Lechmere versus Richardson.

[JeffHamm]

"And, while extremely rare, there is one case (not comparable to Chapman though) reported where rigor set in within the first minute or two after death, to the point the medical team could not perform chess compressions!" Is that anything like the Sicilian Defence?

Best regards, George

ha ha! Typos, gotta love 'em.

But yes, I suppose the exiting into daylight is similar for Hanbury Street. I had mentioned it because I thought that was your argument against 5:30 for that murder, but I see as a result now we're both being a bit inconsistent on that, just swapping which murder we think it's problematic for. Giving it a bit of thought after you've pointed that out, perhaps that's not such a good argument against a morning murder for Kelly. And also, I suppose it could be spun the other way, the reason he's not noticed is because by that time the streets are more busy and one more person on the street doesn't get noticed, while earlier, with fewer people around, each person becomes more apparent. Hide his hands, close his coat, and he could move on without blood showing presumably (from either location) and not really be noticed by anyone - invisible while in plain sight.

I think the "not Kelly" idea is a left over from old conspiracy theories involving the royals. Some ideas linger, but really, there's no real evidence that the women murdered was anybody other than the same woman Barnett knew as Kelly. His "eyes and ears" identification was probably "eyes and hair", with the hair being the more distinctive feature I'm sure. The inability to track her down, though, does suggest that Mary Jane Kelly may have been a name she made up when she moved into the area, and her backstory may likewise be fictional. We may never know more about her as a result, which is a shame, but then, if it was all to hide her identity from her family, perhaps her wish over ours should take precedence.

- Jeff

[GBinOz]

No, all the doctors' ToD estimates are flawed in my view and should just be ignored. I don't include any of them myself.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

In the case of MJK, if you ignore the doctor's ToD, what evidence do you find to be strong enough to overrule the testimony of Caroline Maxwell and Maurice Lewis?

Opting for the argument that they may have misremembered which day they saw her (both of them?) seems to me to be a slippery slope. For starters we can apply this principle to Cadosch, and any one else really whose evidence we decide we should eliminate from serious consideration, such as the women who didn't respond to cries of "murder" because they heard said cries on most nights.

Best regards, George

[GBinOz]

I think the "not Kelly" idea is a left over from old conspiracy theories involving the royals.

- Jeff

Let us just for a moment refrain from throwing out the baby with the royals bathwater.

Maxwell testified that she saw Kelly that morning with a look of horror on her face. Kelly explained that it was the "horror of drink". Maurice Lewis said he saw her at a time that would not have allowed her enough time to have picked up another client, returned to her room and suffered through the extent of the injuries inflicted apon her before her body was found.

Next we have the report in the Hull Daily Mail dated 12 Nov 1888 saying that "some short time ago" MJK's former landlady, Mrs McCarthy, was visited at 2am in the morning by MJK and a "strange man" and was asked to provide a room for the remainder of the night. Mrs McCarthy received 2 shillings for her trouble and when MJK departed next morning McCarthy never saw her again.

So if MJK was not the victim, who was? I think the clue is that Barnett claimed that he left Mary because he couldn't cope with the other prostitutes that Mary was allowing to use her premises. "Eyes and ears" or "eyes and hair" could provide very thin evidence to someone who knew in advance who he was there to identify.

At this stage I cannot see sufficient credible evidence to oppose that of Maxwell and Lewis, so I am not ruling out the possibility of MJK's murder being a case of mistaken identity.

Best regards, George

[FISHY1118]

Let us just for a moment refrain from throwing out the baby with the royals bathwater.

Maxwell testified that she saw Kelly that morning with a look of horror on her face. Kelly explained that it was the "horror of drink". Maurice Lewis said he saw her at a time that would not have allowed her enough time to have picked up another client, returned to her room and suffered through the extent of the injuries inflicted apon her before her body was found.

Next we have the report in the Hull Daily Mail dated 12 Nov 1888 saying that "some short time ago" MJK's former landlady, Mrs McCarthy, was visited at 2am in the morning by MJK and a "strange man" and was asked to provide a room for the remainder of the night. Mrs McCarthy received 2 shillings for her trouble and when MJK departed next morning McCarthy never saw her again.

So if MJK was not the victim, who was? I think the clue is that Barnett claimed that he left Mary because he couldn't cope with the other prostitutes that Mary was allowing to use her premises. "Eyes and ears" or "eyes and hair" could provide very thin evidence to someone who knew in advance who he was there to identify.

At this stage I cannot see sufficient credible evidence to oppose that of Maxwell and Lewis, so I am not ruling out the possibility of MJK's murder being a case of mistaken identity.

Best regards, George

If the murderer was indeen looking for Mary ''Jane'' Kelly as a ''intended'' victim ,i should think he would not have made the same mistake twice ,remembering Eddowes use the the name Mary ''Ann'' Kelly , a jane doe would surely have been spotted in lue of MJK the 2nd time around .



I think the "not Kelly" idea is a left over from old conspiracy theories involving the royals.

I must of missed this part jeff , how so ?[ just curious]

[FISHY1118]

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.

the night

And yet i find myself agreeing with Trevor on this one. [regretably so, and definately not for the organ harvesting theory to be correct either . ], Longs statement doesnt place Chapman in the yard before 5.35am , so if shes wrong and Cadoush is right .... he heard the ''NO'' at 5.20 am 3/4 minutes later he hears a thud against the fence, what was jack doing to chapman that took 3/4 mins for him to place her on the ground that made a thud against the fence? It doesnt take that long to strangle or cut someones throat . So his wrong and Richardsons right ? [Coroner] Did you see John Richardson? - I saw him about a quarter to seven o'clock. He told me he had been to the house that morning about a quarter to five. He said he came to the back door and looked down to the cellar, to see if all was right, and then went away to his work.
[Coroner] Did he say anything about cutting his boot? - No . This was 35 mins after chandler arrived at 29 handbury the morning of the murder , Richardsons boot cutting testimony was 4 days later . It is quit possible and a very good chance that all three witnesses were wrong, through no fault of the own they just misread the situation in my opinion . Although Richardson i think was trying to embellish his role in the saga .

Conclusion , Dr Phillips time of death 3.30 /4.00am is morel likeky to be correct than 5.30 am

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

In the case of MJK, if you ignore the doctor's ToD, what evidence do you find to be strong enough to overrule the testimony of Caroline Maxwell and Maurice Lewis?

Opting for the argument that they may have misremembered which day they saw her (both of them?) seems to me to be a slippery slope. For starters we can apply this principle to Cadosch, and any one else really whose evidence we decide we should eliminate from serious consideration, such as the women who didn't respond to cries of "murder" because they heard said cries on most nights.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

That's true, one can apply the "mistaken" card where ever they want, and we see that with Richardson - he was mistaken when he says he didn't see the body, or he was lying when he says he repaired his boot. We see it with Long, she was mistaken in her identification of Chapman, and Cadoche was mistaken about the sounds he heard. We see it with the doctor's ToD's, they are mistaken. And so on. All of the evidence we have is subject to the conern that it could be mistaken, because on the whole, all of the evidence we have comes from pretty unreliable sources - doctors using methods we know are flawed, eye witness accounts which are known to be error prone, and so forth. I do try not to play it often (other than for the doctors ToD simply because it is proven they are using flawed methods, with eye witnesses one just has to be cautious as they often are mistaken in some details, but not always - so at least they are still in with a chance).

With the Kelly case, we do have sightings of her the night before taking customers back to her room. We have reports of "Diddles the cat" waking up at around the time others report cries of "murder". We have the retreating sound of footsteps after that. We have a crime scene that clearly would require a fair amount of time. We have evidence of a fire being lit, but by the time the room is searched it has burned out and the ashes are cool apparently (hmm, not sure where I get that last detail from, it could be an assumption on my part). We have her clothing neatly folded, as if preparing for bed, and her dressed in clothes suitable for sleeping. The general circumstances point to events occurring during the night (fire for light, her outfit, her clothes, and sounds possibly connected to the crime being at night, and so forth). It's not conclusive, but it makes the sightings of her the following morning suspect. However, it is possible that she was killed that morning I suppose, but the fire that burned the clothing had to be lit and burn that morning. I would think that might be noticeable, while a fire at night, when most others are sleeping, would be more likely to go unnoticed. I know there are those on the boards who have spent more time on the Kelly case than I have. Oddly, that's one I tend to look at the least while for many it is the key to their entire beliefs about the murders.

And while you are not convinced Barnett could identify her by her eyes and hair, she is described as having very long and full hair, making it quite distinctive. I see no reason to doubt that identification but that is clearly not universally held.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

[Coroner] Would you consider that the person who inflicted the wounds possessed anatomical skill? - Dr Brown He must have had a good deal of knowledge as to the position of the abdominal organs, and the way to remove them.

That could apply to the person who removed them at the mortuary

Now look closely at what you wrote ''The Mutilations''required no scientific or anatomical knowlegde ..... NOT the removal of HER kellys organs . Dr Brown was describing the ''mutilations'' ,he like you had no idea wether the killer romoved kellys organs ''before'' the mutilation began in the same way in which he removed Eddowes just as he described, with A.K. So your back to square one arent you, No Dr has said the organs of Kelly were removed with out any anotomical knowledge . Again your whole theory falls apart with Kellys organs left behind at the murder scene by the same killer who murdered Nichols ,Chapman, Eddowes and Stride .

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

it was Dr Bond who in his letter to Anderson mentions no scientific or anatomical skill. But in that report there is no mention of the removal of any organs from any of the victims. So I still belive that the motive of these murders was nothing more than murder and mutilation.

But if you are going to suggest that in Kellys case the organs were removed using no anatomical knowledge then that contradicts what was said by the Doctors in the other two murders. But is is academic because there is no conclusive proof that Kellys heart was taken away by the killer.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

And yet i find myself agreeing with Trevor on this one. [regretably so, and definately not for the organ harvesting theory to be correct either . ], Longs statement doesnt place Chapman in the yard before 5.35am , so if shes wrong and Cadoush is right .... he heard the ''NO'' at 5.20 am 3/4 minutes later he hears a thud against the fence, what was jack doing to chapman that took 3/4 mins for him to place her on the ground that made a thud against the fence? It doesnt take that long to strangle or cut someones throat . So his wrong and Richardsons right ? [Coroner] Did you see John Richardson? - I saw him about a quarter to seven o'clock. He told me he had been to the house that morning about a quarter to five. He said he came to the back door and looked down to the cellar, to see if all was right, and then went away to his work.
[Coroner] Did he say anything about cutting his boot? - No . This was 35 mins after chandler arrived at 29 handbury the morning of the murder , Richardsons boot cutting testimony was 4 days later . It is quit possible and a very good chance that all three witnesses were wrong, through no fault of the own they just misread the situation in my opinion . Although Richardson i think was trying to embellish his role in the saga .

Conclusion , Dr Phillips time of death 3.30 /4.00am is morel likeky to be correct than 5.30 am

We’ve been here before Fishy.

It sounds unconvincing if we talk about the gap between the two sounds that Cadosch heard if we take it that both were made at the time that she was actually being killed but this doesn’t have to have been the case. The ‘no’ could have been at the point that she realised that he intended her harm whereas the sound against the fence might have been from the killer rather than Annie’s body falling against the fence. He might have bumped a shoulder against as he was mutilating the body. Perhaps he had to change position for access?

Yes, Long’s sighting isn’t in sync with Cadosch but we know that timing errors can occur and the difference isn’t massive. It takes more ‘effort’ to dismiss the witnesses than it does to dismiss the Doctor. We have no way of assessing the witnesses apart from the imperfect written word that has been left to us. We can’t know for example how honest witnesses like Cadosch or Long were or how observant they were or how intelligent. These are unknowns. But the accuracy of doctors TOD estimations isn’t an unknown. Current medical experts with 21st century knowledge tell us explicitly that these estimations were little more that guesswork. So to borrow Trevor’s mantra - they are unsafe to rely on. How do you access an estimation that’s fraught with possibilities for error?

[Trevor Marriott]

We’ve been here before Fishy.

It sounds unconvincing if we talk about the gap between the two sounds that Cadosch heard if we take it that both were made at the time that she was actually being killed but this doesn’t have to have been the case. The ‘no’ could have been at the point that she realised that he intended her harm whereas the sound against the fence might have been from the killer rather than Annie’s body falling against the fence. He might have bumped a shoulder against as he was mutilating the body. Perhaps he had to change position for access?

Yes, Long’s sighting isn’t in sync with Cadosch but we know that timing errors can occur and the difference isn’t massive. It takes more ‘effort’ to dismiss the witnesses than it does to dismiss the Doctor. We have no way of assessing the witnesses apart from the imperfect written word that has been left to us. We can’t know for example how honest witnesses like Cadosch or Long were or how observant they were or how intelligent. These are unknowns. But the accuracy of doctors TOD estimations isn’t an unknown. Current medical experts with 21st century knowledge tell us explicitly that these estimations were little more that guesswork. So to borrow Trevor’s mantra - they are unsafe to rely on. How do you access an estimation that’s fraught with possibilities for error?

I think it all comes down to the balace of probabilities when Chapmans murder and TOD are compared to the other victims, and for the last time given what I know and how I interpret the evidence both past and present, I side with Dr Phillips and a time of death before the later time of death you and others rely on.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FISHY1118]

We’ve been here before Fishy.

It sounds unconvincing if we talk about the gap between the two sounds that Cadosch heard if we take it that both were made at the time that she was actually being killed but this doesn’t have to have been the case. The ‘no’ could have been at the point that she realised that he intended her harm whereas the sound against the fence might have been from the killer rather than Annie’s body falling against the fence. He might have bumped a shoulder against as he was mutilating the body. Perhaps he had to change position for access?

Yes, Long’s sighting isn’t in sync with Cadosch but we know that timing errors can occur and the difference isn’t massive. It takes more ‘effort’ to dismiss the witnesses than it does to dismiss the Doctor. We have no way of assessing the witnesses apart from the imperfect written word that has been left to us. We can’t know for example how honest witnesses like Cadosch or Long were or how observant they were or how intelligent. These are unknowns. But the accuracy of doctors TOD estimations isn’t an unknown. Current medical experts with 21st century knowledge tell us explicitly that these estimations were little more that guesswork. So to borrow Trevor’s mantra - they are unsafe to rely on. How do you access an estimation that’s fraught with possibilities for error?

The ‘no’ could have been at the point that she realised that he intended her harm whereas the sound against the fence might have been from the killer rather than Annie’s body falling against the fence. He might have bumped a shoulder against as he was mutilating the body. Perhaps he had to change position for access?

Thats a possiblity of course , just as mine is also possible, and thats the point, no one can say for sure. Only that they pick which one suits their perticular theory ,i happen to believe mine just as long as no one tells me its wrong when they cant prove there own . Just sayin .

[FISHY1118]

It doesnt fall apart because if no organs were taken away from Kelly, when clearly the killer had the time and the opportuntiy to remove and take away almost all of the abdominal organs and if the same killer it shows that the killer did not remove the organs from the other victims at the crime scenes.it was Dr Bond who in his letter to Anderson mentions no scientific or anatomical skill. But in that report there is no mention of the removal of any organs from any of the victims. So I still belive that the motive of these murders was nothing more than murder and mutilation.

But if you are going to suggest that in Kellys case the organs were removed using no anatomical knowledge then that contradicts what was said by the Doctors in the other two murders. But is is academic because there is no conclusive proof that Kellys heart was taken away by the killer.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Again, why do you insist on predictiong what the killer should or shouldnt have done in relation to Kelly ? Just because he took the organs from Chapman and Eddowes for his own reason , his might just as left kellys behind for any number of reasons. 1 killer , organs removed and taken, and with kelly organs removed and left behind period. and there just no proof anywhere to suggest any different .

Dr Browns letter to Anderson is not in reference A.K to organ removal specifically, only in his opinion of the mutilation .

''But if you are going to suggest that in Kellys case the organs were removed using no anatomical knowledge''then that contradicts what was said by theDoctors in the other two murders.

No DR said or suggested this so there no contradiction with the other murders .

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think it all comes down to the balace of probabilities when Chapmans murder and TOD are compared to the other victims, and for the last time given what I know and how I interpret the evidence both past and present, I side with Dr Phillips and a time of death before the later time of death you and others rely on.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

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

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

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

[Trevor Marriott]

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GBinOz]

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

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

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

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

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

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

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

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

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

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