So if you live in Bethnal Green, you wonīt kill in Whitechapel?

[Batman]

All exhumations, for whatever reason, have to be authorised by a coroner. Were the inquest findings on Bessie and Mary 'overruled'?

The wording of your post is almost identical to that of the Casebook victim profile of Chapman (see below). Is that the latest peer-reviewed account of his life?


The bodies of his two previous "wives" were exhumed in November and December of 1902.

Large amounts of metallic antimony were found in the bodies of both women.

Of course, they are overruled. Science works this exact way also. If new information (new data) is obtained then a review of the work should be undertaken if the new data is significant. This very process of exhumations that change a cause of death is an example of it happening.

Anyway, this whole discussion is because a subject driven orientation of the case now wants JtR to swap his MO and Signature after Nichols. That's what this is about and you have tried to avoid this question put to you several posts back.

Is that what you really believe? That Lechmere swapped his MO and Signature after Nichols?

[caz]

There are possibilities to choose from, and it is hard to rate them. But it remains that if one researches Lechmere as a suspect, then the name business does not do him any good at all. I agree with what Scobie said in this context, "He is somebody who seems to be acting, to be behaving in a way that is suspicious, which a jury would not like".

The name matter is just such a thing, regardless if it is innocent or not - no jury likes it unless a sound explanation is provided.

But sadly Lechmere has no way to defend himself and give the jury - us - his explanation, so we can't judge whether it's a sound or unsound one.

Added to this is the very real possibility that the same Pickfords carman was involved a dozen years earlier, in the collision which caused the accidental death of a child, and called himself Cross on that occasion, for reasons we have no way of knowing, but which can't reasonably be interpreted as sinister or suspicious. So unless it can be ascertained that this Charles Cross was definitely not the Buck's Row witness, I would have to give Lechmere the benefit of the doubt, that his reasons were similar on both occasions, and not connected to any criminality on his part. One obvious possibility is that he had been known as Charlie Cross at Pickfords from day one, so naturally used that name for both work-related incidents. Also plausible is that he didn't want the Lechmere name to be connected with such distressing events. Why would he not have tried to spare Mrs Lechmere and the Lechmere offspring from local and playground gossip, following his discovery of a murdered prostitute on his route to work, if using the name Cross could have helped?

Again, I have to ask exactly what Lechmere would have thought to gain, by not revealing that name to the authorities, had he been the killer? How would that have helped protect him from suspicion, in the event of a routine check to confirm his identity, using the other details he had freely provided? We can only speculate what his reasoning would have been if guilty, but there is no evidence whatsoever that using the name Lechmere would have been the more risky option. If anything it should be the other way round for anyone who believes he only adopted the name Cross in connection with the murder in Buck's Row, and was known as Lechmere in every other context.

Love,

Caz
X

[MrBarnett]

Of course they can. The bodies of his George Chapman's previous "wives" were exhumed in November and December of 1902 by order of the coroner.

Large amounts of metallic antimony were found in the bodies of both women and the coroner’s court determined that Maud Marsh had been wilfully murdered by George Chapman.

All exhumations, for whatever reason, have to be authorised by a coroner. Were the inquest findings on Bessie and Mary 'overruled'?

The wording of your post is almost identical to that of the Casebook victim profile of Chapman (see below). Is that the latest peer-reviewed account of his life?


The bodies of his two previous "wives" were exhumed in November and December of 1902.

Large amounts of metallic antimony were found in the bodies of both women.

[Fisherman]

Baxter was a puffed-up, self-opinionated twerp.

I have to admit to a certain personal bias in the matter, though, because he once insulted several members of my family.

He was presiding over the inquest of a man who had been killed in a drunken brawl in Spitalfields. The victim's wife gave evidence and Baxter saw fit to question whether the couple were legally married. When the grieving widow insisted that they were, Baxter made a sarky remark about supposing it to be a 'Spitalfields marriage'. In fact the couple had been legally married for a decade. But even if they hadn't, how callous to ridicule a recently bereaved woman in that way.

As I say, the death occurred during a drunken brawl. My grandad was involved and admitted that he'd had 11 or 12 pints of beer and that the deceased was even more drunk. The wife, my grandad's cousin Eliza, was in the cells at Commercial Street police station at the time her old man was killed, having been arrested for being involved in an earlier drunken brawl in the Three Cranes in Brick Lane.

Baxter summed up by calling all those involved a 'right crew'.

Andy Griffiths strikes me as a self-effacing, competent policeman with vast experience of murder investigation. I'd take his opinion over Baxter's any day of the week.

Rant over.😉

Doesnīt get much more hands on than that, Gary. Fascinating stuff!

[Fisherman]

The intestines were noted as protruding from the wounds, and I'm sure it would have been noticed if they'd been sliced through in the process of cutting the abdominal aorta. If that vessel had indeed been severed first, then there'd have been copious amounts of blood in the abdominal cavity.

Yes, Gareth, I too am sure that it would have been noticed if the intestines were cut through. Doctors donīt miss out on such things. The real problem, though, is that we are not informed about how the abdominal damage looked, do we?

And who says that there was not copious (a maximum of perhaps 3-3,5 litres or thereabouts) amount of blood in the abdominal cavity? Llewellyn gives no measure.

I wonder how this thread turned into a Nichols abdominal wounds thread, by the way. Wasnīt it supposed to be about the geographical implications of the murders?

[Fisherman]

Joshua Rogan: Does Baxter actually establish this, or does his use of "Dr. Llewellyn seems to incline to the opinion that..." show this is just Baxter's opinion of Llewellyn's opinion?

Any presentation of what somebody has said is just that: a presentation of what somebody has said. In that respect, what the papers report is the same, a representation of what was said.
We know that Baxter also tells us that Llewellyn opined that the abdominal wounds killed Nichols, and so there can be no case of the neck wounds having done that - as per Llewellyn/Baxter.


Swanson's Sept 19th report also says Llewellyn expressed the opinion that the abdominal wounds were inflicted before the throat was cut, but like
Gareth, I would be happy to see where Llewellyn actually says that the abdominal wounds came first, as I'm struggling to find such a reference.

I would be very happy to see it too, since I believe that Helson muddled things unnecessarily.

[Batman]

Is it the case that a coroner can 'overrule' a previous inquest finding? What's your source for that? A ten year old casebook dissertation or a biased Ripper book, perhaps?

I genuinely don't know, but you must do to have stated it as a fact.

Of course they can. The bodies of his George Chapman's previous "wives" were exhumed in November and December of 1902 by order of the coroner.

Large amounts of metallic antimony were found in the bodies of both women and the coroner’s court determined that Maud Marsh had been wilfully murdered by George Chapman.

[MrBarnett]

You mean like how you omit Bond agreeing with Baxter that all the C5 had their throats cut first.

As we can see your idea that JtR is swapping MO with Signature is purely suspect driven with a disregard for the Coroners ability to overrule a finding with subsequent findings.

You reject all the subsequent amendments by coroners and doctors, like Bond.

We see this in pseudo-scientific presentations a lot. Finding the earliest peer-reviewed papers on the matter and disregarding subsequent publications that amend or even change the findings of the earlier ones.

If your claims were true there would be no exhumations.

Is it the case that a coroner can 'overrule' a previous inquest finding? What's your source for that? A ten year old casebook dissertation or a biased Ripper book, perhaps?

I genuinely don't know, but you must do to have stated it as a fact.

[Batman]

Wrong on all counts.

Or are you cherrypicking?

You mean like how you omit Bond agreeing with Baxter that all the C5 had their throats cut first.

As we can see your idea that JtR is swapping MO with Signature is purely suspect driven with a disregard for the Coroners ability to overrule a finding with subsequent findings.

You reject all the subsequent amendments by coroners and doctors, like Bond.

We see this in pseudo-scientific presentations a lot. Finding the earliest peer-reviewed papers on the matter and disregarding subsequent publications that amend or even change the findings of the earlier ones.

If your claims were true there would be no exhumations.

[MrBarnett]

What about Andy Griffiths? Does the same go for him?

Baxter was a puffed-up, self-opinionated twerp.

I have to admit to a certain personal bias in the matter, though, because he once insulted several members of my family.

He was presiding over the inquest of a man who had been killed in a drunken brawl in Spitalfields. The victim's wife gave evidence and Baxter saw fit to question whether the couple were legally married. When the grieving widow insisted that they were, Baxter made a sarky remark about supposing it to be a 'Spitalfields marriage'. In fact the couple had been legally married for a decade. But even if they hadn't, how callous to ridicule a recently bereaved woman in that way.

As I say, the death occurred during a drunken brawl. My grandad was involved and admitted that he'd had 11 or 12 pints of beer and that the deceased was even more drunk. The wife, my grandad's cousin Eliza, was in the cells at Commercial Street police station at the time her old man was killed, having been arrested for being involved in an earlier drunken brawl in the Three Cranes in Brick Lane.

Baxter summed up by calling all those involved a 'right crew'.

Andy Griffiths strikes me as a self-effacing, competent policeman with vast experience of murder investigation. I'd take his opinion over Baxter's any day of the week.

Rant over.😉

[Sam Flynn]

We donīt know that, Gareth. We have no idea about which organs were struck and we donīt know that the aorta was left undamaged.

The intestines were noted as protruding from the wounds, and I'm sure it would have been noticed if they'd been sliced through in the process of cutting the abdominal aorta. If that vessel had indeed been severed first, then there'd have been copious amounts of blood in the abdominal cavity.

[Joshua Rogan]

Baxter establishes at the inquest that Llewellyn believed that the abdominal wounds came first:

Does Baxter actually establish this, or does his use of "Dr. Llewellyn seems to incline to the opinion that..." show this is just Baxter's opinion of Llewellyn's opinion?

So Baxter does not say that the neck wounds came first, he simply opines that it may well be so, in light of what happened to Annie Chapman.

Swanson's Sept 19th report also says Llewellyn expressed the opinion that the abdominal wounds were inflicted before the throat was cut, but like
Gareth, I would be happy to see where Llewellyn actually says that the abdominal wounds came first, as I'm struggling to find such a reference.

[Fisherman]

The abdominal aorta lies beneath the abdominal walls, intestines and other viscera. Unless the killer cut through the latter, which doesn't appear to have been the case, then the aorta would have been unscathed.

We donīt know that, Gareth. We have no idea about which organs were struck and we donīt know that the aorta was left undamaged. The large wound was a very deep one, it was said, and thatīs about as far as our knowledge stretches. Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense, as you know.

[Fisherman]

This comes from Baxter's summing-up at the end of the inquest, more than a fortnight after Llewellyn had given his testimony. Is it possible that Baxter was simply mistaken or confused? Certainly, those earlier reports quoted by Joshua seem to show that Llewellyn, whilst noting the blood found in the abdomen, maintained that death was caused by the cut throat, and that it was this wound which was inflicted first.

Possible? Yes, very much is possible. But if there was never any doubt about how Llewellyn thought that the neck wounds came first, then why would Baxter, two weeks afterwards, come up with such an idea?

The last stop on a line is normally the one where things have been staightened out, and this is what we are looking at here, Iīd say.

Joshua turned his reports around chronologically. On the 1:st, Llewellyn said that the wounds to the neck killed her. At that stage, I believe he had not made his final examination of the body.

On the 3:rd, he had seen the blood in the abdomen and had a change of heart. But Helson - who I think is quoted here - seems disinclined to accept Llewellynīs altered decision. So if anybody is misunderstanding here, it is him. Baxter quoted Llewellyn as having said that the abdominal wounds were what caused Nicholsī death. Accordingly, since the neck wounds would have killed her if they came first, they must have come second.

Baxter had it correct at the inquest - and he did not like it one bit.

[Sam Flynn]

Baxter establishes at the inquest that Llewellyn believed that the abdominal wounds came first:

"Dr. Llewellyn seems to incline to the opinion that the abdominal injuries were first, and caused instantaneous death; but, if so, it seems difficult to understand the object of such desperate injuries to the throat..."

This comes from Baxter's summing-up at the end of the inquest, more than a fortnight after Llewellyn had given his testimony. Is it possible that Baxter was simply mistaken or confused? Certainly, those earlier reports quoted by Joshua seem to show that Llewellyn, whilst noting the blood found in the abdomen, maintained that death was caused by the cut throat, and that it was this wound which was inflicted first.