Continuation of “Possibility for the Seaside Home”

[Elamarna]

But you didn't say you think Holmgren is right about the trophies.

And that's not the only thing he got wrong.

And we're not talking about opinions.

He is actually denying the physical evidence!

And you didn't say you think he and Stow are right to ignore the testimony of three witnesses.

Did you?

So why do you think I need to read their books?

My views on Lechmere and Mr Holmgren are very well known, not just on this site, but in the wider Ripperology community, be that podcast, talks, articles, Face book groups, and literally hundreds of comments in this forum.
Given that Mr Holmgren and I have debated, and rarely agreed on even tye day of the week, for years, it's inconceivable to me he is suggesting organs were not taken in Hanbury street or Mitre Square .

I suspect, he's talking about the heart being taken in the MJK case, and that is indeed debated. Reid, i think but I may have the wrong officer, claimed it was not.

But of course without seeing what was said between him and you, one cannot be sure.

Why should you read it?

Why should you read any book on the case?

If one doesn't read the whole argument how can one make a serious response.

To get the full argument without that one would need to read thousands of comments on here, at JtR Forums and othersites.
By reading a book, and checking it's references and sources, one can evaluate its accuracy, you really can't do that in posts on forums.

However, it's not simply about Lechmere, this thread is aimed at Kosminski.
And you have made it clear you do not feel a need to read books presenting new research, that you don't need the information contained, because you apparently can reach a conclusion without viewing all the arguments and research.

I truly despair.

[Abby Normal]

My views on Lechmere and Mr Holmgren are very well known, not just on this site, but in the wider Ripperology community, be that podcast, talks, articles, Face book groups, and literally hundreds of comments in this forum.
Given that Mr Holmgren and I have debated, and rarely agreed on even tye day of the week, for years, it's inconceivable to me he is suggesting organs were not taken in Hanbury street or Mitre Square .

I suspect, he's talking about the heart being taken in the MJK case, and that is indeed debated. Reid, i think but I may have the wrong officer, claimed it was not.

But of course without seeing what was said between him and you, one cannot be sure.

Why should you read it?

Why should you read any book on the case?

If one doesn't read the whole argument how can one make a serious response.

To get the full argument without that one would need to read thousands of comments on here, at JtR Forums and othersites.
By reading a book, and checking it's references and sources, one can evaluate its accuracy, you really can't do that in posts on forums.

However, it's not simply about Lechmere, this thread is aimed at Kosminski.
And you have made it clear you do not feel a need to read books presenting new research, that you don't need the information contained, because you apparently can reach a conclusion without viewing all the arguments and research.

I truly despair.

Hi El and PI

yes Rob House's book on Koz and Fishs book on Lech are both excellent and I highly recommend both, regardless of what you think of them as suspects. Because along with the great research, they are cracking good reads!

Before I read either, I didnt highly value Koz as a suspect and Lech not at all, but after- now I do.

[Elamarna]

Hi El and PI

yes Rob House's book on Koz and Fishs book on Lech are both excellent and I highly recommend both, regardless of what you think of them as suspects. Because along with the great research, they are cracking good reads!

Before I read either, I didnt highly value Koz as a suspect and Lech not at all, but after- now I do.

John Malcolm's is slightly more up to date than Rob' s Abby.

Steve

[Pontius2000]

Sadly it's clear our friend is not interested in the research of any who do not agree with his views.
The statement that you don't need to know about Rob House or his book, clears shows our friend is not prepared to look at serious up to date research.

I spend so much time on various forums having to point out how reserch as moved on since Fido wrote is work in 1987, to the extent he discarded the kaminsky idea, yet its posted every week somewhere.

Or we have people who take Sugden as being gospel. Great book that it is , on suspects it's seriously dated.

The same goes for Lechmere, people dismissing him out of hand are to me wrong.
Now I clearly believe he's not a great suspect. But he is a viable one.

Sadly some people have set ideas, but there are some books one must read if you are going to discuss a suspect.

On Kosminski, I say that's House, Malcolm and Wood for up to date research( Adam by the way is not pro Aaron KOSMINSKI )
One should also read Fido, but remember it's dated.

On Lechmere, one can watch documentaries, but one should really read Holmgren's Cutting Point and my own Inside Bucks Row.

One should read Jacob the Ripper if one is looking at Levy.

If one is looking at say Hutchinson, one really needs to read Hinton.

Relying on Desertations and articles on this and other sites is problematic, in that different articles give different views. And the Desertations here on casebook are on the whole not recent, reserch moves on.

Steve

Right. Without even reading House’s book or having previously heard of House, he’s basically relegating his book to just another suspect book. I’ve read so many JtR and suspect books over the years that I don’t even remember many of them. But I’ve never read a suspect book that contained the amount of research and detail that House’s book contained. It stands head and shoulders above most other as far as I’m concerned.

Jacob the Ripper was ok, but Levy himself is very interesting. There was an anonymous police quote that they were currently following three different suspects, and the description of one of the suspects seems to perfectly describe Levy. The relationship to witness Levy is interesting as well as the fact that his death corresponds to the Swanson marginalia. Without ever knowing that he was officially a suspect, it seems plainly obvious to me that he was in fact a contemporary suspect.

Of the three suspects being followed, I’d wager that 2 of them were Kosminski and Levy. The identity of the third would be a wild guess. Either a third Jew, such Hyams or the mysterious “David Cohen”, or Tumblety, or possibly Ostrog IF he was in the area at that time.

I still go with Kosminski though. Because unlike most researchers, I actually place a lot of weight on the opinions of the men who were actually there and saw all the evidence and circumstances. IF the killer was not Kosminski, or possibly Levy, then I’d say beyond any doubt that it was a presently unknown person who almost perfectly matched the circumstances of a Kosminski or Levy.

[Pontius2000]

As I pointed out in another post, Seweryn Kłosowski, aka George Chapman, was not Jewish.

It is perhaps significant that when someone here talks down to me, it turns out that he is the one who can't get his facts right.

whether or not he was actually Jewish is totally beside the point. He was came from a country and around the same time as thousands of polish Jews were fleeing the programs. So he would have been assumed to be Polish Jew even if he wasn’t. As far as your assumption that Abberline was”joking” about Chapman, there was nothing printed or that’s ever been implied, that he was joking. Now if you say that YOU believe he was a joke of a suspect, I’d 100% agree

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

My views on Lechmere and Mr Holmgren are very well known, not just on this site, but in the wider Ripperology community, be that podcast, talks, articles, Face book groups, and literally hundreds of comments in this forum.
Given that Mr Holmgren and I have debated, and rarely agreed on even tye day of the week, for years, it's inconceivable to me he is suggesting organs were not taken in Hanbury street or Mitre Square .

I suspect, he's talking about the heart being taken in the MJK case, and that is indeed debated. Reid, i think but I may have the wrong officer, claimed it was not.

But of course without seeing what was said between him and you, one cannot be sure.

Why should you read it?

Why should you read any book on the case?

If one doesn't read the whole argument how can one make a serious response.

To get the full argument without that one would need to read thousands of comments on here, at JtR Forums and othersites.
By reading a book, and checking it's references and sources, one can evaluate its accuracy, you really can't do that in posts on forums.

However, it's not simply about Lechmere, this thread is aimed at Kosminski.
And you have made it clear you do not feel a need to read books presenting new research, that you don't need the information contained, because you apparently can reach a conclusion without viewing all the arguments and research.

I truly despair.

I'm just left wondering how you can explain the fact that I am able to take Stow and Holmgren's cases apart if, as you say, I am not fully conversant with their
'arguments and research'?

A few minutes ago, I had a reply from Edward Stow, in which he claimed that I had made YET 'another basic factual error' about the case, when I said that 9 November 1888 was a local public holiday.

The other point I had made at the same time is the one I mentioned in my previous post to you, namely that he has ignored the testimony of three policemen at the Nichols inquest about what was happening at 3:45 and accepted instead an obviously-incorrect timing given by another witness, without which his - and Holmgren's - case collapses.

He hasn't answered that point.

I notice that the same point was put to Stow by a certain Roger Palmer, who may be the same person as our Superintendent RJ Palmer, but Stow didn't reply to that, either.

I have just asked Stow whether he accepts that it was a holiday in the City of London, where Lechmere worked.

He replied that it was not a holiday and that I am 'ignorant'.

This is in spite of the fact that he had written 'I do suspect that Lechmere killed Mary Kelly. Possibly on his way to work' which means he isn't even certain - like Holmgren - that Lechmere was working that day.

Well, there's a coincidence!

Lechmere may not have been working on that day but, according to Stow, anyone who thinks it was a holiday is 'ignorant.'

I will mention one more thing about Stow: some of his supporters online have been writing crude insults about me on his comments page, including insinuations of paedophilia, and when confronted, Stow refused to condemn them or dissociate himself from their remarks.


After reading your reply I have looked up my correspondence with Christer.

In order to avoid any misunderstanding, I quite like him personally, although I have never met him, and we had perfectly polite exchanges of views.
As he is also a member, I'm assuming he won't object if I quote what he wrote to me, which in any case is still viewable on a public forum:

'you speak of how the herat (sic) would have bled through Lechmere´s clothes although we do not know that he actually brought it along on his person as he left.'

I took that to mean that he took the same view regarding the removal of organs from Chapman and Eddowes.


The heart was missing.

I don't see how anyone can deny that the evidence is that the murderer took it with him.

'While some have concluded that Dr Bond's report is insufficiently explicit for a proper evaluation of what was meant, I suggest that there really is no ambiguity about Dr Bond's statement from the autopsy. "The Pericardium was open below & the Heart absent." This is very explicit, indeed. Dr Bond clearly wrote that the conical sac which encloses the heart was empty of its contents. The heart was missing, and this can only achieved by removal.

The "inventory" of the organs, (at 13 Miller's Court and during the autopsy) is very thorough. Neither the heart, nor its location were specified; yet, the other organs were mentioned. What does this tell us? That the heart was neither near the body, while it still lay on the bed, nor was it present during the autopsy. But could it still have been within the room?

Insp Abberline took an inventory of the room's contents. The room was only 10ft x 12ft with few items. Between Insp Abberline's search and the others who were in the room after McCarthy broke in the door (which includes Dr Phillips and Dr Dukes), had the heart been elsewhere within the room it surely would have been found. It would be very doubtful that the heart was readily overlooked, let alone completely missed. As for the fireplace, it is possible that the killer might have tried to burn it. But, a heart will not simply be consumed and disintegrate, like paper or clothes. It would have been found by Insp Abberline when he went through the ashes had it been there.'

https://www.casebook.org/dissertatio...yostheart.html

As far as the organs missing from Chapman and Eddowes' bodies are concerned, I think that Holmgren would be honour-bound, so to speak, to take the same position as he has with regard to Kelly's heart, because the same argument - that Lechmere could hardly have taken those organs home to a wife and nine children - still applies.

[Abby Normal]

John Malcolm's is slightly more up to date than Rob' s Abby.

Steve

Ok thanks El! I know who he is but havent read his book yet.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

whether or not he was actually Jewish is totally beside the point. He was came from a country and around the same time as thousands of polish Jews were fleeing the programs. So he would have been assumed to be Polish Jew even if he wasn’t. As far as your assumption that Abberline was”joking” about Chapman, there was nothing printed or that’s ever been implied, that he was joking. Now if you say that YOU believe he was a joke of a suspect, I’d 100% agree

I wrote:

If you can find any evidence that Inspector Reid or Abberline were looking for a kosher butcher, please do let me know.


You replied:

maybe you’ll let me know if/when you’ve read enough on this case to realize how stupid that last sentence sounds considering Abberline believed a POLISH JEW who was a far more ridiculous suspect than Anderson’s/Swanson’s suspect was the Whitechapel Murderer.


I replied:

there is the unfortunate fact - and I know that you people don't like that word (at least when I use it) - that Seweryn Kłosowski, aka George Chapman, WAS NOT JEWISH (my capitals this time).

So, unfortunately (for you), what I wrote in my previous post - the one to which you reply - is correct: INSPECTORS REID AND ABBERLINE WERE NOT LOOKING FOR A JEWISH BUTCHER (or barber).'



You replied:

whether or not he was actually Jewish is totally beside the point.



I cannot think of a better example than yours of someone who has lost an argument being unwilling to admit the fact.

And it IS a fact.

Contrary to what you stated, Seweryn Kłosowski was NOT Jewish.

Contrary to what you stated, Inspector Abberline did NOT state that in his opinion the murderer was Jewish.

And far from being totally beside the point, as you claim, the fact that Seweryn Kłosowski wasn't Jewish IS the point!

You're the one who has been suggesting that the murderer may have been a Jewish butcher.

You then produce as your candidate a suspect who you claim was a Jewish hairdresser, and it turns out that he wasn't even Jewish.

And as if that isn't bad enough, you preface your remarks by saying that I haven't read enough - a complaint against me that seems to be spreading like an epidemic on this forum - to realise how stupid I am to have said that Abberline wasn't looking for a Jewish butcher suspect.

Seweryn Kłosowski was neither a butcher nor a Jew.

[Abby Normal]

whether or not he was actually Jewish is totally beside the point. He was came from a country and around the same time as thousands of polish Jews were fleeing the programs. So he would have been assumed to be Polish Jew even if he wasn’t. As far as your assumption that Abberline was”joking” about Chapman, there was nothing printed or that’s ever been implied, that he was joking. Now if you say that YOU believe he was a joke of a suspect, I’d 100% agree

I think Chapman even passed himself off as a jew at one point, but IMHO he is not a joke of a suspect.

[Elamarna]

I'm just left wondering how you can explain the fact that I am able to take Stow and Holmgren's cases apart if, as you say, I am not fully conversant with their
'arguments and research'?

A few minutes ago, I had a reply from Edward Stow, in which he claimed that I had made YET 'another basic factual error' about the case, when I said that 9 November 1888 was a local public holiday.

The other point I had made at the same time is the one I mentioned in my previous post to you, namely that he has ignored the testimony of three policemen at the Nichols inquest about what was happening at 3:45 and accepted instead an obviously-incorrect timing given by another witness, without which his - and Holmgren's - case collapses.

He hasn't answered that point.

I notice that the same point was put to Stow by a certain Roger Palmer, who may be the same person as our Superintendent RJ Palmer, but Stow didn't reply to that, either.

I have just asked Stow whether he accepts that it was a holiday in the City of London, where Lechmere worked.

He replied that it was not a holiday and that I am 'ignorant'.

This is in spite of the fact that he had written 'I do suspect that Lechmere killed Mary Kelly. Possibly on his way to work' which means he isn't even certain - like Holmgren - that Lechmere was working that day.

Well, there's a coincidence!

Lechmere may not have been working on that day but, according to Stow, anyone who thinks it was a holiday is 'ignorant.'

I will mention one more thing about Stow: some of his supporters online have been writing crude insults about me on his comments page, including insinuations of paedophilia, and when confronted, Stow refused to condemn them or dissociate himself from their remarks.


After reading your reply I have looked up my correspondence with Christer.

In order to avoid any misunderstanding, I quite like him personally, although I have never met him, and we had perfectly polite exchanges of views.
As he is also a member, I'm assuming he won't object if I quote what he wrote to me, which in any case is still viewable on a public forum:

'you speak of how the herat (sic) would have bled through Lechmere´s clothes although we do not know that he actually brought it along on his person as he left.'

I took that to mean that he took the same view regarding the removal of organs from Chapman and Eddowes.


The heart was missing.

I don't see how anyone can deny that the evidence is that the murderer took it with him.

'While some have concluded that Dr Bond's report is insufficiently explicit for a proper evaluation of what was meant, I suggest that there really is no ambiguity about Dr Bond's statement from the autopsy. "The Pericardium was open below & the Heart absent." This is very explicit, indeed. Dr Bond clearly wrote that the conical sac which encloses the heart was empty of its contents. The heart was missing, and this can only achieved by removal.

The "inventory" of the organs, (at 13 Miller's Court and during the autopsy) is very thorough. Neither the heart, nor its location were specified; yet, the other organs were mentioned. What does this tell us? That the heart was neither near the body, while it still lay on the bed, nor was it present during the autopsy. But could it still have been within the room?

Insp Abberline took an inventory of the room's contents. The room was only 10ft x 12ft with few items. Between Insp Abberline's search and the others who were in the room after McCarthy broke in the door (which includes Dr Phillips and Dr Dukes), had the heart been elsewhere within the room it surely would have been found. It would be very doubtful that the heart was readily overlooked, let alone completely missed. As for the fireplace, it is possible that the killer might have tried to burn it. But, a heart will not simply be consumed and disintegrate, like paper or clothes. It would have been found by Insp Abberline when he went through the ashes had it been there.'

https://www.casebook.org/dissertatio...yostheart.html

As far as the organs missing from Chapman and Eddowes' bodies are concerned, I think that Holmgren would be honour-bound, so to speak, to take the same position as he has with regard to Kelly's heart, because the same argument - that Lechmere could hardly have taken those organs home to a wife and nine children - still applies.

Firstly with regards to "taking apart" as you put it the Lechmere case.
We have been doing that for many years.
I gave Lechmere as an example in this thread, this is meant to be about Kosminski is it not, but to answer your points.

It seems he is clearly talking of just the heart in the MJK case.
That you wish to link that to.the other organs is shall I say amazing.

And if we like it or not the fact remains that some have argued based on I think it's Reid. That the heart was not absent from the room, just removed from the body.

Its not a position I hold , but there are lengthy and shall we say heated debates on this topic, but I dont remember if it's here or over on JRR Forums.

Quoting old Desertations is useful but it's not conclusive, they are merely articles.

With regards to the public holiday have you actually checked the records to find the answer to if it was a public holiday?

You do not have to tell me about how rude and impossible to debate in a meaningful way it is with some Lechmere supporters, I have been attempting it for many years on many forums.

I have been pointing out the issues over the timings for along time too, in print, in talkd andvon.podcasts, and many of the other issues in Bucks Row.
I assume you have not read my work?

Steve

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It seems he is clearly talking of just the heart in the MJK case.
That you wish to link that to.the other organs is shall I say amazing.


Steve

I don't understand why you think that's 'amazing'.

If my question about how Lechmere would have been able to go to work or back home with someone else's heart on his person receives the response that he may not have had her heart on him, what else could he say about Chapman and Eddowes?

If Holmgren thinks Lechmere COULD have taken Chapman's and Eddowes' organs to home or work, then the issue of whether he took Kelly's heart doesn't really matter, because according to that reasoning, he could have taken her heart to work.

Either Lechmere was able to carry other people's organs to work and home or he couldn't.


Is the book - or one of the books you are referring to - Inside Bucks Row – Mary Ann Nichols: An Anatomy of Murder (The Whitechapel Murders Project: Book 1) ?

I know you look at the so-called Mizen Scam and also possible escape routes, about which I had some exchanges with other posters both here and elsewhere recently.

Would you agree with me that Nichols and Lechmere were walking in opposite directions when they entered Buck's Row and that it is unlikely that she would have gone down it alone?

[Pontius2000]

I think Chapman even passed himself off as a jew at one point, but IMHO he is not a joke of a suspect.

Well Chapman was certainly a serial killer and a bad person, no argument there. The problem is MO and motivation. Whoever JtR was, he was obviously a sick person. A person who fantasizes about gutting a person and handling their insides is not the same type of person who poisons someone. One MO is very impersonal while the other is extremely sexual and very personal. JtR would not have settled down to a less messy MO because the messiness was part of the motivation. For Chapman, death was the motivation, for profit or whatever. For JtR, death would not have been the motivation, the “ownership” of the victim by rearranging their insides and/or taking internal organs via mutilation was the motivation. The only way to achieve this level of ownership was via the victims’ death.

I’m firmly of the opinion and agreement with Anderson/Swanson/McNaghtn that after Kelly, the killer’s “mind gave way altogether”… meaning he was taken out of commission via death, or incarceration, or constant surveillance/supervision. The third option could’ve worked for awhile, but he couldn’t have been surveilled on streets long term to maintain his behavior, he would’ve eventually been unable to control himself.

[Elamarna]

I don't understand why you think that's 'amazing'.

If my question about how Lechmere would have been able to go to work or back home with someone else's heart on his person receives the response that he may not have had her heart on him, what else could he say about Chapman and Eddowes?

If Holmgren thinks Lechmere COULD have taken Chapman's and Eddowes' organs to home or work, then the issue of whether he took Kelly's heart doesn't really matter, because according to that reasoning, he could have taken her heart to work.

Either Lechmere was able to carry other people's organs to work and home or he couldn't.


Is the book - or one of the books you are referring to - Inside Bucks Row – Mary Ann Nichols: An Anatomy of Murder (The Whitechapel Murders Project: Book 1) ?

I know you look at the so-called Mizen Scam and also possible escape routes, about which I had some exchanges with other posters both here and elsewhere recently.

Would you agree with me that Nichols and Lechmere were walking in opposite directions when they entered Buck's Row and that it is unlikely that she would have gone down it alone?

Ok PI1,
first point here, while I don't think Lechmere did it, I see no issue with him taking organs to his place of work, probably easy to dispose of them if he wanted.


Yes that's my book. It covers alot more than that, but you have heard of it. That's good.

If only it was that easy to say which direction Polly entered Bucks Row from.

She probably entered from the west, that's the most obvious, but she could have walked along to Brady then walked up into Bucks Row. Its the most unlikely option, but we can't rule it out completely.

Lech obviously comes from the East.

So it's highly unlikely that they came from the same direction in my view.


As for going down it alone, there we will disagree.
Here's why.
There is alot of evidence, both solid and circumstantial that Bucks Row and Winthrop street were a known Red light area.

The police say that in an internal report.

Mrs Green makes a great fuss about "bad women" , she complains too much , pointing at brothels in Thomas street .

The slaughter men, in the form of Tomkins admit that women often came to the slaughter House.

Last year Jonathan Tye, discovered not only were there brothels in Thomas, but there were two in Winthrop.

So I suspect she headed to the general area intentionally .
If she was just waiting for someone or walked with someone, it's truly impossible to say without any reports of her after she left Holland.

Some have suggested the gates to Brown's Yard were on occassions left open, and that girls used the yard, but that claim is pure speculation.

Steve

[Pontius2000]

I wrote:

If you can find any evidence that Inspector Reid or Abberline were looking for a kosher butcher, please do let me know.


You replied:

maybe you’ll let me know if/when you’ve read enough on this case to realize how stupid that last sentence sounds considering Abberline believed a POLISH JEW who was a far more ridiculous suspect than Anderson’s/Swanson’s suspect was the Whitechapel Murderer.


I replied:

there is the unfortunate fact - and I know that you people don't like that word (at least when I use it) - that Seweryn Kłosowski, aka George Chapman, WAS NOT JEWISH (my capitals this time).

So, unfortunately (for you), what I wrote in my previous post - the one to which you reply - is correct: INSPECTORS REID AND ABBERLINE WERE NOT LOOKING FOR A JEWISH BUTCHER (or barber).'



You replied:

whether or not he was actually Jewish is totally beside the point.



I cannot think of a better example than yours of someone who has lost an argument being unwilling to admit the fact.

And it IS a fact.

Contrary to what you stated, Seweryn Kłosowski was NOT Jewish.

Contrary to what you stated, Inspector Abberline did NOT state that in his opinion the murderer was Jewish.

And far from being totally beside the point, as you claim, the fact that Seweryn Kłosowski wasn't Jewish IS the point!

You're the one who has been suggesting that the murderer may have been a Jewish butcher.

You then produce as your candidate a suspect who you claim was a Jewish hairdresser, and it turns out that he wasn't even Jewish.

And as if that isn't bad enough, you preface your remarks by saying that I haven't read enough - a complaint against me that seems to be spreading like an epidemic on this forum - to realise how stupid I am to have said that Abberline wasn't looking for a Jewish butcher suspect.

Seweryn Kłosowski was neither a butcher nor a Jew.

The point is this….you have two young men coming from Poland, “low class” and living in the East end, one named Kosminski and one Klosowski. They would not have been differentiated as different classes of people by London gentiles like Anderson and Abberline. To suggest Anderson’s opinion of a Polish Jew suspect was based on anti-semitism but Abberline’s opinion of Chapman was ok because he technically not Jewish is a totally ridiculous argument. Both Kosminski and Chapman would have been viewed as low class foreigners. Abberline indeed did not elaborate that he felt definitively that Chapman WAS JtR. He did however say that Chapman was a likely suspect. And with what the police knew of serial killers in the Victorian era, Chapman absolutely would have been a likely suspect.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Ok PI1,
first point here, while I don't think Lechmere did it, I see no issue with him taking organs to his place of work, probably easy to dispose of them if he wanted.



If only it was that easy to say which direction Polly entered Bucks Row from.

She probably entered from the west, that's the most obvious, but she could have walked along to Brady then walked up into Bucks Row. Its the most unlikely option, but we can't rule it out completely.

Lech obviously comes from the East.

So it's highly unlikely that they came from the same direction in my view.


Steve

Thanks for your reply.

'while I don't think Lechmere did it, I see no issue with him taking organs to his place of work, probably easy to dispose of them if he wanted.'


My response to that is that from everything we know about serial killers taking trophies from their victims, is it believable that he would dispose of them so soon?

If he did so, what would have been the point of taking them?

He obviously wanted to look at them afterwards, at his leisure.

What is the point of taking them somewhere where he isn't going to be able to do that - and instead discarding them?


I am familiar with the Brady Street entrance, as I walked down Durward Street before it was rebuilt and when there was a sign 'Essex Wharf' which, if it was in
the same location as the original Essex Wharf, was just about opposite the murder site.

I agree with you about that being an unlikely entrance for her.

I suppose you deal with Harriet Lilley's statement in your book?