Charles Allen Lechmere - new suspect?

[Henry Flower]

We cant all be as perfect as you

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No harm trying though, Trev.

[John Wheat]

There were at least six other persons in the area,who were or could have been in Bucks Row within a few minutes,and I do not include people in houses.Each could possibly have been in Bucks Row just before Cross.None I consider the killer,but each had opportunity.Cross is not alone in that respect.

So just let me get this straight harry. It turns out in all likeliness Cross was someone who happened to find a body. Shock horror. And there was me thinking the case against Lechmere was not based on lies, mistruths and utter bullshit. But it somehow turns out it is. Wow.

Cheers John

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor


Exactly the expected answer from one who cannot counter the arguments.

You asked if I agreed with your points, I answered, explain why I am wrong!


Precisely what facts are you talking about, I have seen you quote none at all.
Just unsubstantiated opinion.


I may be many things and have many failings Trevor; however having a closed mind is not one of those.

Indeed did I not asked you to provide data to make you argument and convince me?


It is obvious that you are unable to even attempt that.


Go on provide the arguments backed by data or evidence, which every you like considering that you appear not to be able to differentiate, and convince not just me , but others too.

If as you claim it is so clear and and before my eyes such a task should be easy.




Steve

The counter arguments are the facts, there is no need to provide data it is plain and simple the data is the facts.

Dr Browns statement is ambiguous and anyone who argues to the contrary is blinkered. It doesn't categorically state that the heart was missing from the room or not. As stated there is no corroboration to the inferences that have been drawn over all these years by researchers who suggest that statement points to it being missing.

So where can the truth be found, what can tip the scales in favour of either suggestion, because there has to be a definitive answer.

So we now judge Reids interview in connection with the Kelly murder only, and the newspapers articles of the day against Browns statement. The truth can plainly be seen its not even a question of drawing inferences. Reid gets everything spot on in that interview about the Kelly murder with the exception of the time Indian Harry went to Millers court. Reid was head of Whitechaoel CID and was involved heavily in the investigation and also went to the crime scene, so to quote him in later years in another newspaper interview when asked about the murders he says "I ought to know, becxause I was there"

He knew and we now know !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[John Wheat]

Trevor who was it that was supposedly removing all these organs?

Cheers John

[PaulB]

Whether or not Mary Kelly's heart was missing is an interesting question and I would welcome a little further information

Dr Browns statement is ambiguous and anyone who argues to the contrary is blinkered.

Rarely does one come across such a perfect example of a close mind at work!

It doesn't categorically state that the heart was missing from the room or not. As stated there is no corroboration to the inferences that have been drawn over all these years by researchers who suggest that statement points to it being missing.

There is corroboration, as has been brought to your attention several times in the past.

So where can the truth be found, what can tip the scales in favour of either suggestion, because there has to be a definitive answer.

There doesn't have to be a definitive answer. It might lack sufficient information to arrive at an answer either way.

So we now judge Reids interview in connection with the Kelly murder only,

Reid's remarks cannot be taken 'in connection with the Kelly murder only'. His comments on Kelly cannot be judged in isolation, it's probable reliability must be judged in the context of everything he said. For example, he described the mutilations as 'a number of slashes over the body', which understates somewhat.

and the newspapers articles of the day against Browns statement. The truth can plainly be seen its not even a question of drawing inferences. Reid gets everything spot on in that interview about the Kelly murder with the exception of the time Indian Harry went to Millers court. Reid was head of Whitechaoel CID and was involved heavily in the investigation and also went to the crime scene, so to quote him in later years in another newspaper interview when asked about the murders he says "I ought to know, becxause I was there"

Nicholas Connell and Stewart Evans have observed that Reid was not actively involved in the Kelly investigation and also that he was responsible for overseeing other crimes as well as the Ripper. Irrespective of whether he was otherwise correct in what he wrote about the Kelly murder, Reid was at other times wildly inaccurate. If one strives for a balanced overview, the result appears to be that Reid is a very valuable but flawed source and it would be unsafe to rest on him as a definitive voice on something so contentious. After all, we do have another voice stating, ‘all the organs, except the heart were found scattered about the room’, as you should be aware.

Elsewhere you very strongly deride the testimony of old policemen with their faulty memories, so I wonder what you have to firm up your reliance on Reid.

[Trevor Marriott]

Whether or not Mary Kelly's heart was missing is an interesting question and I would welcome a little further information



Rarely does one come across such a perfect example of a close mind at work!



There is corroboration, as has been brought to your attention several times in the past.



There doesn't have to be a definitive answer. It might lack sufficient information to arrive at an answer either way.



Reid's remarks cannot be taken 'in connection with the Kelly murder only'. His comments on Kelly cannot be judged in isolation, it's probable reliability must be judged in the context of everything he said. For example, he described the mutilations as 'a number of slashes over the body', which understates somewhat.



Nicholas Connell and Stewart Evans have observed that Reid was not actively involved in the Kelly investigation and also that he was responsible for overseeing other crimes as well as the Ripper. Irrespective of whether he was otherwise correct in what he wrote about the Kelly murder, Reid was at other times wildly inaccurate. If one strives for a balanced overview, the result appears to be that Reid is a very valuable but flawed source and it would be unsafe to rest on him as a definitive voice on something so contentious. After all, we do have another voice stating, ‘all the organs, except the heart were found scattered about the room’, as you should be aware.

Elsewhere you very strongly deride the testimony of old policemen with their faulty memories, so I wonder what you have to firm up your reliance on Reid.

Nicholas Connell and Stewart Evans were not there were they so how can either of them add any relevant input to this issue we are discussing

As head of Whitechapel CID he would not have needed to be actively engaged in the investigation he would have known the extent of the investigation. Inspectors often as not do the delegating, as is still the case today, but are just as informed as if they did the work themselves, but that is not relevant to this issue just another attempt to muddy the waters.

Reid went to the crime scene. The post mortem followed shortly afterwards. where can there be any suggestion that he was not fully aware of the outcome of that post mortem and the events that followed in such a short time.

Lets not muddy the waters with other issues throughout the ripper mystery lets stick to this one issue and judge it on what is known..

Where is the corroborating evidence that has been brought to my attention ?

Who is the other voice that says the organ was missing and taken away by the killer ?

Who have I questioned regarding their faulty memories?

You can huff and puff as much as you like but that 1896 interview in relation to the Kelly murder suggests that his memory was as good as ever at that time, or he was in possession of his old notes, which he used as an aide-de memoir. The newspaper articles go some way to add to that as corroboration.

There is no need for further discussion.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor who was it that was supposedly removing all these organs?

Cheers John

Take your pick, Doctor, Medical Student, Anatomist, Surgeon, all legally entitled to go to mortuaries and freely obtain organs for medical research from dead bodies.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[John Wheat]

Take your pick, Doctor, Medical Student, Anatomist, Surgeon, all legally entitled to go to mortuaries and freely obtain organs for medical research from dead bodies.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yeah but who specifically?

[Trevor Marriott]

Yeah but who specifically?

I dont know who specifically I wasnt there !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Joshua Rogan]

Take your pick, Doctor, Medical Student, Anatomist, Surgeon, all legally entitled to go to mortuaries and freely obtain organs for medical research from dead bodies.

I don't think they were legally entitled to take anything from a murder victim when the inquest was still pending.
And since the police were actively looking for medical students, doctors and surgeons, if one had turned up at the mortuary I'm not sure they would have just waved them in and told them to help themselves.

[Trevor Marriott]

I don't think they were legally entitled to take anything from a murder victim when the inquest was still pending.
And since the police were actively looking for medical students, doctors and surgeons, if one had turned up at the mortuary I'm not sure they would have just waved them in and told them to help themselves.

You are right the bodies should not have been tampered with, but the saying is "Needs must when the devil calls" If the pc was stood outside he would not have known what was going on inside, and would he have stopped medical personnel going about their daily business? He was there to stop the public going in and out to look at the body.

I can see the scepticism, but there has to be a definitive answer as to where the organs where actually taken, and my investigation concludes that there was not enough time for the killer in the case of Eddowes to do all that he is supposed to have done, and the degree of difficulty in someone trying to remove these organs with medical precision in almost total darkness. So that only leaves one other explanation.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

The counter arguments are the facts, there is no need to provide data it is plain and simple the data is the facts.

One asks for data and all one gets is the same old bias opinion.

Counter arguments,cannot be facts by definition.

One may of course use the facts to support the arguments certainly, . However a "fact" is not a counter argument on its own.


Without data, arguments are nothing but opinion, to suggest that one can discuss any subject seriously with out data is foolhardy.

One is left to assume you do not provide data, because you cannot.

Facts are not data, you really fail to comprehend any of this don't you?

(A rhetorical question )




[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;398167]

Dr Browns statement is ambiguous and anyone who argues to the contrary is blinkered. It doesn't categorically state that the heart was missing from the room or not. As stated there is no corroboration to the inferences that have been drawn over all these years by researchers who suggest that statement points to it being missing.

I disagree, the blinkered view, or indeed views are the ones you so often peddle on here.

So we now judge Reids interview in connection with the Kelly murder only, and the newspapers articles of the day against Browns statement.

The papers do not come down exclusively on one side of the debate, some say nothing was taken, other disagree, examples are both are here on this site.

Therefore no definitive opinion can be based on them.

One could employ the idea of tendencies as Pierre often does in an attempt to analysis the individual sources, however again we are left with an interpretation, basically an opinion.


Reid gives an interview 8 years later.

As such it is secondary source, that is not open to debate, it is not a matter of opinion, its how things work!

Instead of always saying you fully understand the differences in sources, when it is clear you do not; why not do some research, read some books on sources to improve your understanding.

The truth can plainly be seen its not even a question of drawing inferences. Reid gets everything spot on in that interview about the Kelly murder with the exception of the time Indian Harry went to Millers court.

Not perfect recall than.

We have him inaccurate on certainly one other issue- and time of discover, apart from organ removal.


That would suggest that your earlier suggestion that he may have been working from notes from 1888 is incorrect, or maybe just the "notes" were wrong.

Reid was head of Whitechaoel CID and was involved heavily in the investiga
tion and also went to the crime scene, so to quote him in later years in another newspaper interview when asked about the murders he says "I ought to know, becxause I was there"

Police Officers never get it wrong when they write about cases at a later date?


Was Anderson accurate in your opinion in his articles and book?

Were the memoirs of Walter Dew a true and 100% accurate account a of his work as a police officer?


Need I go on?

He knew and we now know !

To use your own terms Blinkered opinion, nothing else.





Steve

[Elamarna]

I dont know who specifically I wasnt there !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Ah, so just a wild guess, based on.....?

[Elamarna]

and my investigation concludes that there was not enough time for the killer in the case of Eddowes to do all that he is supposed to have done, and the degree of difficulty in someone trying to remove these organs with medical precision in almost total darkness. So that only leaves one other explanation.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No there was sufficient time to do it all, I am almost tempted to start this debate all over again, wouldn't that be fun.


Of course you ignore the statements which say there was enough light to do the work, one assume because it does not fit your agenda.


Yes I agree there is only one explanation: the organs were removed in Mitre Square.



Steve

[PaulB]

Nicholas Connell and Stewart Evans were not there were they so how can either of them add any relevant input to this issue we are discussing

Neither needed to be there to observe that Reid doesn't appear to have actively participated in the investigation of the murder of Mary Kelly. I'm surprised you don't seem to realise that.

As head of Whitechapel CID he would not have needed to be actively engaged in the investigation he would have known the extent of the investigation. Inspectors often as not do the delegating, as is still the case today, but are just as informed as if they did the work themselves, but that is not relevant to this issue just another attempt to muddy the waters.

It isn't an attempt to muddy the waters at all. I simply cited an observation made by a fellow former policeman that a preoccupation with other crimes could have contributed to Reid's mismemory, if, indeed, he was misremembering.

Reid went to the crime scene. The post mortem followed shortly afterwards. where can there be any suggestion that he was not fully aware of the outcome of that post mortem and the events that followed in such a short time.

Nobody has suggested that Reid was unaware of the outcome a short time after the post mortem.

Lets not muddy the waters with other issues throughout the ripper mystery lets stick to this one issue and judge it on what is known..

Let's not. Let's do the job correctly. That means assessing Reid's overall reliability. It certainly doesn't mean cherry-picking the bits you like.

Where is the corroborating evidence that has been brought to my attention ?

You have been told several times to my knowledge. With respect, if you can't be bothered to remember it, it's not my job to find it and tell you.

Who is the other voice that says the organ was missing and taken away by the killer ?

I never said anything about the organ being taken away by the killer. Don't put words into my mouth. At best I cited a source that said the heart could not be found.

Who have I questioned regarding their faulty memories?

Anderson, Swanson, Macnaghten... That's sufficient, but I'm sure that if In was mad enough to waste time trawling back through all your posts I would find pretty much every post 1888 commentator with whom you disagree.

You can huff and puff as much as you like but that 1896 interview in relation to the Kelly murder suggests that his memory was as good as ever at that time, or he was in possession of his old notes, which he used as an aide-de memoir. The newspaper articles go some way to add to that as corroboration.

You seem to be doing all the huffing and puffing, as is ever the case, but the fact is that it has been shown time and time again that Reid's statements are flawed. As your sole source for the heart being present, Reid is not as reliable as you want to present him. That's the fact of the matter.

There is no need for further discussion.

Probably not. You have already demonstrated that you have a closed mind. But at least the facts can be laid out for other people, should they require them, so that they are not misled by you. Or, who knows, somebody might produce some additional evidence in support of what you have said. That would be good.