Lechmere versus Richardson.

[Herlock Sholmes]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;n782341]

[SIZE=16px]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.

[/IMG2]

So Phillips estimates around 15 minutes. You yourself narrow it down. Cadosch hears a sound just before 5.30. So you have just over 15 minutes and as we all know that timings are difficult to tie down accurately at that time and in that area it can be no stretch to suggest that this ‘gap’ might have been 20 minutes or more. Therefore it’s not impossible as you’ve stated.

[Trevor Marriott]

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

In the case of the murder victims that is correct

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;n782344]

So Phillips estimates around 15 minutes. You yourself narrow it down. Cadosch hears a sound just before 5.30. So you have just over 15 minutes and as we all know that timings are difficult to tie down accurately at that time and in that area it can be no stretch to suggest that this ‘gap’ might have been 20 minutes or more. Therefore it’s not impossible as you’ve stated.

At a time when its getting light and people are moving about, would the killer want to be in a confied space for any length of time and risk detection? I think no is the answer you should be considering

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

[QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;n782344]

So Phillips estimates around 15 minutes. You yourself narrow it down. Cadosch hears a sound just before 5.30. So you have just over 15 minutes and as we all know that timings are difficult to tie down accurately at that time and in that area it can be no stretch to suggest that this ‘gap’ might have been 20 minutes or more. Therefore it’s not impossible as you’ve stated.

Phillips estimate of 15 minutes required for the Chapman murder is clearly an overestimation given what we eventually learn from the Eddowes case where there is far less than 15 minutes available and yet the extent of the mutilations are no less severe. Looking at the Eddowes inquest testimony we can see how the estimations for the time required at the Eddowes case shrink to between 3-5 minutes (different doctors give different opinions) as the beat time of PC Watkins in that case provide a limit to the time window. Of course that information wasn't available to Dr. Phillips at the time of the Chapman inquest but we know it and it shows that 15 minutes is clearly an over estimation in this case and somewhere in the 3-5 minutes is probably more realistic.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;n782348]

At a time when its getting light and people are moving about, would the killer want to be in a confied space for any length of time and risk detection? I think no is the answer you should be considering

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But we can’t know how the killer thought. If he had a desperate urge to kill, and considering he was only expecting to be there 5 minutes or so, he might have thought it a reasonable risk. We also have to remember that the killer had knife which introduces the possibility that he might have resorted to killing anyone that disturbed him.

We also have to remember that the yard had an outside loo which meant that anyone could have come into that yard at any time yet Annie was still murdered there.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Hi Abby,

Apologies for not responding to your post

Cheers

[FISHY1118]

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

So what your really saying is you have absolutly no way and no idea of knowing if the killer did infact remove the organs of two different women in two different ways ? . The fact that no one does ,makes your theory just that, a theory ..... not fact .

Then theres the matter of Mary Jane Kelllys organs isnt there ? . Where by not one medical source is quoted as saying there was no ''anatomical knowledge'' shown when removing here organs . Conclusion .... the killer could have removed her organs anyway he chosed to [quickly ,slowly one way or another] to suit his desire , given all the time he had with her body.

[GBinOz]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;n782348]

At a time when its getting light and people are moving about, would the killer want to be in a confied space for any length of time and risk detection? I think no is the answer you should be considering

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It was more than "getting light", it was after sunrise. Not only were people moving around and getting ready to go to work, the yard was overlooked by many buildings contain dozens of potential witnesses.

As usual, we have a dichotomy of evidence. The coroner favoured the witnesses and discounted Phillip's TOD estimate based on his comment regarding the effect of the cold morning on the body temperature. The police favoured the doctor's TOD and considered the witnesses unreliable.

Phillip's Testimony regarding Chapman was:
On Saturday last I was called by the police at 6.20 a.m. to 29, Hanbury-street, and arrived at half-past six.
The body was cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat, under the intestines, in the body. Stiffness of the limbs was not marked, but it was commencing.
[Coroner] Was the whole of the body there? - No; the absent portions being from the abdomen.
[Coroner] You do not think they could have been lost accidentally in the transit of the body to the mortuary? - I was not present at the transit. I carefully closed up the clothes of the woman. Some portions had been excised.
[Coroner] How long had the deceased been dead when you saw her? - I should say at least two hours, and probably more; but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood.

Brown's testimony regarding Eddowes was:
I was called shortly after two o'clock on Sunday morning, and reached the place of the murder about twenty minutes past two.
The body had been mutilated, and was quite warm - no rigor mortis. The crime must have been committed within half an hour, or certainly within forty minutes from the time when I saw the body.

I think it would be agreed that Eddowes mutilations were at least as extensive as those of Chapman, and that Brown was very close to the correct TOD. Minimum temperatures in Whitechapel on those days were 47.4F for Chapman and 44.7F for Eddowes.

Rigor normally commences 2-6 hours after death and is delayed by cold temperature. Rigor had commenced in Chapman but not in Eddowes. Chapman was cold, Eddowes was warm. The coroner (a solicitor, not a doctor) concluded that Chapman was killed and hour before Phillips first saw the body. We know that Eddowes was killed about 40-45 minutes before Brown saw the body and he estimated within 40 minutes.

I believe that the coroner exceeded his knowledge base when he deferred to witness statements not believed by police to overrule Phillip's estimated TOD. I don't believe the murderer was desperate enough for a kill to risk doing it in daylight before a potential audience, something he never did before or after.

Cheers, George

[JeffHamm]

[QUOTE=GBinOz;n782355]

It was more than "getting light", it was after sunrise. Not only were people moving around and getting ready to go to work, the yard was overlooked by many buildings contain dozens of potential witnesses.

As usual, we have a dichotomy of evidence. The coroner favoured the witnesses and discounted Phillip's TOD estimate based on his comment regarding the effect of the cold morning on the body temperature. The police favoured the doctor's TOD and considered the witnesses unreliable.

Phillip's Testimony regarding Chapman was:
On Saturday last I was called by the police at 6.20 a.m. to 29, Hanbury-street, and arrived at half-past six.
The body was cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat, under the intestines, in the body. Stiffness of the limbs was not marked, but it was commencing.
[Coroner] Was the whole of the body there? - No; the absent portions being from the abdomen.
[Coroner] You do not think they could have been lost accidentally in the transit of the body to the mortuary? - I was not present at the transit. I carefully closed up the clothes of the woman. Some portions had been excised.
[Coroner] How long had the deceased been dead when you saw her? - I should say at least two hours, and probably more; but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood.

Brown's testimony regarding Eddowes was:
I was called shortly after two o'clock on Sunday morning, and reached the place of the murder about twenty minutes past two.
The body had been mutilated, and was quite warm - no rigor mortis. The crime must have been committed within half an hour, or certainly within forty minutes from the time when I saw the body.

I think it would be agreed that Eddowes mutilations were at least as extensive as those of Chapman, and that Brown was very close to the correct TOD. Minimum temperatures in Whitechapel on those days were 47.4F for Chapman and 44.7F for Eddowes.

Rigor normally commences 2-6 hours after death and is delayed by cold temperature. Rigor had commenced in Chapman but not in Eddowes. Chapman was cold, Eddowes was warm. The coroner (a solicitor, not a doctor) concluded that Chapman was killed and hour before Phillips first saw the body. We know that Eddowes was killed about 40-45 minutes before Brown saw the body and he estimated within 40 minutes.

I believe that the coroner exceeded his knowledge base when he deferred to witness statements not believed by police to overrule Phillip's estimated TOD. I don't believe the murderer was desperate enough for a kill to risk doing it in daylight before a potential audience, something he never did before or after.

Cheers, George

Hi George,

While rigor normally starts 2-6 hours after death, there are a lot of factors that speed it up and slow it down. Cold slows it down, but violent deaths speed it up, with throat cutting often mentioned in this category. Weak musculature tends to onset faster, and physical exertion prior to death as well (i.e. if she's been strangled, she's probably had at least a brief period of fighting back so her arms would have met that criterion of intense physical exertion). It's also highly variable from case to case (so it's hard to compare Chapman with Eddowes, for example). Also we don't know at what time during the examination of the body at the scene rigor was checked. The doctor reports a fair bit of scene examination details, and it would seem probable this was done before he touched the body at all. Of course, the more time the doctor spent visually examining the scene and the body and how things are laid out, the more time that passes since she was killed. A while ago I had looked into some studies on the progression of rigor, and the short version was that the noting of rigor onset in the Chapman case is not sufficient to differentiate between the options under consideration. It was also noted that it was a cool morning, and there is something called "cold shortening", where the muscles stiffen when it is chilled (below 15C in beef apparently). As such, the noted stiffness might not have been rigor but reflective of cold shortening. I'm trying to find out more about this phenomenon in humans, though. So far I've only found reference to it with regards to the meat industry and slaughtering processes.

As for ToD based upon body temperature, it was noted that with Chapman there was warmth internally, at least underneath the intestines. Her surface body temperature could be lower, in part due to the fact Chapman appears to have been outside all night while Eddowes had been inside up until about 45 minutes before being found dead. While there are some clear conflicts in the witness statements (Long reports seeing Chapman after the time Cadoche reports hearing sounds), we can't view those times as carved in stone. Long sets her time by the chimes of the brewery clock, and it seems entirely possible to me that she's mis-remembered hearing the 5:15 chime as being the 5:30 chime. Basically, the eye witness testimony isn't so flawed that it can be discounted easily but it shouldn't be viewed as gospel either.

In the end, we have error prone and unreliable estimates of the ToD from the doctor and error prone and unreliable evidence from the eye witnesses. While the stated times conflict, given the variability associated with rigor (I don't even consider the "body temperature by touch" information), a time of death in the 5:20-5:30 range can account for the noting of the onset of rigor and would fit with the general gist of the eye-witnesses. That doesn't mean it has to be true, of course, but given the information we have to work with, it doesn't require a whole sale throwing out of any of the data. But, for those who are convinced the eye-witnesses are completely wrong, then I can see how it would make sense to suggest the 4 hour time window starting 2 hours prior to the time the doctor checked for rigor; provided it was actually rigor and not stiffness due to something like cold shortening of course.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

[QUOTE=JeffHamm;n782356]

Hi George,

While rigor normally starts 2-6 hours after death, there are a lot of factors that speed it up and slow it down. Cold slows it down, but violent deaths speed it up, with throat cutting often mentioned in this category. Weak musculature tends to onset faster, and physical exertion prior to death as well (i.e. if she's been strangled, she's probably had at least a brief period of fighting back so her arms would have met that criterion of intense physical exertion). It's also highly variable from case to case (so it's hard to compare Chapman with Eddowes, for example). Also we don't know at what time during the examination of the body at the scene rigor was checked. The doctor reports a fair bit of scene examination details, and it would seem probable this was done before he touched the body at all. Of course, the more time the doctor spent visually examining the scene and the body and how things are laid out, the more time that passes since she was killed. A while ago I had looked into some studies on the progression of rigor, and the short version was that the noting of rigor onset in the Chapman case is not sufficient to differentiate between the options under consideration. It was also noted that it was a cool morning, and there is something called "cold shortening", where the muscles stiffen when it is chilled (below 15C in beef apparently). As such, the noted stiffness might not have been rigor but reflective of cold shortening. I'm trying to find out more about this phenomenon in humans, though. So far I've only found reference to it with regards to the meat industry and slaughtering processes.

As for ToD based upon body temperature, it was noted that with Chapman there was warmth internally, at least underneath the intestines. Her surface body temperature could be lower, in part due to the fact Chapman appears to have been outside all night while Eddowes had been inside up until about 45 minutes before being found dead. While there are some clear conflicts in the witness statements (Long reports seeing Chapman after the time Cadoche reports hearing sounds), we can't view those times as carved in stone. Long sets her time by the chimes of the brewery clock, and it seems entirely possible to me that she's mis-remembered hearing the 5:15 chime as being the 5:30 chime. Basically, the eye witness testimony isn't so flawed that it can be discounted easily but it shouldn't be viewed as gospel either.

In the end, we have error prone and unreliable estimates of the ToD from the doctor and error prone and unreliable evidence from the eye witnesses. While the stated times conflict, given the variability associated with rigor (I don't even consider the "body temperature by touch" information), a time of death in the 5:20-5:30 range can account for the noting of the onset of rigor and would fit with the general gist of the eye-witnesses. That doesn't mean it has to be true, of course, but given the information we have to work with, it doesn't require a whole sale throwing out of any of the data. But, for those who are convinced the eye-witnesses are completely wrong, then I can see how it would make sense to suggest the 4 hour time window starting 2 hours prior to the time the doctor checked for rigor; provided it was actually rigor and not stiffness due to something like cold shortening of course.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

I accept that there are factors that would affect the rigor and Glaister calculations, and that medical estimates of that period are now considered guesswork. However, looking at the murders where we know the approximate time of death, Nichols, Stride and Eddowes, the doctor's estimates of time since death are not that inaccurate. With Chapman we are asked to accept that Phillip's, who was experienced in the task, estimate of time since death is erroneous by 100% or more.

With the witnesses, Richardson's changes of story persuade me to accept his original statement to Chandler. With Long, she was walking along the street as she did on any other day but claims to have particularly noticed one couple, neither of whom she knew, from all the couples whom she said were on the street at the time. I don't buy it.

With Cadosch, if the murder process was the source of the cry of "no" and of something falling against the fence, it must be accepted that the killer would have heard Cadosch entering and leaving the yard, and persevered with his task with a potential witness only feet away in daylight separated only by a low fence...TWICE. If he did persevere he then had to negotiate the streets on market day in daylight with blood at least on his hands. Why didn't he wash them in the bowl of water left undisturbed in the yard. He must have seen it in the light available ten or more minutes after sunrise? Or was he there earlier, in the dark?

The police, including Swanson, found the evidence of the three witnesses to be doubtful, and I agree. I think that the coroner did Phillips and Chandler and injustice in his dismissal of their evidence. But once again, just my opinion.

Best regards, George

[Trevor Marriott]

So what your really saying is you have absolutly no way and no idea of knowing if the killer did infact remove the organs of two different women in two different ways ? . The fact that no one does ,makes your theory just that, a theory ..... not fact .

Then theres the matter of Mary Jane Kelllys organs isnt there ? . Where by not one medical source is quoted as saying there was no ''anatomical knowledge'' shown when removing here organs . Conclusion .... the killer could have removed her organs anyway he chosed to [quickly ,slowly one way or another] to suit his desire , given all the time he had with her body.

You need to read and digest the posts correctly the organs of Chapman and Eddowes were taken to two different mortuaries, their organs were removed using two different methods of extraction.

What is the liklehood of the killer having enough anatomical knowledge to have been able to do that, and why if the killer had taken a uterus from Chapman did he take another fron Eddowes. and why no attempt to take orgams from any other victim?

As to kelly there was no anatomical knowledge shown in butchering her body so if she was a victim of the same killer of Chapman and eddowes and you and others still want to prop up the theory that the killer removed the organs, There is something sadly amiss because the murders of Chapman and Eddowes are different from Kelly. To the point that you have to say that either the killer did not remove the organs from Chapman and Eddowes or Kelly was not killed by the same killer

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=GBinOz;n782355]

It was more than "getting light", it was after sunrise. Not only were people moving around and getting ready to go to work, the yard was overlooked by many buildings contain dozens of potential witnesses.

As usual, we have a dichotomy of evidence. The coroner favoured the witnesses and discounted Phillip's TOD estimate based on his comment regarding the effect of the cold morning on the body temperature. The police favoured the doctor's TOD and considered the witnesses unreliable.

Phillip's Testimony regarding Chapman was:
On Saturday last I was called by the police at 6.20 a.m. to 29, Hanbury-street, and arrived at half-past six.
The body was cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat, under the intestines, in the body. Stiffness of the limbs was not marked, but it was commencing.
[Coroner] Was the whole of the body there? - No; the absent portions being from the abdomen.
[Coroner] You do not think they could have been lost accidentally in the transit of the body to the mortuary? - I was not present at the transit. I carefully closed up the clothes of the woman. Some portions had been excised.
[Coroner] How long had the deceased been dead when you saw her? - I should say at least two hours, and probably more; but it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood.

Brown's testimony regarding Eddowes was:
I was called shortly after two o'clock on Sunday morning, and reached the place of the murder about twenty minutes past two.
The body had been mutilated, and was quite warm - no rigor mortis. The crime must have been committed within half an hour, or certainly within forty minutes from the time when I saw the body.

I think it would be agreed that Eddowes mutilations were at least as extensive as those of Chapman, and that Brown was very close to the correct TOD. Minimum temperatures in Whitechapel on those days were 47.4F for Chapman and 44.7F for Eddowes.

Rigor normally commences 2-6 hours after death and is delayed by cold temperature. Rigor had commenced in Chapman but not in Eddowes. Chapman was cold, Eddowes was warm. The coroner (a solicitor, not a doctor) concluded that Chapman was killed and hour before Phillips first saw the body. We know that Eddowes was killed about 40-45 minutes before Brown saw the body and he estimated within 40 minutes.

I believe that the coroner exceeded his knowledge base when he deferred to witness statements not believed by police to overrule Phillip's estimated TOD. I don't believe the murderer was desperate enough for a kill to risk doing it in daylight before a potential audience, something he never did before or after.

Cheers, George

I totally agree

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;n782351]

But we can’t know how the killer thought. If he had a desperate urge to kill, and considering he was only expecting to be there 5 minutes or so, he might have thought it a reasonable risk. We also have to remember that the killer had knife which introduces the possibility that he might have resorted to killing anyone that disturbed him..

You are right but you have to look at the times of the other murders. None were committed as late as Chapmans

If as you say the killer had a desperate urge to kill he surely had all night to trawl the streets looking for a potenatial victim and I am sure there were many to be found.

We also have to remember that the yard had an outside loo which meant that anyone could have come into that yard at any time yet Annie was still murdered there.

Yes but if the murder took place as Phillips TOD suggests how many people would have likley used the loo at that time of the morning

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

The problem for me, and you can call me cynical, is that when talking about the accuracy of TOD estimations with the other victims then isn’t it possible that the doctor was aware of the circumstances of the discovery of the body? Therefore with Nichols for he example he might have know that Neill had passed down Bucks Row at 3.15 and that the body wasn’t there then? Ditto the officers in Mitre Square and Eagle entering Dutfield’s Yard. Pretty good pointers?

[Herlock Sholmes]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;n782360]

Yes but if the murder took place as Phillips TOD suggests how many people would have likley used the loo at that time of the morning

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

People use the loo at any time Trevor.