantee he's correct), then mentioning what he originally left out as a trivial event (possibly because he's reluctant to mention he had a knife with him, which is understandable even if he's innocent) becomes important. Questioning is how one gets a full and complete description of the events and actions of the different people because people do leave out details (don't recall them at the time of the first telling, skip over them, and so forth).

Alternatively, he could be innocent but also irritated that he's being doubted, and so he makes up a story about trimming his boot. That's possible, some people are very egotistic and not being believed would be unacceptable to them, so they'll lie to try and get people to believe what they think is true! (I know, people are paradoxical). Anyway, that leads us into examining the story and whether or not it comes across as the type of lie one would tell under the circumstances, given one's goal is simply to get the police to believe what he believes (he believes the body was not there, so he thinks it is important for the police to believe that too, so he's willing to lie to get them to "see the truth" - not recognizing the possibility that he might very well be mistaken! Some people really just can't fathom the possibility that they might be mistaken after all). Personally, I don't think a story that involves him using a knife is likely what one would choose (the "had a glass of water" type story might be more along the lines of what one would do; or even just say, he "when he checked the lock he also looked about the yard as well" would do it).

So to me, while obviously one cannot claim with 100% certainty, it appears he was probably telling the truth and just filling in details that he didn't cover in the first instance. I can't see a guilty Richardson drawing attention to himself by claiming he had a knife on him if the police think she was dead when he arrived (and so aren't looking at him as a suspect), and I can't see an innocent Richardson making up a story that involves him with a knife is his goal is simply to come across as accurate (Just say he also looked in that location and there was no body there).

Anyway, I'm really just outlining how I interpret things, and it's important to note that while I think Richardson is just filling in the details of his actions, that doesn't prove his belief is accurate. That's the next step. The first step is to decide what the events were, and only then assess the probable accuracy of Richardson's beliefs. Our difficulty, of course, is that we cannot further question Richardson, so we can only really decide what we think is most probably what the events were, and then assess the probability of his beliefs being correct. We combine probabilities, making it less and less likely that we are still on the one true path.

- Jeff

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

[Trevor Marriott]

And what of the other murders , is your hard earned going on those doctors est T.O.D ? Or only this one when it suits.

Just as long as i can do the same . And when i do, dont jump up and down about how doctors in victorian times are guessing / pinch of salt ,and all the rest ok ,. If it good for you its good for everyone ,no matter what the theory.

There were no other murders between 4.45am-6am when it was almost daylight if Mrs Long is to be believed Chapman was killed between 5.30am-6am bringing Cadosch into the equation around the same time

The killer would have been taking an enormous risk placing himself in a confined space with a victim and lingering with the body removing the organs with the amount of people up and about at that time, and the yard overlooked by houses either side. We now know that the TOD were estimates and guesswork but the law of averages says that if you guess enough times sooner or later you guess right, and Dr Phillips only gives an estimated TOD which puts her murder in an around the time frame of the other murders.

On the question of Doctors guessing TOD they guessed right in the Eddowes murder

Another fact that has been overlooked when determining the TOD od Chapman this relates to the organ removal to which I am going to play devils advocate beacuse as most know I dont subscribe to the killer removing the organs at the crime scene from any of the victims But for those who do I refer to Dr Phillips testimony when he was asked the time it would have taken the killer to remove the uterus with the fallopian tubes still attached his reply was

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 effect 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. The whole inference seems to me that the operation was performed to enable the perpetrator to obtain possession of these parts of the body"

So this goes to confirm what I have stated above about the killer taking all the risks mentioned above and I will say again I believe Phillps estimated time of death although not precise is far more reliable that the TOD based on the testimony of Richardson Cadosch and Long

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

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

Perfectly fine. I'm more just explaining why I think what I do, rather than trying to convince others to think the same. I'm just rummaging about in the dark like everyone else really.

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.

Yah, the middle step probably makes the most sense, particularly given the Times says he didn't sit on the top one. While the Times summary seems a bit garbled, it's probably not got everything wrong. So, if we're trying to work out which step, choosing the middle does touch base with the Times on that as well. Maybe in Aus the phrase "in the yard" is used anytime one exits the house. When I was growing up in Canada, in the yard would mean "out and beyond the structures of the house", so "on the deck" is not "in the yard" and "on the steps" is not "in the yard". Hmmmm, I'm trying to think what being on the walkway between the house and the driveway would mean? I think I would probably say "I went out onto the walkway but not into the yard" - "into the yard" to me means on the dirt/grass area. If you're on something that's part of the house (the stairs, the deck, and maybe a set of paving stones forming a walk way), you would say you were on that, but that you did not "go into the yard". That might be idiosyncratic to where I grew up, or even just me of course. In the end it really is about what Richardson means by it. I don't see any conflict, of course, because to me being "on the steps" is not "going into the yard". Language is a funny thing, it often doesn't mean what it says.

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.

Ah, sorry, I was mostly thinking about when he was talking with Chandler the first time with reference to him possibly being keen on saying he was there with a knife not long before. Clearly, at the inquest, he speaks more freely.

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.

Why does the door have to be against his body at all? I don't recall him saying the door was open while he worked on his boot. If it self closed, and he sat to work on his boot, wouldn't it make more sense to let the door close and then sit down? That would remove all doubt about the body being there, and would explain why he is so sure on that point. This would be something one would want to ask him if we had the chance to interview him again, which of course we don't.

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 if the police found out he borrowed the knife at work, what's he doing with a knife before work? And for him to think the police aren't going to take an interest in someone with a knife who was at the scene before the body was reported seems unlikely to me. The fact his story involves a knife just makes it too implausible to me for it to be concocted simply because of the obvious connection it creates between himself and the murder. And of course, it becomes even more implausible to me if he were guilty.

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".

Again, to me, despite offering that story, I view it as "unsatisfactory", but I have a hard time with the idea that anybody, guilty or innocent, would make up a story placing them at the crime scene with a knife prior to the body being reported. I can see an innocent person admitting to that if it were the case, but not making up such a story. The obvious repercussions just seem too obvious and too negative, and other stories are far too simple to make up if that's what you're going to do (i.e. I looked about the yard to check that everything was ok as well, and so I know the body wasn't there because I looked right at that spot. It would be as easy as that if he wanted to lie just because he's irritated. In fact, if the door did close behind him while he fixed the boot, it isn't even a lie.

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

Personally, I don't consider the estimated ToD's for any of the murders as the methods used at the time are known to be little more than guesswork. So if we think the statements are all erroneous, then the body may/may not have been there when Richardson visited, and Long saw someone else, and Cadosch heard sounds from somewhere else. The murder could have happened at any time, and we have no reason based upon evidence from this case to favour one time over another. The fact that other murders occurred earlier (discounting the sightings of Kelly in the morning hours of course) could be a result of recognizing the risk he took. Chapman is only the 2nd murder after all, and it's only a couple hours later than that of Nichols, so it's not like he's had a chance to really set up a pattern preference yet. But yes, I agree, a murder between 5:15 and 5:30 was extremely risky, but if he did just that then that tells us something about the killer and it would be something different than if the murder happened at 3:30-4:00 type thing. One might see that extreme level of risk taking being quite consistent with the risk taken by a killer who performs the double event (or even just the Eddowes's murder if you discount Stride) or the Kelly murder (being trapped indoors with no way to escape if necessary). It might be hard to believe, but many things serial murderers do are hard to believe.

Anyway, given we can't re-interview him for clarifications, it boils down to how we each interpret what he's saying. And, like so many things, there's ambiguity and we can both view the same statements and derive different meanings.

- Jeff

[FISHY1118]

There were no other murders between 4.45am-6am when it was almost daylight if Mrs Long is to be believed Chapman was killed between 5.30am-6am bringing Cadosch into the equation around the same time

The killer would have been taking an enormous risk placing himself in a confined space with a victim and lingering with the body removing the organs with the amount of people up and about at that time, and the yard overlooked by houses either side. We now know that the TOD were estimates and guesswork but the law of averages says that if you guess enough times sooner or later you guess right, and Dr Phillips only gives an estimated TOD which puts her murder in an around the time frame of the other murders.

On the question of Doctors guessing TOD they guessed right in the Eddowes murder

Another fact that has been overlooked when determining the TOD od Chapman this relates to the organ removal to which I am going to play devils advocate beacuse as most know I dont subscribe to the killer removing the organs at the crime scene from any of the victims But for those who do I refer to Dr Phillips testimony when he was asked the time it would have taken the killer to remove the uterus with the fallopian tubes still attached his reply was

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 effect 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. The whole inference seems to me that the operation was performed to enable the perpetrator to obtain possession of these parts of the body"

So this goes to confirm what I have stated above about the killer taking all the risks mentioned above and I will say again I believe Phillps estimated time of death although not precise is far more reliable that the TOD based on the testimony of Richardson Cadosch and Long

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Why do you think the organs of Nichols ''werent'' harvested at post mortem? ,where by Chapmans according to you were. Seeings how both are accepted as being killed by the same person, are we expected to believe that organ havesting only just happen to start 1 week after Nichols death ? . im curious thats all.

I might add i havent seen any reports of Nichols organs going missing after post mortem so im assuming all her parts were buried with her?

[GBinOz]

Perfectly fine. I'm more just explaining why I think what I do, rather than trying to convince others to think the same. I'm just rummaging about in the dark like everyone else really.
Ditto. It is always a pleasure to discuss alternatives with you regardless of agreement or otherwise.


Yah, the middle step probably makes the most sense, particularly given the Times says he didn't sit on the top one. While the Times summary seems a bit garbled, it's probably not got everything wrong. So, if we're trying to work out which step, choosing the middle does touch base with the Times on that as well. Maybe in Aus the phrase "in the yard" is used anytime one exits the house. When I was growing up in Canada, in the yard would mean "out and beyond the structures of the house", so "on the deck" is not "in the yard" and "on the steps" is not "in the yard". Hmmmm, I'm trying to think what being on the walkway between the house and the driveway would mean? I think I would probably say "I went out onto the walkway but not into the yard" - "into the yard" to me means on the dirt/grass area. If you're on something that's part of the house (the stairs, the deck, and maybe a set of paving stones forming a walk way), you would say you were on that, but that you did not "go into the yard". That might be idiosyncratic to where I grew up, or even just me of course. In the end it really is about what Richardson means by it. I don't see any conflict, of course, because to me being "on the steps" is not "going into the yard". Language is a funny thing, it often doesn't mean what it says.
In Australia "in the yard" would be outside the building, including steps but excluding decks and pools.


Ah, sorry, I was mostly thinking about when he was talking with Chandler the first time with reference to him possibly being keen on saying he was there with a knife not long before. Clearly, at the inquest, he speaks more freely.
I was suggesting that his excessive detail at the inquest doesn't point to him having a tendency to be economical with detail (with Chandler).


Why does the door have to be against his body at all? I don't recall him saying the door was open while he worked on his boot. If it self closed, and he sat to work on his boot, wouldn't it make more sense to let the door close and then sit down? That would remove all doubt about the body being there, and would explain why he is so sure on that point. This would be something one would want to ask him if we had the chance to interview him again, which of course we don't.
I hadn't considered that possibility It would necessitate his going into the yard to achieve and he told the coroner “[Coroner] Did you go into the yard? - No, the yard door was shut. I opened it and sat on the doorstep". He didn't say "I opened it, went down the stairs and closed the door and then sat on the doorstep". I can only add that I would not have thought of doing it that way. His expression "the yard door was shut" implies that he considered the door the boundary between the house and the yard.


But if the police found out he borrowed the knife at work, what's he doing with a knife before work? And for him to think the police aren't going to take an interest in someone with a knife who was at the scene before the body was reported seems unlikely to me. The fact his story involves a knife just makes it too implausible to me for it to be concocted simply because of the obvious connection it creates between himself and the murder. And of course, it becomes even more implausible to me if he were guilty.
I agree he would have thought that the police would have taken an interest but was he worried that they thought him to be at No29 after he was at work? I don't see him as introducing the knife into the situation, he was thinking the lender would do that so he needed an explanation for his need for the knife (other than carving up Annie).



Again, to me, despite offering that story, I view it as "unsatisfactory", but I have a hard time with the idea that anybody, guilty or innocent, would make up a story placing them at the crime scene with a knife prior to the body being reported. I can see an innocent person admitting to that if it were the case, but not making up such a story. The obvious repercussions just seem too obvious and too negative, and other stories are far too simple to make up if that's what you're going to do (i.e. I looked about the yard to check that everything was ok as well, and so I know the body wasn't there because I looked right at that spot. It would be as easy as that if he wanted to lie just because he's irritated. In fact, if the door did close behind him while he fixed the boot, it isn't even a lie.



Personally, I don't consider the estimated ToD's for any of the murders as the methods used at the time are known to be little more than guesswork. So if we think the statements are all erroneous, then the body may/may not have been there when Richardson visited, and Long saw someone else, and Cadosch heard sounds from somewhere else. The murder could have happened at any time, and we have no reason based upon evidence from this case to favour one time over another. The fact that other murders occurred earlier (discounting the sightings of Kelly in the morning hours of course) could be a result of recognizing the risk he took. Chapman is only the 2nd murder after all, and it's only a couple hours later than that of Nichols, so it's not like he's had a chance to really set up a pattern preference yet. But yes, I agree, a murder between 5:15 and 5:30 was extremely risky, but if he did just that then that tells us something about the killer and it would be something different than if the murder happened at 3:30-4:00 type thing. One might see that extreme level of risk taking being quite consistent with the risk taken by a killer who performs the double event (or even just the Eddowes's murder if you discount Stride) or the Kelly murder (being trapped indoors with no way to escape if necessary). It might be hard to believe, but many things serial murderers do are hard to believe.
I wasn't trying to establish the accuracy of TOD's, or suggest the establishment of time patterns. I was pointing out that JtR liked the cover of darkness, and after 5:30am that cover had disappeared.

Anyway, given we can't re-interview him for clarifications, it boils down to how we each interpret what he's saying. And, like so many things, there's ambiguity and we can both view the same statements and derive different meanings.

- Jeff

I see the purpose of these forums as the discovery of others interpretations and their derivation of different meanings. Otherwise, why are we here?

Best regards, George

[Trevor Marriott]

Why do you think the organs of Nichols ''werent'' harvested at post mortem? ,where by Chapmans according to you were. Seeings how both are accepted as being killed by the same person, are we expected to believe that organ havesting only just happen to start 1 week after Nichols death ? . im curious thats all.

I might add i havent seen any reports of Nichols organs going missing after post mortem so im assuming all her parts were buried with her?

Yuu have rasied an important question not just with Nicholls but Tabram, Stride, Mckenzie and Coles

If you look at the victims that allegedly had organs taken, Eddowes, Chapman, were the only two victims who had their abdomens opened by the killer in such a way and with such severity to allow the organs to be removed un-noticed before the post mortems. With Nicholls, Stride,Mckenzie,Tabram and Coles all of their abdominal wounds were less severe.

The organs were removed from Chapman and Eddowes at the mortuary before the post mortems, and when the organs were found to be missing at that time it was naturally assumed that the killer had removed them. Not forgetting their bodies were left for 12 hours at the mortuaries before the doctors came back to carry out the post mortems.

And not forgetting the illegal trade in bodies, and body parts especially female body parts, alonh with the activites of body dealers in Victoriam times.

I am surprised that over the years this hasnt been flagged up because one of the motives put forward for the murders was organ harvesting yet we have 8 potential victims all down to the same killer with only two missing organs and the only two with severe injuries as stated above

Now I know that those who believe the killer took the organs will say that he didnt have time because he was disturbned etc that in my opinion is a cop out and an excuse used to prop up the old theory that the kiler took the organs.

Hope this helps

www.trevormarriott.co.u

[FISHY1118]

Yuu have rasied an important question not just with Nicholls but Tabram, Stride, Mckenzie and Coles

If you look at the victims that allegedly had organs taken, Eddowes, Chapman, were the only two victims who had their abdomens opened by the killer in such a way and with such severity to allow the organs to be removed un-noticed before the post mortems. With Nicholls, Stride,Mckenzie,Tabram and Coles all of their abdominal wounds were less severe.

The organs were removed from Chapman and Eddowes at the mortuary before the post mortems, and when the organs were found to be missing at that time it was naturally assumed that the killer had removed them. Not forgetting their bodies were left for 12 hours at the mortuaries before the doctors came back to carry out the post mortems.

I am surprised that over the years this hasnt been flagged up because one of the motives put forward for the murders was organ harvesting yet we have 8 potential victims all down to the same killer with only two missing organs and the only two with severe injuries as stated above

Now I know that those who believe the killer took the organs will say that he didnt have time because he was disturbned etc that in my opinion is a cop out and an excuse used to prop up the old theory that the kiler took the organs.

Hope this helps

www.trevormarriott.co.u

Ok so my first point would be that i dont subscribe toTabram , Mckenzie or Cole bing Ripper victims, im not alone there . So back to Nichols, i dont see why her organs couldnt have been removed from the mortuary the same as Eddowes or Chapman , the extent of her stomach wounds werent known completley at the the murder scene, so there wouldnt have been any problem removing her organs ? Yet they were not . Then theres a little matter of Kelly isnt there ?

Just on Nichols ''less severe'' is being generous, if someone wanted to remove her organs at the morge they would have had a pretty good head start. Granted not as much as the other two, but the description of her injuries suggest more likely than not if one wished too.

[Trevor Marriott]

Ok so my first point would be that i dont subscribe toTabram , Mckenzie or Cole bing Ripper victims, im not alone there . So back to Nichols, i dont see why her organs couldnt have been removed from the mortuary the same as Eddowes or Chapman , the extent of her stomach wounds werent known completley at the the murder scene, so there wouldnt have been any problem removing her organs ? Yet they were not . Then theres a little matter of Kelly isnt there ?

Just on Nichols ''less severe'' is being generous, if someone wanted to remove her organs at the morge they would have had a pretty good head start. Granted not as much as the other two, but the description of her injuries suggest more likely than not if one wished too.

In the grand scheme of things you cannot dismiss McKenzie or Coles because their murders are in line with the murders of the earlier victims

Nichols abdominal wounds were only discovered at the mortuary after the body had been taken there from the crime scene. Dr Llewelyn saw the extent of the injuries at that time. So when he came to do the post mortem later he would have noticed any change to her abdominal wounds at that time. So that is why no organs were removed from her.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FISHY1118]

In the grand scheme of things you cannot dismiss McKenzie or Coles because their murders are in line with the murders of the earlier victims

Nichols abdominal wounds were only discovered at the mortuary after the body had been taken there from the crime scene. Dr Llewelyn saw the extent of the injuries at that time. So when he came to do the post mortem later he would have noticed any change to her abdominal wounds at that time. So that is why no organs were removed from her.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I Believe DR Lewelllyn turned up over an hour later when Nichols had been at the morge, more than enough time to for someone to extract her organs. He would not have known if they were removed befor the first examination at bucks row or from the time she was at the morge.

[Trevor Marriott]

I Believe DR Lewelllyn turned up over an hour later when Nichols had been at the morge, more than enough time to for someone to extract her organs. He would not have known if they were removed befor the first examination at bucks row or from the time she was at the morge.

The police conveyed and stayed with the body until the doctor arrived, and he then saw the extent of the injuries and then went back later in the morning to carry out the post mortem. So if the body had been tampered with in between those times he would have noticed

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FISHY1118]

The police conveyed and stayed with the body until the doctor arrived, and he then saw the extent of the injuries and then went back later in the morning to carry out the post mortem. So if the body had been tampered with in between those times he would have noticed

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Im guessing no such order was given regarding chapman and then eddowes huh ?...... how convenient.

[Trevor Marriott]

Im guessing no such order was given regarding chapman and then eddowes huh ?...... how convenient.

In the case of Eddowes the police conveyed the body to the mortuary accompanied by Dr Brown the body was stripped but no medical examination took place at that time that took place 12 hours later.

In the case of Chapman the body was conveyed to the mortuary by the police and the doctor came back some 12 hours later to carry out the post mortem.
I have stated previoulsy that two differnet methods of extraction of the uteri were carried out, two different mortuaries figured in all of this, that to me shows two differnet persons extarcted the organs.

It is well documented of the body dealers and their activites, and there involvemnt with mortuary keepers in securing body parts.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GBinOz]

In the grand scheme of things you cannot dismiss McKenzie or Coles because their murders are in line with the murders of the earlier victims
www.trevormarriott.co.uk

If McKenzie and Coles are dismissed as JtR victims, then consistency demands that Stride also be dismissed.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

What time was sunrise in 1888?