Evidence of innocence

[FISHY1118]

Hi Fishy,



I think there are aspects of posing in the Kelly case, the position of her left arm in particular looks deliberately placed, and when that is combined with her head turned towards the entrance (while that could be situational), it creates a posture that does look contrived, hence posed.

The placement of the internal organs in the Eddowes' case could reflect placing things out of the way; they had to go somewhere after all, so I'm not so sure in that case. Could be it was deliberate, but it also could just be situational. However, again, in the Kelly case, with some placed under her head (I believe that is how it is described? I don't have my notes in front of me), cannot be explained so easily, so again, there appears to be a deliberate arrangement of the body over and above performing the mutilations reflecting an aspect of posing.

Some descriptions of Annie Chapman's items are that they appeared deliberately arranged, and that could suggest some sort of posing, though more of the scene than the body itself. The idea of doing something "more" to arrange the scene for those who find the body could be something that was developing as an idea, starting at least with the Chapman crime, but I would agree with you that it is being shown in the Kelly scene. Of course, it may be most apparent in the scene he had the most time available, so it's hard to suggest when this idea may have first occurred to him.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff, Thanks , And yet with all that, and this from Dr Brown ''The intestines were drawn out to a large extent and placed over the right shoulder -- they were smeared over with some feculent matter. A piece of about two feet was quite detached from the body and placed between the body and the left arm, apparently by design''. It make one wonder why anyone would say such a thing as ''i dont see any evidence of posing''. But then some would have us think the inverted cuts and the slits to Eddowes eyelids were done while she was quote ''avoiding the blade ,her face could have been cut that way from the movement of the knife'' . Remarkable.

[JeffHamm]

The blue circles are fire hydrants, Jeff.

Thanks! Not something that concerns us then, but good to know all the same.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff, Thanks , And yet with all that, and this from Dr Brown ''The intestines were drawn out to a large extent and placed over the right shoulder -- they were smeared over with some feculent matter. A piece of about two feet was quite detached from the body and placed between the body and the left arm, apparently by design''. It make one wonder why anyone would say such a thing as ''i dont see any evidence of posing''. But then some would have us think the inverted cuts and the slits to Eddowes eyelids were done while she was quote ''avoiding the blade ,her face could have been cut that way from the movement of the knife'' . Remarkable.

Hi Fishy,

Yah, the "apparently by design" shouldn't be ignored as he actually saw the crime scene. However, it is an inference of intent, and if you're removing a large portion of intestines, that you've cut at both ends, and so are leaking, well, one might just handle that to keep it horizontal and place it down to avoid the leaking substances. As such, it's possible, but not as clear as with the Kelly case in my view.

As for the triangular cuts, they are not pointed triangles but they're rounded at the "tips". This to me looks like he held her head with his left hand horizontal over her mouth. This would push the cheeks up causing the skin to bulge. Then, when he cut across her face, and over the nose, the blade of the knife will cut through her cheeks producing cuts of that nature. I don't see these as having been done individually, or as specific shapes, but as a product of how he held her head steady when he cut across it. But I doubt I'll change anyone's view on that as these seem to be one of those things where very strong views are held.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Jeff, Thanks , And yet with all that, and this from Dr Brown ''The intestines were drawn out to a large extent and placed over the right shoulder -- they were smeared over with some feculent matter. A piece of about two feet was quite detached from the body and placed between the body and the left arm, apparently by design''. It make one wonder why anyone would say such a thing as ''i dont see any evidence of posing''. But then some would have us think the inverted cuts and the slits to Eddowes eyelids were done while she was quote ''avoiding the blade ,her face could have been cut that way from the movement of the knife'' . Remarkable.

perhaps you would care to enlighten us as to how you think the cuts to the face and eyes were made and for what reason?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Fishy,

Yah, the "apparently by design" shouldn't be ignored as he actually saw the crime scene. However, it is an inference of intent, and if you're removing a large portion of intestines, that you've cut at both ends, and so are leaking, well, one might just handle that to keep it horizontal and place it down to avoid the leaking substances. As such, it's possible, but not as clear as with the Kelly case in my view.

As for the triangular cuts, they are not pointed triangles but they're rounded at the "tips". This to me looks like he held her head with his left hand horizontal over her mouth. This would push the cheeks up causing the skin to bulge. Then, when he cut across her face, and over the nose, the blade of the knife will cut through her cheeks producing cuts of that nature. I don't see these as having been done individually, or as specific shapes, but as a product of how he held her head steady when he cut across it. But I doubt I'll change anyone's view on that as these seem to be one of those things where very strong views are held.

- Jeff

The post mortem images dont support the cuts to the cheeks being triangles. If as I have suggested the facial cuts to the cheek were stitched at the post mortem then what was there before are straight cuts which are vertically in line with the cuts to the eyes



www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GBinOz]

1. Light from the brewery and possibly a street lamp, spilling into the end of Buck's Row.
2. Ambient light and possibly actual lights from the Brown and Eagle's wool warehouse spilling into Buck's Row.
3. Possible position of the lamp post.
4. Ambient light and possible light from the station spilling into Buck's Row.
5. Ambient light.
6. Alternative site of the lamp post.
7. The darkest area in Buck's Row.

The majority of reports of Neil's statement say "I noticed a figure lying in the street. It was dark at the time, though there was a street lamp shining at the end of the row.". Some say "there was a street lamp on the opposite side some distance away.". The end of Bucks Row, and the row of houses is at Brady St. Neil doesn't report a functional lamp opposite the gateway on that night.

Neil may well have discerned a "figure" at a range of 6 metres. I was able to do that in my re-creation. I am disputing the suggestion that Cross could discern that a tarpaulin shape was actually a woman at a range of 17.5 metres as proposed. I am saying that he may have first seen the tarpaulin shape when passing the woolshed gates and kept walking on the footpath until nearly opposite and then crossed to the centre of the road where he realised that it was a woman. This fits his testimony. My re-creation persuaded me that the female shape was discernible from this position/angle (2-3 metres) rather than had he walked directly at the shape from the woolshed gates because the angle to the body was different and stopping in the middle of the road on this path was further away.

Cheers, George

[FrankO]

I had assumed that Neil's statement meant that the only light was at the Brady St end of Bucks Row, but if there were street lights near the Cap Factory or the Wool Warehouse gate, shouldn't Paul have spotted Cross as he passed under these lights, in which case he should have testified that he was aware of Cross walking in front of him.

Hi George,

I agree that Paul should have testified that he was aware of Lechmere walking ahead of him, had the lighting conditions been as the EN suggested they were on the night of the murder. Both his Lloyd’s interview and his inquest statement versions give me the impression that Lechmere could have walked ahead of Paul without him necessarily noticing him. Paul never expressed any surprise about not noticing Lechmere at any moment before seeing him standing in the middle of the street, nor was he asked about it. Which leads me to the conclusion that Buck's Row wasn't as well-lit as the EN suggested on the night of the murder. So, perhaps they fixed that right after the murder.

The other question I have is, in every outdoor murder, excluding Stride but including Tabram, the bodies were left "on display", so why was Nichols covered up? If Jack had left before Cross arrived, wouldn't he have left Nichols on display as was usual?

Not necessarily, George. As per the evidence, Paul was unable to pull the dress down over the knees and, as has been suggested, it may very well have been that the killer wasn’t able to pull it up further than where he left it as it had got stuck under Nichols’s body.

It’s also possible, and in line with the evidence, that the killer squatted beside her upper body, facing her feet, and cut her abdomen from that position from the groin to(wards) the breastbone. So, with his left hand he pulled up the dress leaving the hem on the chest area, whilst he cut under the dress with the other. If he did it like that, he didn’t need to get the dress completely out of the way. As long as it was worked up some way between, say, the knees and groin area, it would be fine. He could easily get under the dress with the knife and cut as he pleased and he didn’t need to bend or spread the legs.

If, however, he was crouched beside her legs and facing her head, then it would be more practical to lift the dress completely out of the way or he would have needed to put his knife hand under the dress and then cut downwards towards her groin area. Or he needed to hold the dress up with one hand and got under it with his other to cut and when he was finished he just dropped the dress on her abdomen. If this is what happened, then it may have been by choice or because he didn’t know any better yet, it being his first outdoor victim. But, again, it may also have been because the murderer couldn’t get the dress further up than where Lechmere & Paul found it because it had got stuck under her.

However, Paul’s statement firmly suggests that the hem of the dress was lying on the chest area when he was about to pull the dress down and that, to me, suggests that the murderer just dropped the dress covering he abdomen rather than that he consciously pulled the dress down to cover the abdominal wounds.

Cheers,
Frank

[JeffHamm]

Hi Trevor,

The post mortem images dont support the cuts to the cheeks being triangles. If as I have suggested the facial cuts to the cheek were stitched at the post mortem then what was there before are straight cuts which are vertically in line with the cuts to the eyes



www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I'm pretty sure Dr. Brown, during his post mortem, would be able to distinguish two straight cuts forming an X from a single cut resulting in a triangular flap of skin. In his PM report he describes them as "There was on each side of cheek a cut which peeled up the skin, forming a triangular flap about an inch and a half. ...", not two cuts, and not X's, but triangular flaps.

The photo, being of such poor quality and having been taken after she was stitched up (her nose has been reattached), is not a safe basis for assessment. The circles you've included, for example, don't seem to be in quite the location the triangular flaps are described to be. On the right side of the photo (Eddowes's left) is more beside her ear, not below her eye, and on the left side of the photo ( Eddowes' right) the X is a bit to the side of the eye, rather than pointing to her eye. It seems like those are different injuries. There's another photo which is less blurred in which it is quite clear it's a rounded triangular shape (as also indicated in one of the sketches), and in that one (I think it's more profile), the triangular cut does not appear to be in the position you've indicated and I think this has to do with the poor quality of the original photo, being so out of focus.

- Jeff

[drstrange169]

>>Possibly<<

Yes Gary, clearly labelling speculation, not a concept Lechmerians understand when they write things like,

"A lot closer than his approximate location as proposed by Dusty with the help of Richard’s simulation."

[drstrange169]

>>How can you tell that Purkiss could see the body more clearly than Mrs Green? Is there a source you are keeping back, Dusty?<<

Post #5521

I see you've learnt the Lechmerian rules well from Christer, always ask others to answer, but never answer the questions you are asked.

[drstrange169]

>>Neil may well have discerned a "figure" at a range of 6 metres.<<

As I've pointed out, it was more like a MINIMUM of 8 metres not 6. It seems very unlikely that he would have been level with body before noticing it, so over 8 metres is more realistic.

"... Neil was on his beat in Buck's-row, Thomas-street, Whitechapel, when his attention was attracted to the body of a woman lying on the pavement ..."



>>a woman at a range of 17.5 metres <<

I don't have a problem with him walking closer, the issue is how close. Your recreation is a good base point, but it is very unlikely to be exactly the conditions as Buck's Row that night as the various lighting factors are not added.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,



I'm pretty sure Dr. Brown, during his post mortem, would be able to distinguish two straight cuts forming an X from a single cut resulting in a triangular flap of skin. In his PM report he describes them as "There was on each side of cheek a cut which peeled up the skin, forming a triangular flap about an inch and a half. ...", not two cuts, and not X's, but triangular flaps.

The photo, being of such poor quality and having been taken after she was stitched up (her nose has been reattached), is not a safe basis for assessment. The circles you've included, for example, don't seem to be in quite the location the triangular flaps are described to be. On the right side of the photo (Eddowes's left) is more beside her ear, not below her eye, and on the left side of the photo ( Eddowes' right) the X is a bit to the side of the eye, rather than pointing to her eye. It seems like those are different injuries. There's another photo which is less blurred in which it is quite clear it's a rounded triangular shape (as also indicated in one of the sketches), and in that one (I think it's more profile), the triangular cut does not appear to be in the position you've indicated and I think this has to do with the poor quality of the original photo, being so out of focus.

- Jeff

One picture is worth a thousand words

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FISHY1118]

Hi Fishy,

Yah, the "apparently by design" shouldn't be ignored as he actually saw the crime scene. However, it is an inference of intent, and if you're removing a large portion of intestines, that you've cut at both ends, and so are leaking, well, one might just handle that to keep it horizontal and place it down to avoid the leaking substances. As such, it's possible, but not as clear as with the Kelly case in my view.

As for the triangular cuts, they are not pointed triangles but they're rounded at the "tips". This to me looks like he held her head with his left hand horizontal over her mouth. This would push the cheeks up causing the skin to bulge. Then, when he cut across her face, and over the nose, the blade of the knife will cut through her cheeks producing cuts of that nature. I don't see these as having been done individually, or as specific shapes, but as a product of how he held her head steady when he cut across it. But I doubt I'll change anyone's view on that as these seem to be one of those things where very strong views are held.

- Jeff

Hi jeff , Just on the first point ,the fact that Dr Brown thought enough to say ''by design'' is clearly evidence in itself its possible they were . But i can also see your point.In regards to Kelly and difference with Eddowes is undeniably so when discussing ''posing''' .

However your second point i will have to respectfully disagree, as my previous post on the subject with trevor suggest , Eddowes was killed instantly , all the facial injuries were done after she lay dead on the ground, and the evidence supports this .

[FISHY1118]

perhaps you would care to enlighten us as to how you think the cuts to the face and eyes were made and for what reason?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

What again ???? You didnt pay attention the first time .

[FISHY1118]

One picture is worth a thousand words



www.trevormarriott.co.uk

https://www.researchgate.net/profile...ck-William.png

Yes but theses are worth a million. Notice the similarities between the two drawings done by the same person, and more importantly the date and time on the second one. Surely there can be no doubt that before any post-mortem was done on Eddowes, this is what she looked liked - trianglular shaped ''V'' and slits to the eyelids.