Lechmere versus Richardson.

[Trevor Marriott]

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?

Pointers to what ? it is accepted that the doctors TOD were reliant on guesswork but as has been stated by another poster with Eddowes the time of death can be accurately calculated because we know of her movements before her death.

Nichols time of death from the doctor as being 30 mins before his examination is questionable and that time of death is reliant for corroboaration from Pc Neil who may not have been totally forthright with regards to his movements.

As i have stated in the murder of Chapman you can drive a bus throrugh the holes in those witnesses and their testimony. So who do you put youre money on the doctor or the witnesses?

The old accepted theories in this ripper mysterty are now teetering on the brink

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;n782362]

People use the loo at any time Trevor.

Yes but the likelihood of anyone using the loo in the middle of the night is far more remote compared to first thing in the morning when people wake up before going off to work

But if murder and mutilation were the sole motive how long would it have taken the killer to carry that, out a matter of minutes, no need for the killer to spend 15 minutes or more with the victim trying to remove organs in daylight.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Without wishing for a re-run of the Chapman TOD debate we still have to dismiss 3 witnesses for Phillips TOD to have been correct. Of course, one of those witnesses is out of sync with the other 2 but there are still 3 people whose evidence points to Chapman still being alive after 5.

How often would we see this? In under an hour we get a man either lying or being mistaken about hearing movement in the yard where the murder took place. A man claiming that he couldn’t possibly have missed a body in that yard had it been there who lied or was mistaken about missing an horrifically mutilated corpse around a foot or so from his feet and a woman who was either mistaken or lied about seeing the victim alive, near the doorway talking to a man, at 5.30. A convergence of 3 mistaken or lying witnesses? And if we bring in our old friend the margin for error on timing then the three witnesses could tie up. Certainly not impossible of course but can we be certain enough to dismiss them on two points. 1) A TOD estimate - when experts tell us how close to guesswork these were, and 2) because it appears to us to have been too risky a time to commit a murder?

We don’t know how the killer thought or events of that day. Maybe there was a reason that he couldn’t kill earlier? Maybe he felt that 5 minutes or so in a back yard was a reasonable risk to take? If it was getting light how can we know that the area close to the house wasn’t in shade giving him a level of confidence? How do we know that he didn’t consider killing anyone that ‘might’ have disturbed him?

I still favour the witnesses on this occasion.

[FISHY1118]

Pointers to what ? it is accepted that the doctors TOD were reliant on guesswork but as has been stated by another poster with Eddowes the time of death can be accurately calculated because we know of her movements before her death.

Nichols time of death from the doctor as being 30 mins before his examination is questionable and that time of death is reliant for corroboaration from Pc Neil who may not have been totally forthright with regards to his movements.

As i have stated in the murder of Chapman you can drive a bus throrugh the holes in those witnesses and their testimony. So who do you put youre money on the doctor or the witnesses?

The old accepted theories in this ripper mysterty are now teetering on the brink

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Only in your mind..... , the accepted theory is just that, "ACCEPTED"

[FISHY1118]

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

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Again , show me who said there was no anatomical knowledge with kellys organs being removed. So far its just you.

[Kattrup]

I still favour the witnesses on this occasion.

As did the coroner, and Swanson certainly hinted at considerable doubt about the doctor's TOD.

[JeffHamm]

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?

Hi Herlock,

I think this is a good point to keep in mind. It seems likely that the doctors would be aware of the beat times, and so they would be determining if the body condition, as they measured it at the time, was consistent with a ToD during that interval. In Chapman's case, there was no such times so the guess is based solely on the measures rather than comparing it with an apparent time interval for consistency. No doubt, if in the other cases they felt the ToD was in their opinion inconsistent with that interval they would have said so, but having a specific time interval to work with changes the nature of an assessment, intentionally or not. This is one of the reasons I just set those estimates aside in all of the cases, we know they are based upon unreliable techniques, and the ones that appear to be accurate have a very good chance of simply being judged as in agreement with the apparent time based upon patrols, etc.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

[QUOTE=GBinOz;n782357]

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.

In my opinion, it's likely the doctors were aware of the patrol times and so their assessment will be one of determining if that time is consistent with the medical information. With Chapman, there isn't that information and the unreliability of the techniques is in full force. Even today, taking proper measurements (internal body temperatures with thermometers, etc), is not reliable enough to make the call.

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.

As you know, I don't see the same problems with Richardson's testimonies, and see the addition of details as simply what happens as people are questioned multiple times about the same event - more details come out.

Long's testimony could be erroneous, but she did identify Chapman at the morgue as the woman she saw. That could be wrong too, of course, particularly if she only was shown Chapman and just asked if this was the woman she saw. She might have said "Yes" to anyone after all. However, it is still an identification of the victim being the woman she saw, and that shouldn't be entirely ignored without care.

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

We could, of course, turn that all around. If the killer was willing to murder in daylight, might he not also be willing to continue despite someone having just gone back inside? Cadoche doesn't say "No" was cried out, only that he could make out one word, which was "no". There's no indication in his testimony it was said in any kind of distress, and may just have been part of some conversation they were having (perhaps discussing business, or whatever). Her killer would have waited to begin his attack until after Cadoche went back inside, thinking then he had all the time he needed but then Cadoche returned a few minutes later. If, as in the Eddowes case, he only needs 5 minutes, then he may have had that amount of time between Cadoche's visits (presuming the bump on the fence was the killer moving about and not the putting of her body to the ground). That would mean that at the point of Cadoche's return he was already committed, and depending upon how far along he was, he may have left when Cadoche went into the loo (hence no washing of hands in the water). We don't know, of course, and certainly other possibilities exist so I'm not saying this is what happened, only that we can't be sure it didn't either. For example, he may only have just strangled her and the bump was the laying down of the body, he waits until Cadoche goes back inside, and then spends 5 minutes mutilating her. As you say, if he's willing to murder in daylight, then aren't we talking about someone with really poor risk assessment, at least during this murder? Might that be consistent with someone willing to commit two murders on the same night (presuming Stride is a JtR victim of course) or someone willing to kill in the open street (Nichols), or murder after being seen in Kelly's company (Blotchy, or Astrakhan man) or maybe Eddowes (Church Passage Man) or Stride (a fair number of possible sightings - and very risky if Schwartz saw him attacking Stride)? I'm not sure Chapman's murder can be set to be at night simply because daylight is risky. It looks to me that JtR took huge risks at virtually all of the crimes, and so to me his assessment of the risks seems very unlike how you and I would see things.

But again, that's just how I see things, and obviously I can't (and am not) saying you're view is impossible or wrong. It's just different from mine. Between the two us, we're bound to get something right though!

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

As did the coroner, and Swanson certainly hinted at considerable doubt about the doctor's TOD.

But the later time of death is more problematic because of the time the killer would have needed to carry out the murder and the mutilations and giveb the people moving about and the likelihood of being discovered even greater !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Again , show me who said there was no anatomical knowledge with kellys organs being removed. So far its just you.

In Dr Browns report to Anderson he states

“In each case the mutilation was inflicted by a person who had no scientific or anatomical knowledge. In my opinion he does not even possess the technical knowledge of a butcher or horse slaughterer or any person accustomed to cut up dead animals.

So that being said do you still believe the killer removed the organs at the crime scene

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GBinOz]

[QUOTE=JeffHamm;n782370]

In my opinion, it's likely the doctors were aware of the patrol times and so their assessment will be one of determining if that time is consistent with the medical information. With Chapman, there isn't that information and the unreliability of the techniques is in full force. Even today, taking proper measurements (internal body temperatures with thermometers, etc), is not reliable enough to make the call.
Are you suggesting a type of medical insider trading? Unreliable as their techniques may have been, their estimates were not wildly off the mark.

Long's testimony could be erroneous, but she did identify Chapman at the morgue as the woman she saw. That could be wrong too, of course, particularly if she only was shown Chapman and just asked if this was the woman she saw. She might have said "Yes" to anyone after all. However, it is still an identification of the victim being the woman she saw, and that shouldn't be entirely ignored without care.
That would be my suggestion.

As you say, if he's willing to murder in daylight, then aren't we talking about someone with really poor risk assessment, at least during this murder? Might that be consistent with someone willing to commit two murders on the same night (presuming Stride is a JtR victim of course) or someone willing to kill in the open street (Nichols), or murder after being seen in Kelly's company (Blotchy, or Astrakhan man) or maybe Eddowes (Church Passage Man) or Stride (a fair number of possible sightings - and very risky if Schwartz saw him attacking Stride)? I'm not sure Chapman's murder can be set to be at night simply because daylight is risky. It looks to me that JtR took huge risks at virtually all of the crimes, and so to me his assessment of the risks seems very unlike how you and I would see things.
I agree that risk assessment is a major part of our considerations. I have difficulty accepting that someone with really poor risk assessment could have escaped detection to the degree that the police admitted that no one ever saw him other than possibly one unnamed police officer.

But again, that's just how I see things, and obviously I can't (and am not) saying you're view is impossible or wrong. It's just different from mine. Between the two us, we're bound to get something right though!

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

I am gratified when a poster of your calibre challenges my assessment of the evidence as it forces me to re-examine my evidence trail and my logical progressions. Whether, as a consequence, I change my opinion is neither here nor there.

Best regards, George

[Abby Normal]

Without wishing for a re-run of the Chapman TOD debate we still have to dismiss 3 witnesses for Phillips TOD to have been correct. Of course, one of those witnesses is out of sync with the other 2 but there are still 3 people whose evidence points to Chapman still being alive after 5.

How often would we see this? In under an hour we get a man either lying or being mistaken about hearing movement in the yard where the murder took place. A man claiming that he couldn’t possibly have missed a body in that yard had it been there who lied or was mistaken about missing an horrifically mutilated corpse around a foot or so from his feet and a woman who was either mistaken or lied about seeing the victim alive, near the doorway talking to a man, at 5.30. A convergence of 3 mistaken or lying witnesses? And if we bring in our old friend the margin for error on timing then the three witnesses could tie up. Certainly not impossible of course but can we be certain enough to dismiss them on two points. 1) A TOD estimate - when experts tell us how close to guesswork these were, and 2) because it appears to us to have been too risky a time to commit a murder?

We don’t know how the killer thought or events of that day. Maybe there was a reason that he couldn’t kill earlier? Maybe he felt that 5 minutes or so in a back yard was a reasonable risk to take? If it was getting light how can we know that the area close to the house wasn’t in shade giving him a level of confidence? How do we know that he didn’t consider killing anyone that ‘might’ have disturbed him?

I still favour the witnesses on this occasion.

hi Herlock
totally agree. If we only had say one witness then IMHO it would be more questionable-but three? Nah-chapman was more than likely killed around the 5:30 time frame.

[GBinOz]

In Dr Browns report to Anderson he states

“In each case the mutilation was inflicted by a person who had no scientific or anatomical knowledge. In my opinion he does not even possess the technical knowledge of a butcher or horse slaughterer or any person accustomed to cut up dead animals.

So that being said do you still believe the killer removed the organs at the crime scene

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

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.

[GBinOz]

hi Herlock
totally agree. If we only had say one witness then IMHO it would be more questionable-but three? Nah-chapman was more than likely killed around the 5:30 time frame.

Three unreliable witnesses doth not a summer make!

[Aethelwulf]

hi Herlock
totally agree. If we only had say one witness then IMHO it would be more questionable-but three? Nah-chapman was more than likely killed around the 5:30 time frame.

I agree. But don't you suspect Lech - how does the ~5.30 ToD fit in? I find it hugely unlikely he would have stopped off and left his cart of valuable goods parked up whilst he went off looking for a victim