Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Charles Allen Lechmere - new suspect?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    Doesnt an anatomist have medical knowledege

    You claimed a skilled anatomist, there is not the same as a medic.

    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    They dont specifically mention procedure. Dr Sequeira used the term deed. Interpret that as you will
    he is very clear, there is enough light.

    It is not "almost total darkness" which is the issue under discussion

    A truly pitiful attempt to mislead.


    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    Because you cant work inside a blood filled abdomen and surgically remove those organs with a knife of that size. That has been tried and tested by my experts.
    I beg to differ,

    The abdomen would not be filled,

    Butchers use that size of knife every day.

    Are your experts working in conditions, controlled to be as close as existed in Mitre Square as possible?
    unless they are the tests are far from conclusive.

    As a matter of interest what did they use for the test subject?





    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    If you stab someone several times in the abdomen with a long bladed knife you will cut arteries, sever blood vessels and as a result blood will flow into the abdomen.


    we have been here before. let me remind you of your attempt to prove this before, which claimed a stab wound about 6-12 inches away from the body, don't go here Trevor, the result will be the same as before.

    Of course one also has to consider the effect that the severing of the major vessels in the neck would have on the blood availbe to enter the abdomen.



    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    A modern day master butcher gave his opinion on this issue

    A new approach Trevor?
    Are you going to actually present some data?


    What was that opinion?, no point in saying someone gave an opinion unless you say what it is.

    A single opinion is valueless, one needs the views of several in a proffesion to get a clear view of a tasks difficulty.

    And of course it again is down to what they are asked and the information provided


    If you are raising a new data source, can you provide :

    A data source please? an actual link to a document or video or some sort,


    As I tell Pierre, a source which is not disclosed is no source until it is!




    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    Well if it believed the killer took the organs then it must be assumed he knew what he was looking for.


    Why must one assume that?




    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    But if that were the case why stab the victim sevarl times in the area where you are looking to take organs from?


    Again you are assuming that the killer wanted intact organs, you have nothing to support such an idea expect you own view.


    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    When you open up and abdomen none of those organs readily comes to hand. The Kidney sits at the back of the abdominal cavity.


    Agreed, however that does not preclude the killer finding it by accident.





    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    If you think you could do it i would suggest you need to stop using your doctors and nurses box set[/B]


    Now, now, lets stop being childish and insulting about other peoples skill sets or expertise about which we have no knowledge or which we get an indication of from their posts or published works.

    As I predicted,earlier an attack and insult is normal.



    steve

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

      Originally Posted by Michael W Richards
      Actually there are at least 3 explanations based on the above;

      A. Lawende and Co didn't see Kate at 1:35, allowing for more mutilation time

      Trevor:

      Then Watkins would have seen them at 1.30am
      That does not follow automatically, there is a five minute gap.



      Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
      Originally Posted by Michael W Richards
      B. Kate was mutilated somewhere else and dropped in the square..the contemporary cops thought that might be the case

      Trevor:

      The doctors didn't subscribe to his

      so they thought she was mutilated in the square?



      Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
      Originally Posted by Michael W Richards
      C. Kates murder did not demonstrate that same "precision" you mention as Annies for example, so that would allow time for a shorter time-span slash and grab.


      Trevor:

      You cant smash and grab these organs its impossible
      It is certainly not impossible.



      S

      Comment


      • Originally posted by PaulB View Post
        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

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
          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.

          Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
          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?

          Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
          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.


          Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
          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.

          Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
          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.

          Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
          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.

          Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
          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?

          Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
          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.

          Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
          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?

          Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
          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.

          Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
          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.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
            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.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by MsWeatherwax View Post
              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.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
                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

                Comment


                • Originally posted by John Wheat View Post
                  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

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by PaulB View Post
                    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.

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Pierre View Post
                      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.

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                      Comment


                      • 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.

                        Comment


                        • 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

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Columbo View Post
                            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...”


                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                            Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 10-30-2016, 12:39 AM.

                            Comment


                            • 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.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Darryl Kenyon View Post
                                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.

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X