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
    It does and there are other articles

    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 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 ½ 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.”

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    "Notwithstanding reports to the contrary, it is still confidently asserted that some portions of the body of the deceased woman are missing." (The Times, 13 November 1888)

    "The uturus, it seems, too, is not missing, as was once stated, but the heart is." (Dundee Evening Telegraph, 17 November 1888)

    "According to one report published on Friday it seems that the assassin cut the woman's heart out and carried it away...” (The Observer, 18 November 1888)

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
      I have not ignored this at all I have pointed out that the heart may have been un accounted for at first but it was later accounted for.
      That's irrelevant.

      You wrote, "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."

      You accused me of inferring something from Dr. Bond's statement and "On that basis, and that alone". I did not infer anything at all. I did not infer anything from Dr. Bond's statement. I referred to Dr. Bond's placement of the organs and I referred to a statement that Kelly's organs were found in the room, but that the heart wasn't, so had I inferred anything it would not have been from Dr. Bond's statement alone. That is what you ignored. You ignored everything I said, and accused me of inferring something from Dr. bond and Dr. Bond alone. At best this shows that you do not pay any attention to what people tell you, at worst you are attributing me conclusion that I have not reached.

      Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
      But there is no source which states the heart was not located in the room
      I didn't say there was. But there is a source that says that, namely the one I have cited earlier which stated that all the organs were found in the room, except the heart. The inference is that the heart was not in the room.

      Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
      and they later changed to printing that no organs were missing
      And the newspapers continued to cite informed sources that body parts were missing. I am not aware that the newspapers resolved the matter.

      Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
      We can explain why the heart was not mentioned in the first list of organs so nothing sinister in that
      Can we? Explain it then. But what about the other sources, specifically the one that says the organs could be found, but the heart couldn't?

      Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
      I agree but at some point thereafter all the organs were accounted for
      No they weren't. If all the organs were accounted for, you would have cited the soure a long time ago and we'd have switched off the lights and gone home.

      Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
      The foundations in my opinion are rock solid
      I admire your optimism, but from where I am sitting your opinion looks decidedly shaky. I have asked for your evidence and all you've told me is a load of absurd waffle and Reid.

      Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
      I have supported my argument with evidence from one who was present and 8 years later is as clear and concise as he would have been 8 years previous
      Yes, exactly. The man who said, "I think I know that gentleman [Abberline] better than to think he could have said that the series of murders was the work of an expert surgeon, when he knew that it was nothing more than a number of slashes all over the body of the victim, even after the murderer knew his victim was dead." (Morning Advertiser, 30 March 1903)

      Comment


      • Originally posted by PaulB View Post
        "Notwithstanding reports to the contrary, it is still confidently asserted that some portions of the body of the deceased woman are missing." (The Times, 13 November 1888)

        "The uturus, it seems, too, is not missing, as was once stated, but the heart is." (Dundee Evening Telegraph, 17 November 1888)

        "According to one report published on Friday it seems that the assassin cut the woman's heart out and carried it away...” (The Observer, 18 November 1888)
        I almost forgot the obvious when talking about corroboration for what Reid says. That comes in the form of the official facts surrounding the murder. Now surely you are not going to ask for sources and data to prove them.

        So what do we now have to negate the ambiguous statement of Dr Bond

        The official facts
        Reids statement which is in line with the official facts
        Newspaper articles corroborating what Reid says
        Absence of any other mention of the heart being take away by the killer by officers, or official sources.

        I think that makes it a fairly strong case to suggest no organs were taken away

        Comment


        • Originally posted by PaulB View Post
          That's irrelevant.

          You wrote, "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."

          You accused me of inferring something from Dr. Bond's statement and "On that basis, and that alone". I did not infer anything at all. I did not infer anything from Dr. Bond's statement. I referred to Dr. Bond's placement of the organs and I referred to a statement that Kelly's organs were found in the room, but that the heart wasn't, so had I inferred anything it would not have been from Dr. Bond's statement alone. That is what you ignored. You ignored everything I said, and accused me of inferring something from Dr. bond and Dr. Bond alone. At best this shows that you do not pay any attention to what people tell you, at worst you are attributing me conclusion that I have not reached.

          Well where do you stand on the issue, get off the fence for once and give a positive answer. Because there has to be an answer does there not. Taken or not taken that is the question

          And the newspapers continued to cite informed sources that body parts were missing. I am not aware that the newspapers resolved the matter.

          But the later editions seemed to in their reports, and all the articles are different so it doesn't look as if the information they recived was from one source.

          Can we? Explain it then. But what about the other sources, specifically the one that says the organs could be found, but the heart couldn't?

          Where do any of them mention the heart. I think the term organ or organs is widely used.

          No they weren't. If all the organs were accounted for, you would have cited the soure a long time ago and we'd have switched off the lights and gone home.

          If researchers over the years had not been so quick to jump to the wrong conclusions when citing and accepting Bonds statement as fact that the heart was missing, this matter may have well be sorted out many years ago. But no to have the heart missing fits with the other missing organs does it not, and now both of these have come to the forefront and to have both proven to be wrong, the ripper mystery gets a real kick in the teeth.

          I admire your optimism, but from where I am sitting your opinion looks decidedly shaky. I have asked for your evidence and all you've told me is a load of absurd waffle and Reid.

          You have more than enough evidence to make a positive conclusion, but I suspect that fence is to good to give up.


          Yes, exactly. The man who said, "I think I know that gentleman [Abberline] better than to think he could have said that the series of murders was the work of an expert surgeon, when he knew that it was nothing more than a number of slashes all over the body of the victim, even after the murderer knew his victim was dead." (Morning Advertiser, 30 March 1903)
          I see you are still using secondary sources, and old ones in the grand scheme of things.Where is there mention of the Kelly murder?

          Perhaps Abberline was misquoted in any event
          .

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
            Round 2

            No, I am sure that over the years many have and still do question the ambiguous statement of Dr Bond. The emergence of Reid's interview will hopefully allow them to come to a definite answer.
            I see you avoid the questions you obviously cannot answer and keep a straight face, so be it.

            Superposition on your part.



            Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

            There is more than enough data which i have provided which it would seem you are not fully au fait with, if you were you might not keep asking the same questions

            So provide the links again, the truth is you do not supply data, just opinions.

            Having read both you major books, and watched the tour video I know your arguments, believe me.



            Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
            There is much fantasy and fiction in Ripperlogy much of it surrounds the old accepted theories which you seem to support

            Much written by you I believe, you have no idea about theories I support or which theories I do not.


            My main aim is to stop unsupported, misinformation of which there is far too much

            Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

            But many of these historial sources you keep on about are nothing more than secondary sources, and should be treated with caution. When are
            newspaper articles used in evidence in criminal cases?

            Just like the interview with Reid

            This is not a criminal case. you have no forensic evidence available, no witness to reexamine.

            What else can you use but the sources which are available; rather than keep saying these sources are not to be trusted, tell us what you are using to base your arguments on if it is not the historical sources?




            Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

            There was not enough light in Mitre Square.

            You have an ambiguous statement to show the contrary
            The primary source from the square with regards to the light levels. Dr. George William Sequeira:

            "Where the murder was committed was probably the darkest part of the square, but there was sufficient light to enable the miscreant to perpetrate the deed. I think that the murderer had no design on any particular organ of the body. He was not possessed of any great anatomical skill."

            You claimed "nearly complete darkness", that is is your opinion, however it is contrary to the above and is not a fact.

            Your repeating that it is, does not make it so!


            Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
            Reid must have known the truth as he was head of Whitechapel CID.

            Of course he must have if you dont believe that then you are showing your naivety
            No, he probably had a very good idea, however again you give an opinion, this time indeed supported by some logic, but alas no evidence or data, it is still an only an opinion. it is not a fact


            Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

            It was not possible to carry out all the mutilations in Mitre Square

            I never said that, clearly thats where they were carried out another poster suggested that the murder could have taken place at another location


            Now we are playing semantics, You know full well when i say mutilations I include the organ removal, to remove an organ is to mutilate.

            and your view on this:

            "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".


            So you do indeed believe that the killer could not have done all he did in Mitre square and you present it as a fact, time after time.


            It is your opinion, that does not mean you are right, or you are wrong,

            However it is not a fact!



            Those 3 issues made my point about your view on facts and your own self importance far better than I could ever of imagined or hoped for.



            Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

            Well we have opinions by the doctors involved in all of these murders and thats all they are, so there is nothing wrong in putting forward other opinions from other experts.


            But that is not what you do Trevor, you state it is so, it is a fact, it is impossible to have carried out all the damaged in Mitre square in the time, and so on

            I am however glad to see that you accept that the views of your experts are just opinions.


            Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

            You are wrong again
            No I am correct.



            Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

            The medical experiments were conducted in a mortuary on a cadaver and the results documented and photographed.
            Was that a fresh one , or one prepared for medical students, was the body mass similar to any of the victims, those are all variables to take into account

            However be it recently dead or prepared neither is comparable to a freshly killed victim.
            As suspected, it is only a guide, no more !


            Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

            A master butcher gave his opinion in relation the suggestion that a butcher could have been the killer
            Yes you have merely repeated what you said yesterday.

            The same questions still apply.


            Why only one asked?

            What did he say?

            Who was he?

            A link to the published or videoed opinion

            Just saying someone has said something, is simply not good enough for adults.


            Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

            I give as good as I get thats fair play in my book


            Are you saying you are bothered? I really am not sure?



            Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

            So what does it take then for it to be accepted that the heart was not missing ?
            data!

            A doctor or police report from the scene or inquest saying the heart was there.


            Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post


            He didnt need to be heavily involved. All of this took place within a 24 hour period. He didnt go away on holiday after attending the crime scene on the first occasion. He went back a second time. In my book thats heavily involved which is what the head of any CID department would do.


            How much understanding does it take to be told no organs are missing?

            The view he was "directly involved" is questioned by other researchers, and to me it is not clear if you are correct or not.

            Trust me I am correct


            Sorry Trevor, it does not work like that, I do not trust without proof.

            As I said I am open on that question having not looked into that aspect myself, others disagree I am aware. Really do need to read myself before making a decision.



            Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
            There are no issues with his description of the wounds read the article he get it spot on


            We will have to disagree on his view on the wounds.



            Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
            Bond mentions the heart was removed from the body, there is no further mention of it at all. yes very interesting I must say.

            Well at least we have some common ground



            Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
            I cannot speak for others,
            I personally reach that possible, indeed probably, conclusion that the heart was taken away, on the data available.

            All the other body parts which are cut away and mentioned by Bond are described and given a position in the room, the heart is not mentioned at all , after Bond describes it s removal from the body. (fact 4).

            Pray tell me where the heart is?
            Home is where the heart is !!!!!!!!!!!!!!



            What sort of answer is that, really if you can do no better why bother .
            at all.


            Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
            Not this old chest nut again please. Even if the documents were missing there were more than enough people involved, who either gave press interviews or wrote books in later years, to highlight such an important issue. No one did, so it is right and proper to draw an inference from those facts.

            That is your view, believe what you will no one can force another to accept anything they have a closed mind on.


            Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

            Dew was another who went to the crime scene so if any organs were missing I would have expcted him to have remembered and it would have been in his book


            By the way do you count Dew as Primary or Secondary Source?


            Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
            Here we go again. If Dew was present at an event and he writes about it later I would say that is a primary source. What he says stays a primary source until such time as it is proved to be wrong.Then it becomes an un reliable primary source. The same applies to Reid as far as The Kelly murder is concerned and The NOW article.
            Yes indeed here we here we go again, no understanding at all.

            You must be one of few, claiming a comercial book written nearly half a century later is a reliable primary source.





            Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

            Now you are nit picking, a sign of desperation
            No not nit picking, you claimed 99.9% correct, that means near perfect, no mistakes!

            It is not, there are mistakes.




            Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

            Do you accept Andersons book to be a primary or secondary source?


            Trevor:

            See my answer above with regards to Dew. I haven't read Andersons book in its entirety, so I cannot answer that question.The only difference is that Anderson has been found to have been less than truthful on many issues in his book. Issues which may have found their way into the book as hearsay.
            Cop out. (how apt).


            Why am I not Surprised

            cheers for now

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
              I almost forgot the obvious when talking about corroboration for what Reid says. That comes in the form of the official facts surrounding the murder. Now surely you are not going to ask for sources and data to prove them.

              So what do we now have to negate the ambiguous statement of Dr Bond

              The official facts
              Reids statement which is in line with the official facts
              Newspaper articles corroborating what Reid says
              Absence of any other mention of the heart being take away by the killer by officers, or official sources.

              I think that makes it a fairly strong case to suggest no organs were taken away
              Trevor

              Actually I am going to ask, what are the official facts?



              s

              Comment


              • Originally posted by John Wheat View Post
                There is no evidence whatsoever for the organ removal theory therefore it is all wild speculation.
                May I ask what you mean when you say 'the organ removal theory'?

                Do you mean Trevor's theory that Doctors or students removed the organs?

                Comment


                • [QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;398315]
                  Originally posted by Pierre View Post

                  Pierre
                  Forget the logic, the facts are that Eddowes and Chapman were found to have organs missing from their bodies when the post mortems on them were carried out some 12 hours after their bodies arrived at the mortuary. We do not know what happened to those bodies during that time period. We do not know how many other medical persons visited the mortuary during that time as part of their daily routines.

                  Research shows that it might have been almost impossible for the killer to have removed them at the crime scenes for any number of plausible reasons. So if that didnt happen, then there must be another plausible explanation. Someone took the organs, but who ?

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                  Trevor,


                  What is the earliest source saying that Chapman had organs removed from the body?

                  How do you interpret that source in relation to sources from the post mortem examinations?

                  Regards, Pierre

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                    I almost forgot the obvious when talking about corroboration for what Reid says. That comes in the form of the official facts surrounding the murder. Now surely you are not going to ask for sources and data to prove them.

                    So what do we now have to negate the ambiguous statement of Dr Bond

                    The official facts
                    Reids statement which is in line with the official facts
                    Newspaper articles corroborating what Reid says
                    Absence of any other mention of the heart being take away by the killer by officers, or official sources.

                    I think that makes it a fairly strong case to suggest no organs were taken away
                    It's getting better. However, you also have newspapers disagreeing with what Reid claimed, you have the statement that the heart couldn't be found in the room (which you are ignoring), and no metion of the heart having been absent is, as yet, proving nothing (as pointed out a while back).

                    Comment


                    • Hang on a minute, Trevor. You accused me of doing something I didn't do. The appropriate response is to apologise. It isn't demanding that I answer your questions, and it definitely isn't making rude remarks about where I choose to sit. Furthermore, you have already been given an answer, so I can only assume that either you don't pay sufficient attention to what you read or you don't understand it. Either way, having to repeat myself is a waste of my time, especially as I feel pretty confident that you won't recall it.

                      First of all, I don't have to stand anywhere on the issue. I don't care whether the heart was present or not. All I am interested in is establishing the facts either way. Secondly, I don't make up my mind about anything without having all the evidence. To do so encourages biased assessments, as you regularly prove. Finally, there doesn't have to be an answer. It is entirely possible that there is insufficient evidence to permit a conclusion either way.

                      Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                      But the later editions seemed to in their reports, and all the articles are different so it doesn't look as if the information they recived was from one source.
                      I don't understand the point you are struggling to make here. You cited two reports from The Times, I cited a few reports which came after The Times reports which showed that the alleged missing organ was still unresolved. The newspapers do not support your argument.

                      Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                      Where do any of them mention the heart. I think the term organ or organs is widely used.
                      You really don't read anything do you? Either that or you are severely myopic. Anyway, "where do any of them mention the heart, you ask. Well, as in post 661, "The uturus, it seems, too, is not missing, as was once stated, but the heart is." (Dundee Evening Telegraph, 17 November 1888) and "According to one report published on Friday it seems that the assassin cut the woman's heart out and carried it away...” (The Observer, 18 November 1888) That's just two that you were shown five minutes ago.

                      Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                      If researchers over the years had not been so quick to jump to the wrong conclusions when citing and accepting Bonds statement as fact that the heart was missing, this matter may have well be sorted out many years ago. But no to have the heart missing fits with the other missing organs does it not, and now both of these have come to the forefront and to have both proven to be wrong, the ripper mystery gets a real kick in the teeth.
                      Given that you haven't read any books about Jack the Ripper, you're not in a position to say what researchers have concluded over the years. And you have a ver high opinion of yourself if you think your arguments weren't recognised years ago and debated. You're really not that clever. And whether the murderer took or didn't take organs from the victims has no bearing on anything. And forgive me for asking this, but have you been drinking? I ask because being pissed witless is the only reason I can think of to explain why you are fantasising that i has been "proven" that the murderer didn't take any organs away with him. I'm also not sue why anyone would imagine that such proof would give the "Ripper mystery" a real kick in the teeth. Bizarre.


                      Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                      You have more than enough evidence to make a positive conclusion, but I suspect that fence is to good to give up.
                      Right, for he final time, I have no personal agenda. You do. It doesn't matter to me whether organs were taken or not? It does matter to you that they weren't. I am simply interested in the arguments for either side? You are very keen that no organs were taken. I have no reason to plump for either side because I want to retain my objectivity. You are not objective in your assessments of the evidence. The fence isn't a comfortable place to be, but it is the right place to be if you want to be as ubiased as possible.

                      Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                      I see you are still using secondary sources, and old ones in the grand scheme of things.Where is there mention of the Kelly murder?
                      Ha ha. You got me going for a second there. Just for a moment I thought you really meant that the newspaper I quoted was a secondary source. But I realised that not even you would flaunt that much stupidity. I tell you what, though, you can jest as much as you like, but Reid nevertheless wrote that the mutilations were "nothing more than a number of slashes all over the body of the victim". So instead of joshing with me, why don't you respond to what Reid said?

                      Comment


                      • "Research shows that it might have been almost impossible for the killer to have removed them at the crime scenes for any number of plausible reasons."

                        I ran that sentence through Google Translate, set to translate from Mariott to English, and it came up with this:

                        "Research shows that it was possible for the killer to have removed them at the crime scenes for any number of plausible reasons."

                        Do you acknowledge that, Trevor? Might have been almost impossible has one meaning and one meaning only: possible.

                        Comment


                        • [QUOTE=Pierre;398337]
                          Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                          Trevor,


                          What is the earliest source saying that Chapman had organs removed from the body?

                          How do you interpret that source in relation to sources from the post mortem examinations?

                          Regards, Pierre
                          The post mortem is where the organs were first found missing so that is the first source

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by PaulB View Post
                            but Reid nevertheless wrote that the mutilations were "nothing more than a number of slashes all over the body of the victim". So instead of joshing with me, why don't you respond to what Reid said?
                            He didnt say that in the article, and that is the issue we are discussing here. There you go again muddying the waters

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Henry Flower View Post
                              "Research shows that it might have been almost impossible for the killer to have removed them at the crime scenes for any number of plausible reasons."

                              I ran that sentence through Google Translate, set to translate from Mariott to English, and it came up with this:

                              "Research shows that it was possible for the killer to have removed them at the crime scenes for any number of plausible reasons."

                              Do you acknowledge that, Trevor? Might have been almost impossible has one meaning and one meaning only: possible.
                              I was trying to be kind, and make it easy for you and others who seem to have a problem understanding the most simplest of things. I think by your constant need to keep googling phrases confirms what I suspect.

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                                He didnt say that in the article, and that is the issue we are discussing here. There you go again muddying the waters

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                                When assessing the reliability of a source , in this case the 96 interview, one MUST compare it to other sources from the same source, in this case other comments by Reid

                                The fact that he is so wrong about the wounds, suggests as I said earlier that his knowledge of the event may not be as strong as you suppose.

                                The refusal to accept this is just other example of the incredible degree of bias in your work, and the value of any research conducted this way is indeed very questionable.

                                You accuse Paul of muddying the waters, when what he is actually doing is the exact opposite and making the view clearer by providing fuller information.



                                Steve
                                Last edited by Elamarna; 10-30-2016, 04:11 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X