Charles Allen Lechmere - new suspect?

[Trevor Marriott]

I don't understand what you're trying to say here.... Are you confirming that the heart was indeed missing?
As far as I can tell, your posts seem to say;

There definitely was a piece of the body missing after the autopsy
it wasn't found in the ashes
it's still missing
it wasn't the organ that was removed from previous victims (uterus) as that was found.

Since the heart was the only organ that wasn't listed with a location, it seems reasonable to conclude that the missing part was the heart.

I am saying that the heart was never missing, it was subsequently found and accounted for, thats why there is no more mention of it being missing

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Joshua Rogan]

And you are forgetting that after the inventory you refer to and after the initial examination of the body at the crime scene, and after the initial first post mortem, the crime scene was re visited as it would seem something may be un accounted for. I wonder what that could have been?

"Dr. Phillips and Dr. Bond, accompanied by Inspector Moore, Inspector Abberline, and Inspector Reid, are again paying a visit to Miller's-court, in order to examine the ashes found in the grate, as it is thought small parts of the body may have been burnt.”

"The Echo 12th November

“Nothing of any importance was discovered in the ashes at the deceased's house. A small portion only of the remains is missing, while it is noticeable as a special incident in the barbarous murder that the organ hitherto taken away at the mutilations was found in the room, although it had been cut out of the body...”


www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I don't understand what you're trying to say here.... Are you confirming that the heart was indeed missing?
As far as I can tell, your posts seem to say;

There definitely was a piece of the body missing after the autopsy
it wasn't found in the ashes
it's still missing
it wasn't the organ that was removed from previous victims (uterus) as that was found.

Since the heart was the only organ that wasn't listed with a location, it seems reasonable to conclude that the missing part was the heart.

[Trevor Marriott]

I always thought the idea that the police suppressed, to the press at least, that the heart might have been taken away. In case the killer got in touch with part of said organ, like in the lusk kidney letter to determine whether that letter was a hoax or not [ same handwriting ]. Plus they would know if a parcel containing part of a heart purporting to come from Kelly or a letter alluding to it being taken away [ if all knowledge was suppressed ] was genuine or not, was a fair assumption.

This has been raised before but there is no record in any police files, or anywhere for that matter to show that heart was ever missing. So the suppression you mention is not very plausible.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Darryl Kenyon]

I always thought the idea that the police suppressed, to the press at least, that the heart might have been taken away. In case the killer got in touch with part of said organ, like in the lusk kidney letter to determine whether that letter was a hoax or not [ same handwriting ]. Plus they would know if a parcel containing part of a heart purporting to come from Kelly or a letter alluding to it being taken away [ if all knowledge was suppressed ] was genuine or not, was a fair assumption.

[Trevor Marriott]

QUOTE=Trevor Marriott-Rest assured what I say is always important.

You seem to forget that the inventory of the organs does NOT list the heart. Dr. Bond says the heart is absent. Put those together and the heart is absent and not found in the room. All other organs were accounted for.

Geez, you would argue with a stop sign.

Columbo

And you are forgetting that after the inventory you refer to and after the initial examination of the body at the crime scene, and after the initial first post mortem, the crime scene was re visited as it would seem something may be un accounted for. I wonder what that could have been?

"Dr. Phillips and Dr. Bond, accompanied by Inspector Moore, Inspector Abberline, and Inspector Reid, are again paying a visit to Miller's-court, in order to examine the ashes found in the grate, as it is thought small parts of the body may have been burnt.”

"The Echo 12th November

“Nothing of any importance was discovered in the ashes at the deceased's house. A small portion only of the remains is missing, while it is noticeable as a special incident in the barbarous murder that the organ hitherto taken away at the mutilations was found in the room, although it had been cut out of the body...”

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Columbo]

QUOTE=Trevor Marriott-Rest assured what I say is always important.

You seem to forget that the inventory of the organs does NOT list the heart. Dr. Bond says the heart is absent. Put those together and the heart is absent and not found in the room. All other organs were accounted for.

Geez, you would argue with a stop sign.

Columbo

[harry]

In each instance,might be a reference to each individual body part. My teacing could accept that.

John Wheat,
Correct John,and there was also the possibility of others unseen,who did not come forward.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, I have not seen any source supporting that theory.

And I think Trevor also said that it was not legal for staff to take organs from a murder victim whithout a formal permission.

Regards, Pierre

I did not mention staff. I cited medical personnel, who were legally entitled to go and freely obtain organs for medical research. I wish people would get the facts right and listen to what I say.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Steve,
Thank you. It's always a pity that we don't get a chance to chat for longer at conferences. It's always something I look forward to. As for Trevor, well he's used to having a whole array of people arguing with him. It doesn't seem to phase him in the least. What he does do that I welcome, is that he causes us to look far more closely at all the sources, be it about the apron, Kelly's heart, or whatever notion he comes up with. Sadly,you can show Trevor a black door and he'll swear it's white if that's what he wants, and it's great for him because it makes it look like he has something important to say. Paul

Rest assured what I say is always important, perhaps not to you or your other egg headed historical bed mate on here, both of you seem to be suffering from severe bouts of historical factitis, or source poisoning, or even data inflicted injuries.

But despite all your ramblings and constant references to historical facts, sources and data. many of the old accepted facts surrounding this mystery do not stand up to close scrutiny, and its time you accepted that, and got off the fence where you constantly sit, and perhaps write a post which contains something positive instead of all the negativity your posts contain.

If you want to rely on history so be it. But my goal is to look at this as a cold case review, and not a historical exercise, which makes our roles totally different in the way we look at and interpret the evidence and facts which are before us and the conclusions we arrive at.

I can question an historical document whereas you it would seem accept it without question, and you attitude towards anyone is prove its wrong, and when anyone does come up with something which points to something being wrong. you go on the defence of the issue in question.

Personally I dont give a monkey`s whether you or any others accept what I am suggesting or not. It is clear those on here who do not want to even consider the new facts, have their own agenda, that would seem to be propping up the old theories, and I cant for the life of me see why after 128 years everything from 1888 should be readily accepted without question.

When anyone comes here with plausible alternative explanations,the hit squad comes out with all guns blazing. Well it may frighten off new posters who come here with such theories and explanations but it doesn't wash with me. I am not going to be bullied, or intimidated by the likes of you. Insults dont bother me because, when that happens I know I am hitting the right nerves.

So lets just go over the evidence one more time for old times sake, so I can see you twist and squirm you way out of accepting the facts. If you do not concur with me on these issues free to come down off the fence and put me right.

Insp Reid, head of Whitechapel CID visits the crime scene and was directly involved thereafter. In fact he visits the crime scene twice.So he was directly involved up until that point, and that point would have been when the organs were all accounted for as per the newspaper reports.

Dr Bond states the heart was missing from the pericardium. He does not state it was missing from the room and passes no comment ever about the heart being missing.

On that basis, and that alone, you and others it would seem draw an inference and take that as meaning missing from the room. How you arrive at that is truly amazing.

There is no evidence to show that the heart was ever missing from the room.

The newspapers of the day publish articles stating that no organs were missing from the room.

Thereafter there is nothing on record from any other official primary source to show the heart was missing from the room, which given the atrocity of the crime I would have expected it to have surfaced somewhere over the ensuing years.

So up until this point where does the truth lie. With the balance of probability it lies in favour of the heart not being taken.

Fast forward
1896 Insp Reid recounts his knowledge of the Kelly murder which he was directly involved in. In that recount he states no organ was found to be missing. That recount was either from his direct recollection or perhaps notes he still had in his possession. Either way the content is 99.9% totally accurate.

Where does the truth lie now, heart missing, or nothing taken? The balance of probability issue in my mind doesn't even come into play. If you dont believe Reid then prove conclusively that what he says in relation to the Kelly murder is wrong and that he was mistaken, and produce other evidence to show the organ was taken away by the killer.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Pierre]

There is no evidence whatsoever for the organ removal theory therefore it is all wild speculation.

Yes, I have not seen any source supporting that theory.

And I think Trevor also said that it was not legal for staff to take organs from a murder victim whithout a formal permission.

Regards, Pierre

[PaulB]

Dear Paul

I find it incomprehensible that two people are telling Trevor, almost exactly the same thing, but he just does not want to listen.

Can i just say how nice it was to meet and speak to you for a few minutes at the 21st anniversary weekend.


Steve

l

Hi Steve,
Thank you. It's always a pity that we don't get a chance to chat for longer at conferences. It's always something I look forward to. As for Trevor, well he's used to having a whole array of people arguing with him. It doesn't seem to phase him in the least. What he does do that I welcome, is that he causes us to look far more closely at all the sources, be it about the apron, Kelly's heart, or whatever notion he comes up with. Sadly,you can show Trevor a black door and he'll swear it's white if that's what he wants, and it's great for him because it makes it look like he has something important to say. Paul

[John Wheat]

I'm not touching the organ removal issue with someone else's bargepole, but Trevor...this is not just Elamarna, there is nothing ambiguous about the phrase 'in every instance'.

In every instance - meaning not only more than one instance, but all of them.

There is no evidence whatsoever for the organ removal theory therefore it is all wild speculation.

[MsWeatherwax]

It wouldn't to you, to much knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I'm not touching the organ removal issue with someone else's bargepole, but Trevor...this is not just Elamarna, there is nothing ambiguous about the phrase 'in every instance'.

In every instance - meaning not only more than one instance, but all of them.

[PaulB]

Well why mention it in the first place if you didnt want me to commnet on it?

I don't mind you commenting on it. In fact I'd like it if you did comment on it. However, you didn't comment on it. You made a half-arsed comment about them not being there, which wasn't something I'd said and which they didn't need to be in order to make the observation they did.

Well it was a misplaced observation on your part

Really? Perhaps you would explain what is misplaced about citing a reasonable suggestion by a former policeman and recognised authority on Reid?

No one is cherry picking I am referring to the part of the interview that aplied to Kelly. As to the other parts and any errors I think you will find that Reid was not directly involved on those murders.

Actually, dealing with what Reid said about Kelly and disregarding everything else, which is what you asked be done, is a very good example of cherry-picking. Otherwise, it may be fair to argue that he is inaccurate only regarding those crimes with which he had no direct involvement. Except that isn't really true, is it? And except he stated that the mutilations amounted to no more than a few post-mortem scratches, which, as I pointed out, was a gross understatement, especially given that in the case under discussion, Kelly, we have the worst case of mutilation of all the Ripper crimes.

Typical Paul Begg move ducking an answer

I don't duck giving answers, Trevor. That's your domain and to be honest you do it so often that I'm surprised your so bad at it. However, it is clear that you disregard everything you are told by others and just repeat the same old and tiresome ideas you have fixed in your head. I don't see why I should tell you things you should already know.

And what was that source?

See above. But I quoted what it said, so you can start searching for it. Do a bit of research.

You cannot show any flaw in the part which relates to Kelly and thats the important part

Nope, the important part is a full assessment of the source, not just the bit you like.

There is no misleading of anyone, if anything that is being done by you and at least one other on here who choose to seemingly disregard what Reid says, and are prepared to accept one single ambiguous statement which doesn't help either argument.

No. I don't accept one ambiguous source. I have Dr Bond's official report in which he said the heart was missing and located the position of other bodily organs but not the heart, and I have quoted another source specifically stating that whilst the other organs were scattered around the room, the heart was missing. I am aware of potential problems with both these sources and I note them, and I am aware of what Reid said, and I am equally aware that Reid is a similarly flawed source. It doesn't matter one iota to me whether the heart was missing or not, whereas it does matter to your theorising. But you fall-back is always to accuse others of not wanting to accept what you think happened. Are you going to be rude and tell me how stupid I am next, or do we have to pass through the cartel crap first?

There is no point in trying to argue with you on this issue. You clearly do not want to accept anything which goes against the old accepted theory.

Oh dear, change the record, Trevor. This one's worn out. And it's rubbish too.

All I keep getting back from you and the other poster is the words "show us the evidence" etc. You know there in no other evidence if there was this issue would have been out to bed years ago.

I don't know what kind of policeman you were, but when it comes to investigating the past you are completely out of your depth. As has already been patiently explained to you, the source tell us what happened in the past. That's all we have. You test the sources, which, among a lot of other things, means comparing what a source says with what other sources say. The source is usually doubted or questioned if other sources gives reasons for doing so. Assorted criteria comes into play when assessing sources, such as the overall reliability of the source.

So, if you choose to place faith in what Reid said, you have to show why some sources said differently. If you can't, the probability is that the question remains unresolved, which is usually what people say one should do - 'if in doubt, leave it out' - but you can present an alternative argument based on the weight of probability, which in this case is whether one believes medical sources or Reid. You should have good reasons for believing one and rejecting the other.

You are asked for evidence. So what evidence do you have for doubting the medical men? What evidence do you have that Reid was right? What is your evidence for preferring Reid? What is the weight of probability favouring Reid? Evidence. If you don't have the evidence, just a feeling in your water, then why should anyone pay any interest in your theorising?

There is an absence of evidence, which you choose to disregard which is also important. That being the absence of anyone police or otherwise taking the time to mention the removal of the heart by the killer after the post mortem and over the ensuing years.

Walter Dew went to the crime scene he doesn't mention the missing heart, nor do any of the other police officers. Doesnt that tell you something, or does you historians brain not function in such simple matters of deduction.

Curiously enough, I asked pretty much the same question of you regarding Eddowes' apron. I asked three or four times, maybe more, why nobody ever stated that Eddowes wasn't wearing an apron? So, my historians brain functions pretty well, thank you. But as you are now being rude and personal, it is obvious that you're struggling. But to answer the question, yes, no sources does raise the serious doubts that it was actually missing. However, how widely known was it that the heart was or wasn't present? Is there any reason why any police or even press commentators would have mentioned the missing heart (it was hardly a telling piece of evidence in the way that Eddowes' apron was)? What relevance would the missing heart have had to any subsequent narratives? My poor historian's brain struggling away with strange and massive concepts like deduction, does wonder why nobody mentioned a missing heart, but it also suggests a few questions which the sources might resolve.

So we are left with what we have. It is therefore left to each individual to make up their mind based on what is before then as to whether or not the heart was taken by the killer or not.

If the evidence for both sides of the argument is clearly and accurately presented, with personal biases left out of it, at least as best they can be, then people can make up their own minds. I don't think you have done that. You wrote, "Dr Browns statement is ambiguous and anyone who argues to the contrary is blinkered." You were and perhaps yo still are unaware of how laughable that statement is - a certain comment has to be considered ambiguous and anyone who doesn't agree with you is blinkered. as I said, not very open-minded.

[Elamarna]

It doesn't mean that it didn't happen, but it does mean that you can't point to a single example of it happening at any time in the whole history of the world. What words do you use to describe someone suggesting that something happened when he can't give a single example of it having happened? I can think of several words and 'smart' doesn't figure in any of them.



Ah, so there isn't a single clear example of any medical man (or anyone else for that matter) actual saying that the organs must have been removed at the mortuary.



I see. So even those doctors who were at the crime scene or otherwise had it described to them, never thought to question the improbability of the killer having the ability to remove the organs? Or they did question it and even estimated the time it would have taken a reasonably competent surgeon todo it? But apparently none of them mentioned to the police their suspicions that the killer didn't remove the organs? Okay.



You can suggest an alternative explanation as long as the available sources support it. It works like this, pretty much the only evidence you have are are the sources. First of all you look to see if there are any sources that cast doubt on or contradict or shed a different light on what a source says. If they do, you can see what the alternative is that they suggest. What you don't do, ever, is just come up with a plausible explanation and suggest that's what happened. That's fiction. But that's what you do and when asked for the evidence on which it is based, you can't provide any and you get rude and insulting.

Dear Paul

I find it incomprehensible that two people are telling Trevor, almost exactly the same thing, but he just does not want to listen.

Can i just say how nice it was to meet and speak to you for a few minutes at the 21st anniversary weekend.


Steve

l