Charles Allen Lechmere - new suspect?

[Trevor Marriott]

On this issue alone Trevor you are aagin wrong, it is not the "icing on the cake",
As you state it is from 1896 and is NOT a primary source because of that very fact.

Steve

He was there, directly involved, it doesn't matter when he states what he did, the evidence and facts do not change with the passage of time, nor does his recollection it seems. We have his "detailed" interview plus the newspaper reports, where is the evidence to negate all of this, are they all wrong? The only evidence is the misguided inferences which have been drawn by researchers over the years by the ambiguous statement of Dr Brown.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: Possibly, i had been on a boat for 5 hours, it certainly is not clear.

Only 2, well if we just take the C5 that is 40%, not an insubstantial amount!

The ONLY 2 not to be murdered on his working routes were not killed on working days. So they do not belong to that particular equation!

However the numbers are too low overall to prove anything either way I feel

Then you feel wrong, simple as that. Four victims along the working routes of a person who can be put under suspicion for various reasons is NOT a low number. If you were right, it would be useless to search for serial killers using this all-important parameter until they had slain, what? Twohundred people is normally required for staatistical viability, how about that?


let me amend it then, your posts give the impression, not you, as I obviously cannot read your mind.

Fairīs fair, so thank you for that.

It not a criticism as such, its what happens when one is convinced, or nearly fully convinced of an idea.

What happens...?

[Abby Normal]

What was so memorable about the Mckenzie murder in any event?

Come on be sensible, do you think he would have forgotten such an important part, of such an important murder as whether or not the heart had been taken away by the killer or not? Besides he got it all right, and that interview is not in my opinion secondary he was there at the time

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

]What was so memorable about the Mckenzie murder in any event?

HAHAHAHA!
another priceless Trevorism!

[Trevor Marriott]

12hrs. Eh ... ?

Chapman had PC Barnes stand guard over her until after 2pm when Phillips performed the post mortem.

Yes, Eddowes post mortem was 12 hrs after her body was discovered but was she left at Golden Lane without police supervision?
Do you have a source for this?

Chapmans body was tampered with, the nurses came along and stripped and washed it, so who else could have tampered with it? The Pc would have stood outside the mortuary presumably to stop unauthorised persons going inside and gawking at the body. If other medical personnel were going in and out as part of their daily routine anything could have happened.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

Time to put the kelly organ removal issue to bed one and for all me thinks

The Times 10th November

“The latest account states upon what professes to be indisputable authority that no portion of the woman's body was taken away by the murderer. As already stated, 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.”

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...”

The Times 12th November

“As early as half past 7 on Saturday morning, Dr. Phillips, assisted by Dr. Bond (Westminster), Dr. Gordon Brown (City), Dr. Duke (Spitalfields) and his (Dr. Phillips') assistant, made an exhaustive post-mortem examination of the body at the mortuary adjoining Whitechapel Church. It is known that after Dr. Phillips "fitted" the cut portions of the body into their proper places no portion was missing. At the first examination, which was only of a cursory character, it was thought that a portion of the body had gone, but this is not the case. The examination was most minutely made, and lasted upwards of 2 ― hours after which the mutilated portions were sewn to the body, and therefore the coroner's jury will be spared the unpleasant duty of witnessing the horrible spectacle presented to those who discovered the murder. The ashes found in the fireplace of the room rented by the deceased woman were also submitted to a searching examination, but nothing likely to throw any light on this shocking case could be gleaned from them.”

Then the icing on the cake
Insp Reid 1896
Head of Whitechapel CID who was at the crime scene

"I ought to tell you that the stories of portions of the body having been taken away by the murderer were all untrue. In every instance the body was complete"

And so now condems the ambiguous statement of Dr Brown back to the archives, which so many have sought to rely on to prove that the heart was taken away by the killer.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Insp Reid 1896
Head of Whitechapel CID who was at the crime scene

"I ought to tell you that the stories of portions of the body having been taken away by the murderer were all untrue. In every instance the body was complete"

is he an ancestor of yours Trevor?
another master detective.

[Trevor Marriott]

HAHAHAHA!
another priceless Trevorism!

Glad you liked, it only to happy to contribute to your childish amusement.

I have come to the conclusion that you continually open your mouth before engaging your brain

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Jon Guy]

Come on be sensible, do you think he would have forgotten such an important part, of such an important murder as whether or not the heart had been taken away by the killer or not?

Perhaps, he was reading the same erroneous newspaper reports you are quoting?
Besides, Reid still had other cases to investigate whilst the Ripper was on the prowl, so he may not have read the medical and inquest reports.
He was only heavily involved in the Tabram and McKenzie cases.

[Jon Guy]

Chapmans body was tampered with, the nurses came along and stripped and washed it, so who else could have tampered with it? The Pc would have stood outside the mortuary presumably to stop unauthorised persons going inside and gawking at the body. If other medical personnel were going in and out as part of their daily routine anything could have happened.

Well, in the Chapman case, yes, there was Mann and the two nurses.
So, following your theory, it has to be one of them that stole the organs.

[Columbo]

Or the killer simply wanted to kill and mutilate and never ever wanted to take organs. It may be coincidence but the only two victims that were missing organs when the post mortems were carried out were Chapman and Eddowes, whose bodies were left for 12 hours before the doctors came back to carry out the post mortems and left in situations where it would have been possible for someone to remove the organs quickly using anatomical knowledge.

Again this could be the case, but as I asked before and received no reply from you: What would be the point of the extensive mutilations and the placement of certain organs outside the body if not for access to the organ that was missing?

I think your theory on Eddowes kidney is sound, but I disagree including the uteri with it.

Columbo

[Trevor Marriott]

Perhaps, he was reading the same erroneous newspaper reports you are quoting?
Besides, Reid still had other cases to investigate whilst the Ripper was on the prowl, so he may not have read the medical and inquest reports.
He was only heavily involved in the Tabram and McKenzie cases.

And how do you know that at the time of the interview he was not in possession of any of his old case papers relative to the Kelly murder ?

So in effect you are suggesting that in that article he gets everything else right about Kelly and the murder, because we know that what he says is correct, but gets it totally wrong about the heart being missing. That is cherry picking of the highest calibre.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

Perhaps, he was reading the same erroneous newspaper reports you are quoting?
Besides, Reid still had other cases to investigate whilst the Ripper was on the prowl, so he may not have read the medical and inquest reports.
He was only heavily involved in the Tabram and McKenzie cases.

neither of which had organs removed. so I can see his confusion.

[Trevor Marriott]

Again this could be the case, but as I asked before and received no reply from you: What would be the point of the extensive mutilations and the placement of certain organs outside the body if not for access to the organ that was missing?

I think your theory on Eddowes kidney is sound, but I disagree including the uteri with it.

Columbo

This belief of placement of organs outside the body comes from the doctors as simply an opinion "as if by design" Let me play devils advocate here. We know the killer stabbed and mutilated the abdomen of Eddowes. But that act would have damaged any organs that he may have been seeking, and in any event would have made it difficult for him to remove them successfully.

With regards to the removal how would he have been able to effect the removals. First of all a blood filled abdomen, where would the light have come from for him to be able to see into the abdomen. How would he have been able to locate and take hold of the organs to be able to remove them with medical precision, so many negatives about this belief that the killer took them.

You dont have to remove the intestines to gain access and remove a uterus, someone with medical knowledge would have known that. In the case of Chapman the fallopian tubes were still attached to the uterus when removed an even more intricate procedure to carry out in the dark.

As to you question regarding the intestines etc, another explanation could be that after ripping open the abdomen and the intestines recoiling out perhaps he was fascinated by seeing them and took hold of them putting then down in such a postion that the doctors thought they had been placed there.

The kidney is the most difficult organ in the body to locate again what i have said above also applies.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

neither of which had organs removed. so I can see his confusion.

Or no confusion as is the case !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Columbo]

Columbo:

People keep talking about oozing and dripping from the neck as an example that Lechmere had just committed the crime.

Both Neil and Mizen used the term "running", Columbo.

Maybe, but it would take a lot longer for that blood to soak completely through the layers of clothes. Add to that the time it would take the blood to flow as far down as the waist.

But why would the blood travel to the waist from the neck? Is it no likelier that the blood at the waist came from the abdominal cutting?

I'm not trying to change anyone's mind either way but they say running, and others say oozing. Now you can say it was too dark for anyone without a lantern to see the blood, but the lighting (which has been discussed to death) has been proven to my satisfaction to be enough for them to at least see that her clothes were up around her waist, for them to find her face, arms and chest. And it was light enough for the killer to see either Lechmere or Paul coming, so it wasn't pitch black. If Lechmere could reach out and touch Paul, then there was enough light to see basic outlines and possibly some details.

Could the blood come from the abdominal wounds? Maybe, but then you have to explain where the pints of blood escaping the neck wound went. It may be a combination of both we just don't know. What we do know is that she was mutilated after death which would mean there is no blood pressure to cause massive bleeding from the external mutilations of the stomach. And I believe that it was reported that blood collected in the abdominal cavity (that may be chapman but I'm too tired to look it up) so the amount of blood from the mutilations may have been minimal.

That doesn't exonerate or add guilt to Lechmere. We're talking about the blood. It would happen whether she was killed by Lechmere or not.

Columbo

[Elamarna]

Only 2, well if we just take the C5 that is 40%, not an insubstantial amount!

The ONLY 2 not to be murdered on his working routes were not killed on working days. So they do not belong to that particular equation!

However the numbers are too low overall to prove anything either way I feel

Then you feel wrong, simple as that. Four victims along the working routes of a person who can be put under suspicion for various reasons is NOT a low number. If you were right, it would be useless to search for serial killers using this all-important parameter until they had slain, what? Twohundred people is normally required for staatistical viability, how about that?

No I do not feel wrong, I am not proposing a theory that the killer killed on his way to work, it is not on me to disprove the idea,it is on you to prove it.

At present it is theory lacking in substance in my view, you see it differently. No problem. I am sure it won't give either of us hours of anguish.

Given that we do not know the exact number of victim, such figures as 2 or 3 or even 5 are of little use statistically.

me amend it then, your posts give the impression, not you, as I obviously cannot read your mind.

Fairīs fair, so thank you for that.

my pleasure.

It not a criticism as such, its what happens when one is convinced, or nearly fully convinced of an idea.

What happens...?

Ones written responses often, not always show a degree of frustration that others do not see things the same way as yourself and this can come across, I say can, as not giving any ground.

However if one makes a reasoned suggestion, you often do listen and even agree, such as the posts between us about blood flow, although to be honest we were never that far apart from what I can tell.


Steve