Charles Allen Lechmere - new suspect?

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,

Until you can overturn the "Wilful Murder" verdict in the Pinchin case and the Elizabeth Jackson case, they stand as murders no matter what you say. There is no proof needed as it has already been determined, they were murders. Sounds like the ball is in your court to prove they weren't, not the other way around.

No I cant overturn them, But I will say that if I recall correctly the coroner directed the jury to come to those verdicts, There was no evidence before the court to show how they died.

So I would suggest that given those facts those verdicts are unsafe. The evidence given by the doctors was nothing more than opinions and we know that in 1888 or thereafter what ever doctors said people believed, and it would seem to still be the case 128 years on.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[jerryd]

No I cant overturn them, But I will say that if I recall correctly the coroner directed the jury to come to those verdicts, There was no evidence before the court to show how they died.

So I would suggest that given those facts those verdicts are unsafe. The evidence given by the doctors was nothing more than opinions and we know that in 1888 or thereafter what ever doctors said people believed.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Verdicts?

Here is the Pinchin verdict and part of the Coroner's statement prior to the verdict.

The CORONER, in summing up, observed that they had not been able to produce any evidence as to the identity of the deceased, but the evidence of both medical gentlemen engaged in the case clearly showed that the unfortunate woman had died a violent death.

The jury at once returned a verdict of "Wilful murder against some person or persons unknown."

Not much hesitation on that one.

The Jackson case was indeed directed by the doctors. Do you think they would lead a jury to a murder verdict without good cause? Even an illegal abortion would require a verdict of murder. Only problem is why would an accidental killing from an abortion result in mutilation to the abdomen and performing the abortion on a woman that still had clothing on?

[jerryd]

Established facts? The uterus was not separated from the body, was it?

The second set of remains found wrapped in a parcel were flaps of abdominal skin and the uterus of the victim, complete with cord and placenta. (taken from Debra's dissertation here on Casebook)

[Columbo]

Time for bed now! I strongly advice you all to join me - the climate out here is getting very infected for no good reason at all. Let the facts speak for themselves, and we will all be fine.

Hey Fisherman,

It always does get infected doesn't it? Alot of great info though if you can stand to weed through it.

Columbo

[Columbo]

That is on the belief that JTR removed the same organs from Chapman and Eddowes. If he didn't then there is no signature.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

I think I posted this to you on another thread and it went un-answered. The Kidney of Eddowes may very well have been taken out at the morgue as you say, but how do you explain the extreme mutilation and the moving of the internal organs to outside of the body if the goal wasn't to get the uterus?

There was a purpose for the mutilations and unless you can prove that mortuary attendants in the 1888's had a penchant for uteri, then your statement makes no sense.

Columbo

[Trevor Marriott]

Verdicts?

Here is the Pinchin verdict and part of the Coroner's statement prior to the verdict.

The CORONER, in summing up, observed that they had not been able to produce any evidence as to the identity of the deceased, but the evidence of both medical gentlemen engaged in the case clearly showed that the unfortunate woman had died a violent death.

What was the evidence of the medical men to show how she was killed, they only believed she had been murdered. There was no direct evidence.

The jury at once returned a verdict of "Wilful murder against some person or persons unknown."

Not much hesitation on that one.

The Jackson case was indeed directed by the doctors. Do you think they would lead a jury to a murder verdict without good cause? Even an illegal abortion would require a verdict of murder. Only problem is why would an accidental killing from an abortion result in mutilation to the abdomen and performing the abortion on a woman that still had clothing on?

The answer is quite simple if she went to a back street abortionist there would be no need for her to fully undress. All that would be needed would be for her undergarments to be removed and the rest of her clothes hitched up above her waist. If she died under those circumstances there would be a need to dispose of the body, that would mean dismembering it in the best and easiset way possible and to thereafter dispose of it without getting caught with body parts.

Again they could not determine a specific cause of death.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[jerryd]

If she died under those circumstances there would be a need to dispose of the body, that would mean dismembering it in the best and easiset way possible and to thereafter dispose of it without getting caught with body parts.

So you think removing two, irregular, long flaps from the abdomen is included in "best and easiest way possible"? I'm pretty sure the flaps were removed before the dissection of the limbs and torso as I've demonstrated earlier in the thread. The flaps included the parts of the genital area. An abortionist would have no purpose for removing the genital area with two flaps, would he? In fact a lot of abortions in the day were induced by drugs, were they not. At most I would think an abortionist would cut the lower abdomen, remove the fetus and be done with it possibly even cutting flaps as suggested. But not including the right and left labium majus and minus and part of the buttock in that flap cut.

What was the evidence of the medical men to show how she was killed, they only believed she had been murdered. There was no direct evidence

The bruising all over the body for one. A few of the doctors felt poison was a factor. Doctor Phillips felt death was due to syncope from loss of blood from the neck.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

I think I posted this to you on another thread and it went un-answered. The Kidney of Eddowes may very well have been taken out at the morgue as you say, but how do you explain the extreme mutilation and the moving of the internal organs to outside of the body if the goal wasn't to get the uterus?

There was a purpose for the mutilations and unless you can prove that mortuary attendants in the 1888's had a penchant for uteri, then your statement makes no sense.

Columbo

First of all I do not suggest the removal of the organs at the mortuary were carried out by mortuary attendants. If they were removed from there then they were removed by someone with anatomical knowledge i.e. medical student, doctor, surgeon ,anatomist. all were entitled to go to mortuaries and obtain organs for medical research. If that were the case then they were removed with the 12 hour window before the post mortems were officially carried out. Again if this were the case then this would account for the anatomical knowledge seen when the doctors did carry out the post mortems, which they attributed to the killer.

If the killer was harvesting organs then he would not have stabbed and mutilated the victims abdomens in such a way as he did because that would damage the organs.

As to the intestines being out. Two possible explanations the first is that when the abdomen was ripped open and the abdominal wall pierced the intestines recoiled outwards. So if that were the case they could easily have reached the shoulder area. We have the doctors giving an opinion when they say they felt this was by design. Again that is just an opinion but researcher over the years have used it along with the organ removal to glamorise the murders.

The second point is that in the case of Eddowes he did not have enough time to do all that he is supposed to have done. But lets not go over all of this again.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

So you think removing two, irregular, long flaps from the abdomen is included in "best and easiest way possible"? I'm pretty sure the flaps were removed before the dissection of the limbs and torso as I've demonstrated earlier in the thread. The flaps included the parts of the genital area. An abortionist would have no purpose for removing the genital area with two flaps, would he? In fact a lot of abortions in the day were induced by drugs, were they not. At most I would think an abortionist would cut the lower abdomen, remove the fetus and be done with it possibly even cutting flaps as suggested. But not including the right and left labium majus and minus and part of the buttock in that flap cut.



The bruising all over the body for one. A few of the doctors felt poison was a factor. Doctor Phillips felt death was due to syncope from loss of blood from the neck.

Opinions opinions opinions, no evidence to prove either

Dr Biggs says "In 1888 people believed just about anything a doctor said"

You have to think about dismemberment after death, not what wounds or cuts were made whilst the victim was alive, because you dont know what cuts were made before, or after death or those made in the course of dismemberment.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[jerryd]

Opinions opinions opinions, no evidence to prove either

Dr Biggs says "In 1888 people believed just about anything a doctor said"

You have to think about dismemberment after death, not what wounds or cuts were made whilst the victim was alive, because you dont know what cuts were made before, or after death or those made in the course of dismemberment.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

That's what I said Trevor, the flaps were removed before dismemberment, in my opinion, based on the evidence as presented by Dr. Hebbert.

[Dane_F]

The answer is quite simple if she went to a back street abortionist there would be no need for her to fully undress. All that would be needed would be for her undergarments to be removed and the rest of her clothes hitched up above her waist. If she died under those circumstances there would be a need to dispose of the body, that would mean dismembering it in the best and easiset way possible and to thereafter dispose of it without getting caught with body parts.

Again they could not determine a specific cause of death.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Unfortunately in the case of Jackson this wouldn't be likely or even possible since the medicos specifically mention:

"The vagina was flaccid, the mucus membrane healthy, and still showing rugae. There was no rupture of the vaginal walls or fourchette, nor was there any swelling or congestion of the part."

[Elamarna]

The second point is that in the case of Eddowes he did not have enough time to do all that he is supposed to have done. But lets not go over all of this again.

But Trevor, you raised it so we will go over it all again if need be.

So long as you peddle these claims, they will be challenged and exposed for the unsubstantiated, disingenuous, misinformation they are.

In the case of Eddowes, it is your opinion, and ONLY your opinion that there was not time to do the all the mutilations and removals, you ignore what you do not like.

Lets be clear, there was plenty of time to do all in Mitre Square.

I won't even start on the claims of organ removal at the mortuary, but I will if you want.

We both know the outcome, you will get very unhappy and I will happily keep posting, exposing the terrible lack of knowledge.


All the best


Steve

[Joshua Rogan]

Dr Biggs says "In 1888 people believed just about anything a doctor said"

And you believe him?

[Abby Normal]

I'm afraid you've demonstrated that your completely clueless when it comes to understanding signature and MO. I didn't want to embarrass you but I'm afraid you give me no choice but to subject you to the Pierre test: please cite authority to demonstrate that your understanding of signature and MO is correct. This might help: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...staging-posing

And I'm not wrong about the basic facts of the case, and I don't need a lesson on that subject from a poster who once claimed that Torso and JtR used the same weapon!

They did use the same weapon johnG. Its called a knife.

And yes I know torso man used a saw also.

If your going to try and belittle someone JohnG at least know the basic facts of the case!

Oh and please cite your blah blah Pierre blah. Here this might help.
It's a link to the definition of cluelesss. Clueless @ clueless . Org

[harry]

Fisherman,
Not my opinion.The 3-15 minute period is from as sound a source as any you have given,therefor the probability of a person other than Cross being with Nichols shortly before she was killed is substancial.

Someone asked what fact is apparent in the Nichols murder.Apart from her having been murdered,and at that spot,I cannot think of one,but starting w ith the acceptance that Cross found her body while on the way to his employment,is as near a fact as anything else. That evidence was given under oath.

Begin with the well established '' Considered innocent until proven guilty".See how far it goes.