Charles Allen Lechmere - new suspect?

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;398390]

What does Phillips who was at the crime scene say Trevor?

he says:


"I carefully closed up the clothes of the woman. Some portions had been excised."





how do you interpret that?


s

That was in relation to the intestines which were outside the body

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

I told you to check the source, but you can't take a hint can you? The statement I cited does NOT refer to McKenzie. It refers to the series of murders. The relevant paragraph in its entirety reads:
"With regard to the alleged interview between the correspondent of the Pall Mall Gazette and the late Chief-Inspector Abberline, I think I know that gentleman better than to think he could have said that the series of murders was the work of an expert surgeon, when he knew that it was nothing more than a number of slashes all over the body of the victim, even after he knew that the victim was dead." (Morning advertiser, 30 March 1903)

To drive this home, as you are obviously having some difficulty understanding it, Reid was stating that Abberline was wrong in saying that the series of murders was the work of an expert surgeon, when he knew that it (the work) was nothing more than a number of slashes.

The evisceration of a woman id not adequately described by "a number of slashes", no matter how hard you try to teach me what word and phrases mean.

Whether or not the remark refers to Kelly or not is irrelevant. It suggests that Reid was not aware of the extent of the mutilations. Or it suggests that Reid was not describing them properly for reasons of his own.

Of course he was even in 1896 this is what he says about the murders

Nichols
She was found with her throat cut and on the post-mortem examination taking place it was found that her body was [sic] been cut about in a brutal, haphazard manner with a knife.

Chapman
The body of the woman had again been slashed and hacked about in the clumsiest possible manner.

Eddowes
In a quiet, dark corner of Mitre-square
we found the body of a woman with the throat cut, and her body mutilated in the same horrible manner as in the other cases. This woman’s nose and ears had been cut off, and her face slashed.

Kelly
the horrible sight of the woman lying on her bed hacked to pieces, and pieces of her flesh placed upon the table.

So it would seem that he is not that mistaken. But it is you jumping to the wrong conclusion based on that one newspaper article and trying to discredit him and the 1896 article.

The term slashes seem to be a term Reid has used throughout his career and I would say that 1903 article which you heavily rely on is out of context and makes the 1896 article even more authentic.

And you have not supplied any evidence in support of the Dr Bond. You mention Dr Hibbert. He was initially present but took no further involvement after the initial examination and before the crime scene was revisited so as I said his evidence is hearsay. Because we dont know what went on after that.

I am not relying on Dr. Bond or Dr. Hebbert. I am stating that Drs. Bond and Hebbert were present when the post-mortem and supplied the information that Kelly's heart could not be found in the room.

[B]That is not true as I have said in the previous reply[/B

Dr. Bond also said the heart was "absent" and gave the location of several organs were found, but not the heart, but I am not counting that. However, one should perhaps view it in the light of comments by other medical men. Dr. Gabe, who was also present at the post-mortem, also stated that a portion of Kelly's body was missing, but I haven't mentioned that because you already appeared to be overtaxed.

See above answer

Don't be a silly, Trevor. I have worked with primary and secondary sources since leaving school, which I regret to say was a long, long time ago. It is a basic and essential part of analytical thinking. The difference between primary and secondary sources is important across practically every discipline, which is why it is taught in high school. So don't tell me that I don't know what primary and secondary sources are. Or. if you feel so compelled, explain what they are in some detail. And it isn't the same as primary and secondary evidence, so don't trot that out again.

Well something arrived in my mail box from another history expert on the subject of primary and secondary sources.

"I think you have analysed the primary sources about Kelly's 'missing' heart correctly and incisively.

One thing: a primary source is simply a source from the time being studied. A secondary source is simply not. This is confused by loads of people with the terms first-hand and second-hand -- they are different.

A fourth-hand source, for example, can be primary if it is from the time being studied, but it is will probably be very unreliable.

Edmund Reid was there, and in 1896 he made some comments which can be verified and measured. Some of what he recalled was in error whilst other bits of data are probably correct -- like the issue of Kelly's organs"

I am not and never have suggested that the heart was taken away. I have left it open, unresolved, as any fair and unbiased assessment should. I have drawn your attention to that probable conclusion twice or maybe three times. Other information such as Hebbert and Gabe has emerged since 2006 which might tip the scales in favour of the heart having been taken I can add that other writers share my position, Melvin Harris, for example, thought Dr. Bond's statement that the heart was absent as meaning the heart had been taken from the room as a “nonsensical bending of the words”. (The True Face of Jack the Ripper). I warned you a few posts back that you were kidding yourself if you thought you were the first person to have questioned the missing heart.

What I object to is you making these claims as if they're new and basing them of your own badly flawed reasoning.

Your objection is duly noticed

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;398390]

What does Phillips who was at the crime scene say Trevor?

he says:


"I carefully closed up the clothes of the woman. Some portions had been excised."



how do you interpret that?

s

Very good, Steve.

Pierre

[PaulB]

That statement you cite relates to another murder which the injuries from that body were not much more than slashes and you have been show a definition of a slash. You have been told and shown details of that murder yet you still for some reason introduce it into the grand scheme of things. It has nothing to do with the Kelly murder.

I told you to check the source, but you can't take a hint can you? The statement I cited does NOT refer to McKenzie. It refers to the series of murders. The relevant paragraph in its entirety reads:
"With regard to the alleged interview between the correspondent of the Pall Mall Gazette and the late Chief-Inspector Abberline, I think I know that gentleman better than to think he could have said that the series of murders was the work of an expert surgeon, when he knew that it was nothing more than a number of slashes all over the body of the victim, even after he knew that the victim was dead." (Morning advertiser, 30 March 1903)

To drive this home, as you are obviously having some difficulty understanding it, Reid was stating that Abberline was wrong in saying that the series of murders was the work of an expert surgeon, when he knew that it (the work) was nothing more than a number of slashes.

The evisceration of a woman id not adequately described by "a number of slashes", no matter how hard you try to teach me what word and phrases mean.

Whether or not the remark refers to Kelly or not is irrelevant. It suggests that Reid was not aware of the extent of the mutilations. Or it suggests that Reid was not describing them properly for reasons of his own.

He is not the only source of information as you have been told. Looking at it that way how can you believe Bond when he is the only source you rely on. Hibberts statement is only hearsay.

On the contrary, the only foundation you have so far given are some newspapers which stated that no part of the body was missing and Reid statement. However, the newspapers continued to claim that despite statements to the contrary, it was believed that part of the body was missing. You have not produced anything showing that all the organs were found, except Reid. Thus Reid is the only support you have for the claims you make.

I am not relying on Dr. Bond or Dr. Hebbert. I am stating that Drs. Bond and Hebbert were present when the post-mortem and supplied the information that Kelly's heart could not be found in the room. Dr. Bond also said the heart was "absent" and gave the location of several organs were found, but not the heart, but I am not counting that. However, one should perhaps view it in the light of comments by other medical men. Dr. Gabe, who was also present at the post-mortem, also stated that a portion of Kelly's body was missing, but I haven't mentioned that because you already appeared to be overtaxed.

Thats not true there were only two Eddowes and Chapman, and where the eviscerations took place is now also questionable

Three of the victims were eviscerated. One was ripped open by no viscera was pulled out. There is nothing in the least questionable about where the evisceration took place, that's just a fantasy of yours, but is irrelevant because none of those women suffered a few slashes about the body.

I am going to say and keep saying that you and Steve are wrong on this topic of primary and secondary sources and that my assessment is correct.

Don't be a silly, Trevor. I have worked with primary and secondary sources since leaving school, which I regret to say was a long, long time ago. It is a basic and essential part of analytical thinking. The difference between primary and secondary sources is important across practically every discipline, which is why it is taught in high school. So don't tell me that I don't know what primary and secondary sources are. Or. if you feel so compelled, explain what they are in some detail. And it isn't the same as primary and secondary evidence, so don't trot that out again.

Finally what I am going to post now on your current stance on the heart issue is different to what you wrote in your book jack the Ripper The Facts in 2006 in which you dont seem to be so suggestive of the heart being taken away by the killer

I am not and never have suggested that the heart was taken away. I have left it open, unresolved, as any fair and unbiased assessment should. I have drawn your attention to that probable conclusion twice or maybe three times. Other information such as Hebbert and Gabe has emerged since 2006 which might tip the scales in favour of the heart having been taken I can add that other writers share my position, Melvin Harris, for example, thought Dr. Bond's statement that the heart was absent as meaning the heart had been taken from the room as a “nonsensical bending of the words”. (The True Face of Jack the Ripper). I warned you a few posts back that you were kidding yourself if you thought you were the first person to have questioned the missing heart.

What I object to is you making these claims as if they're new and basing them of your own badly flawed reasoning.

[Trevor Marriott]

Now hear this

The accuracy of the details Reid gives in the newspaper report you have cited is not disputed. What is questioned and what you are desperate to avoid, is Reid's overall credibility based on an assessment of all the available information.

I have cited a statement by Reid that the mutilations amounted a few post-mortem slashes. It is not the only inaccurate statement he made. The severity of the mutilations was very well-known to everyone and Reid was in a far better position to know than most. It raises questions about the reliability of his statements.

That statement you cite relates to another murder which the injuries from that body were not much more than slashes and you have been show a definition of a slash. You have been told and shown details of that murder yet you still for some reason introduce it into the grand scheme of things. It has nothing to do with the Kelly murder.

Trying to draw this distinction is simply obfuscation on your part. What is under discussion is whether Reid can be believed, especially when he is the only source for information. However, since we are looking at Reid's post-retirement statements, Reid's physical and mental capacities, personality, and his motives and intentions inevitably play a part in the overall assessment. We are therefore interested in the man as well as his words.

He is not the only source of information as you have been told. Looking at it that way how can you believe Bond when he is the only source you rely on. Hibberts statement is only hearsay.

The victims were eviscerated, not simply subjected to a few post-mortem slashes, no matter how you define them.

Thats not true there were only two Eddowes and Chapman, and where the eviscerations took place is now also questionable


Finally, to return to your earlier comment:

You do not understand what primary and secondary sources are, yet you persist in referring to them and showing your ignorance. You persist in thinking that primary sources are eye-witness accounts and secondary sources are hearsay. That is NOT the case. To simplify this for you, a primary source is a source contemporary with the events described (though not necessarily at the time they happened; and autobiography is a primary source, for example). A secondary source is a source drawing upon multiple sources, usually long after the events described. Whether Reid was describing something he saw with his own eyes, or was describing something he did not see but believed to be true, he is a primary source. However, your book about Jack the Ripper is a secondary source because you are drawing upon multiple sources to describe what you think happened. If you want to deal with the past, Trevor, you will have to understand things as fundamental as sources and how to treat them.

I am going to say and keep saying that you and Steve are wrong on this topic of primary and secondary sources and that my assessment is correct.

Finally what I am going to post now on your current stance on the heart issue is different to what you wrote in your book jack the Ripper The Facts in 2006 in which you dont seem to be so suggestive of the heart being taken away by the killer

'Dr. Bond seems to have meant that the heart had been taken from the place where it should have been, not that it was absent from the room (i.e., taken away by the killer.) ...

Apart from Bond's reference to the absence of the heart (meaning removed from the body), no mention was made of any part of Kelly's body being missing and the "Daily Telegraph" reported that the Central News claimed "upon what is described as indisputable authority, that no portion of the murdered woman's body was taken away by the murderer". "The Times" said that "the post-mortem examination was of the most exhaustive character, and surgeons did not quit their work until every organ had been accounted for and placed as closely as possible in its natural position."

nevertheless, that organs had been removed from the body was a persistent rumour and on 13 November "The Times" explained, "At the first examination, which was only of a cursory character, it was thought that a portion of the body was only of a cursory character, it was thought that a portion of the body had gone, but this is not the case."

However, on the same day the "Daily Telegraph" assured its readers, "We are enabled to state, on good authority, that notwithstanding all that has been said to the contrary, a portion of the bodily organs was missing." One can only assume that the organ in question was the heart. Whether or not it was really missing is not known.'

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

Originally Posted by Elamarna :

When assessing the reliability of a source , in this case the 96 interview, one MUST compare it to other sources from the same source, in this case other comments by Reid


Trevor:

No one must not.

Yes one must!

Learn some basic research technique and use it you wish to be taken seriously as a researcher.

You show me in that article where he is wrong about Kellys wounds? Lets deal with one issue at a time. Everything in that article is in line with all that we know to be correct as far as the Kelly murder is concerned. It is not an isolated press article without corroboration. The corroboartion as to its accuracy is there for all to see

It is not about a single article, its if he demonstrates sufficient and consistent knowledge in all the sources attributed to him with regards to the Kelly case, and the other cases he was involved in, to allow us to interpret the 96 source as being reliable.


It appears he does not!

In effect you are doing the very same yourself of course, by trying to use the selected press reports from 1888 as collaboration the 96 interview.

How can I be biased. I have presented evidence from a primary source a witness who was present, which has more than enough corroboration for it to be deemed accurate, but you and Paul are ducking and diving on this issue, because you dont want it to change the old accepted theory

You are not presenting evidence from a Primary source, its a Secondary source, nevertheless that on its own does not make it unreliable!

A good researcher must check what Reid says in that 96 interview against other statements he makes to see if he is consistent in his view, if there is a trend to exaggerate or not, or if there is a trend to make the same or similar mistakes repeatedly.

You have a theory, you are pushing it despite the lack of evidence, of course you can be bias.



I do not see Paul or myself ducking and diving, we are giving clear answers, presenting data to back up the arguments where necessary, it appears you are the one avoiding the issues

I see you have still not responded with regards to the master butcher whose opinion you mentioned twice, but forgot to say what it was or to link to the source,

Or similarly when presented with Primary source material from an inquest, you do not discuss and question what was actually said or its meaning, all of which would be reasonable responses,but make a comment, along the lines of if this were true why did the coroner ask the question which the Witness replied to, the reply I quoted.

In effect ignoring what Phillips said.

Nor indeed has any reasoned response been given to the primary source from Mitre Square with regards to the light.

Thats your opinion not mine

by providing a fuller picture, that is not being selective, is he giving a clear view or not?

Lets use simple stuff here to illustrate:

I have a photo and crop it to show just the central character, with no others in shot or enough background to allow identification of where the shot was taken.

Is the original photo or the cropped version of the image the most accurate information about what was happening when said shot was taken?


Steve

[PaulB]

Led me add some more to the mix, as you keep telling me Reid mentions slashes. But that is in relation to the Mckenzie murder and compared to other victims that description would seem to be very accurate

Really? I think you ought to go back and check that. And I have already made the point that describing the evisceration as mere slashes is a gross understatement. Stop going on about it as if it matters. Your are just muddying the waters.

But I am sure Nit pickers Inc will come back in force trying to make a big issue out of the the minor flaws

You rely in whole or in great part on Reid's statement that no body parts had been removed from the scene of Mary Kelly's murder. Other sources of equal and perhaps greater authority, such as Drs. Bond and Hebbert, stated that body parts were located in the room, but the heart wasn't. The onus of responsibility is on you to support your thinking with evidence and mature and responsible argument. That does not mean trying to belittle and diminish your critics by calling them "Nit-pickers Inc". All that does is suggest, probably rightly, that you are desperate.

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;398374]

If the organs were found to have been missing at the crime scene, and there is no evidence to show that was the case, then there would have been no need for the coroner to ask that question because Phillips would have said in his crime scene evidence that he saw that the said organs were missing when he first examined the body.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

What does Phillips who was at the crime scene say Trevor?

he says:


"I carefully closed up the clothes of the woman. Some portions had been excised."





how do you interpret that?


s

[PaulB]

But that single report cannot be anything other than accurate because we know that the contents are in line with what we know, and what is accepted as being the official line with regards to the events surrounding the murder.

The accuracy of the details Reid gives in the newspaper report you have cited is not disputed. What is questioned and what you are desperate to avoid, is Reid's overall credibility based on an assessment of all the available information.

I do not know the other references you refer to, but you have to remember he was directly involved in this murder, and not so with regards to other murders so that being said if he comments on one of those then it is secondary and hearsay. Not primary as is the case with this article.

I have cited a statement by Reid that the mutilations amounted a few post-mortem slashes. It is not the only inaccurate statement he made. The severity of the mutilations was very well-known to everyone and Reid was in a far better position to know than most. It raises questions about the reliability of his statements.

You are falling into the trap of bringing a witnesses credibility into play, and not the credibility of the evidence he gives.

Trying to draw this distinction is simply obfuscation on your part. What is under discussion is whether Reid can be believed, especially when he is the only source for information. However, since we are looking at Reid's post-retirement statements, Reid's physical and mental capacities, personality, and his motives and intentions inevitably play a part in the overall assessment. We are therefore interested in the man as well as his words.

His reference to the term slashes has also been called into question with regards to his credibility. I would say that this is another example of nit picking what is the definition of a slash " A long cut or other opening made by such a stroke; a gash or slit" isn't that what the victims bodies were subjected to?

The victims were eviscerated, not simply subjected to a few post-mortem slashes, no matter how you define them.

Finally, to return to your earlier comment:

I do not know the other references you refer to, but you have to remember he was directly involved in this murder, and not so with regards to other murders so that being said if he comments on one of those then it is secondary and hearsay. Not primary as is the case with this article.

You do not understand what primary and secondary sources are, yet you persist in referring to them and showing your ignorance. You persist in thinking that primary sources are eye-witness accounts and secondary sources are hearsay. That is NOT the case. To simplify this for you, a primary source is a source contemporary with the events described (though not necessarily at the time they happened; and autobiography is a primary source, for example). A secondary source is a source drawing upon multiple sources, usually long after the events described. Whether Reid was describing something he saw with his own eyes, or was describing something he did not see but believed to be true, he is a primary source. However, your book about Jack the Ripper is a secondary source because you are drawing upon multiple sources to describe what you think happened. If you want to deal with the past, Trevor, you will have to understand things as fundamental as sources and how to treat them.

[Trevor Marriott]

No, Trevor, the issue being discussed here is the reliability of Reid. You are desperately trying to restrict that assessment to a single newspaper report because you believe what he said in that article was correct, whereas, of course, we know that he was grossly inaccurate elsewhere. You want to restrict discussion to that article because you have argued that the murderer did not remove any organs from the crime scene and Reid is the only support you have. You are blatantly and demonstrably biased and everybody should treat anything you say with extreme caution.

Does that unmuddy the waters sufficiently, for you?

Led me add some more to the mix, as you keep telling me Reid mentions slashes. But that is in relation to the Mckenzie murder and compared to other victims that description would seem to be very accurate

Cause of death from severance of the left carotid artery.
Two stabs in the left side of the neck 'carried forward in the same skin wound.'
Cut was made from left to right, apparently while McKenzie was on the ground.
A long (seven-inch) 'but not unduly deep' wound from the bottom of the left breast to the navel.
Seven or eight scratches beginning at the navel and pointing toward the genitalia.
Small cut across the mons veneris.

Take a look back at the entry on Reid in your very own A-Z jointly written by you, the term "Victim" is used when referring to slashes

He was directly involved in the Tabram murder, but read the article and compare that to what is known of the murder he seems to recall an awful lot, good memory or notes for him to refer back to?

It is also noted that Reid was on holiday when Chapman was murdered so his mention of this murder in the article in very brief but what he does say is in line with what is known.

He appears to have had no direct involvement in the Nichols murder and talks very little about this murder.

He was directly involved with the Stride murder by attending the inquest. There are several minor issues with this account. The main one being that he says Diemschultz disturbed the killer, which he may well have done in any event so if thats what Reid believed at the time so be it, doesn't effect his credibility.

With regards to the Eddowes murder I am aware of the date error but if you read the wording prior to this it is quite clear he is talking about the same night as the Stride murder so that may be a paper error. He was not directly involved in this murder as it was a City murder and speaks very briefly about the graffiti and apron piece to which he had no direct involvement in.

So considering that interview with the NOW, he doesn't seem to have got that much wrong with the murders he mentions for anyone to question his credibility, and I would say that either his memory was excellent at that time or he was in possession of his old notes.

But I am sure Nit pickers Inc will come back in force trying to make a big issue out of the the minor flaws

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

No, Trevor, the issue being discussed here is the reliability of Reid. You are desperately trying to restrict that assessment to a single newspaper report because you believe what he said in that article was correct, whereas, of course, we know that he was grossly inaccurate elsewhere. You want to restrict discussion to that article because you have argued that the murderer did not remove any organs from the crime scene and Reid is the only support you have. You are blatantly and demonstrably biased and everybody should treat anything you say with extreme caution.

Does that unmuddy the waters sufficiently, for you?

But that single report cannot be anything other than accurate because we know that the contents are in line with what we know, and what is accepted as being the official line with regards to the events surrounding the murder.

I do not know the other references you refer to, but you have to remember he was directly involved in this murder, and not so with regards to other murders so that being said if he comments on one of those then it is secondary and hearsay. Not primary as is the case with this article.

You are falling into the trap of bringing a witnesses credibility into play, and not the credibility of the evidence he gives.

His reference to the term slashes has also been called into question with regards to his credibility. I would say that this is another example of nit picking what is the definition of a slash " A long cut or other opening made by such a stroke; a gash or slit" isn't that what the victims bodies were subjected to?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Round 3

When assessing the reliability of a source , in this case the 96 interview, one MUST compare it to other sources from the same source, in this case other comments by Reid

No one must not.

The fact that he is so wrong about the wounds, suggests as I said earlier that his knowledge of the event may not be as strong as you suppose.

You show me in that article where he is wrong about Kellys wounds? Lets deal with one issue at a time. Everything in that article is in line with all that we know to be correct as far as the Kelly murder is concerned. It is not an isolated press article without corroboration. The corroboartion as to its accuracy is there for all to see

The refusal to accept this is just other example of the incredible degree of bias in your work, and the value of any research conducted this way is indeed very questionable.

How can I be biased. I have presented evidence from a primary source a witness who was present, which has more than enough corroboration for it to be deemed accurate, but you and Paul are ducking and diving on this issue, because you dont want it to change the old accepted theory

You accuse Paul of muddying the waters, when what he is actually doing is the exact opposite and making the view clearer by providing fuller information.

Thats your opinion not mine

Steve

[PaulB]

He didnt say that in the article, and that is the issue we are discussing here. There you go again muddying the waters

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No, Trevor, the issue being discussed here is the reliability of Reid. You are desperately trying to restrict that assessment to a single newspaper report because you believe what he said in that article was correct, whereas, of course, we know that he was grossly inaccurate elsewhere. You want to restrict discussion to that article because you have argued that the murderer did not remove any organs from the crime scene and Reid is the only support you have. You are blatantly and demonstrably biased and everybody should treat anything you say with extreme caution.

Does that unmuddy the waters sufficiently, for you?

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;398374]

If the organs were found to have been missing at the crime scene, and there is no evidence to show that was the case, then there would have been no need for the coroner to ask that question because Phillips would have said in his crime scene evidence that he saw that the said organs were missing when he first examined the body.

You will soon become known as "Lord Protector of the Old Accepted theories"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;398358]

That depends on how you read the inquest testimony of Phillips

[Coroner] You do not think they could have been lost accidentally in the transit of the body to the mortuary? - I was not present at the transit. I carefully closed up the clothes of the woman. Some portions had been excised.


That would appear to say that while Phillips was not present during the transit himself; he had previously closed up the clothing and had noticed that some parts of the body were already missing at that stage.


Steve

If the organs were found to have been missing at the crime scene, and there is no evidence to show that was the case, then there would have been no need for the coroner to ask that question because Phillips would have said in his crime scene evidence that he saw that the said organs were missing when he first examined the body.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk