Charles Allen Lechmere - new suspect?

[Trevor Marriott]

I told you to check the source, but you can't take a hint can you? The statement I cited does NOT refer to McKenzie. It refers to the series of murders. The relevant paragraph in its entirety reads:
"With regard to the alleged interview between the correspondent of the Pall Mall Gazette and the late Chief-Inspector Abberline, I think I know that gentleman 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 he knew that the victim was dead." (Morning advertiser, 30 March 1903)

To drive this home, as you are obviously having some difficulty understanding it, Reid was stating that Abberline was wrong in saying that the series of murders was the work of an expert surgeon, when he knew that it (the work) was nothing more than a number of slashes.

The evisceration of a woman id not adequately described by "a number of slashes", no matter how hard you try to teach me what word and phrases mean.

Whether or not the remark refers to Kelly or not is irrelevant. It suggests that Reid was not aware of the extent of the mutilations. Or it suggests that Reid was not describing them properly for reasons of his own.

Of course he was even in 1896 this is what he says about the murders

Nichols
She was found with her throat cut and on the post-mortem examination taking place it was found that her body was [sic] been cut about in a brutal, haphazard manner with a knife.

Chapman
The body of the woman had again been slashed and hacked about in the clumsiest possible manner.

Eddowes
In a quiet, dark corner of Mitre-square
we found the body of a woman with the throat cut, and her body mutilated in the same horrible manner as in the other cases. This woman’s nose and ears had been cut off, and her face slashed.

Kelly
the horrible sight of the woman lying on her bed hacked to pieces, and pieces of her flesh placed upon the table.

So it would seem that he is not that mistaken. But it is you jumping to the wrong conclusion based on that one newspaper article and trying to discredit him and the 1896 article.

The term slashes seem to be a term Reid has used throughout his career and I would say that 1903 article which you heavily rely on is out of context and makes the 1896 article even more authentic.

And you have not supplied any evidence in support of the Dr Bond. You mention Dr Hibbert. He was initially present but took no further involvement after the initial examination and before the crime scene was revisited so as I said his evidence is hearsay. Because we dont know what went on after that.

I am not relying on Dr. Bond or Dr. Hebbert. I am stating that Drs. Bond and Hebbert were present when the post-mortem and supplied the information that Kelly's heart could not be found in the room.

[B]That is not true as I have said in the previous reply[/B

Dr. Bond also said the heart was "absent" and gave the location of several organs were found, but not the heart, but I am not counting that. However, one should perhaps view it in the light of comments by other medical men. Dr. Gabe, who was also present at the post-mortem, also stated that a portion of Kelly's body was missing, but I haven't mentioned that because you already appeared to be overtaxed.

See above answer

Don't be a silly, Trevor. I have worked with primary and secondary sources since leaving school, which I regret to say was a long, long time ago. It is a basic and essential part of analytical thinking. The difference between primary and secondary sources is important across practically every discipline, which is why it is taught in high school. So don't tell me that I don't know what primary and secondary sources are. Or. if you feel so compelled, explain what they are in some detail. And it isn't the same as primary and secondary evidence, so don't trot that out again.

Well something arrived in my mail box from another history expert on the subject of primary and secondary sources.

"I think you have analysed the primary sources about Kelly's 'missing' heart correctly and incisively.

One thing: a primary source is simply a source from the time being studied. A secondary source is simply not. This is confused by loads of people with the terms first-hand and second-hand -- they are different.

A fourth-hand source, for example, can be primary if it is from the time being studied, but it is will probably be very unreliable.

Edmund Reid was there, and in 1896 he made some comments which can be verified and measured. Some of what he recalled was in error whilst other bits of data are probably correct -- like the issue of Kelly's organs"

I am not and never have suggested that the heart was taken away. I have left it open, unresolved, as any fair and unbiased assessment should. I have drawn your attention to that probable conclusion twice or maybe three times. Other information such as Hebbert and Gabe has emerged since 2006 which might tip the scales in favour of the heart having been taken I can add that other writers share my position, Melvin Harris, for example, thought Dr. Bond's statement that the heart was absent as meaning the heart had been taken from the room as a “nonsensical bending of the words”. (The True Face of Jack the Ripper). I warned you a few posts back that you were kidding yourself if you thought you were the first person to have questioned the missing heart.

What I object to is you making these claims as if they're new and basing them of your own badly flawed reasoning.

Your objection is duly noticed

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;398390]

What does Phillips who was at the crime scene say Trevor?

he says:


"I carefully closed up the clothes of the woman. Some portions had been excised."





how do you interpret that?


s

That was in relation to the intestines which were outside the body

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Pierre]

Interestingly, the Daily News (and probably other papers) on 10 Nov reports that the body was removed from no.13 in a shell and taken to the mortuary. A bucket thought to contain more remains was taken and sent to Dr Phillips' house. Is it possible that this contained the heart, and it couldn't be found because Phillips forgot to bring it with him in the morning?

"At four o'clock in the afternoon the body was removed from Dorset street to Shoreditch Mortuary, which stands at the back of Shoreditch Church. The mutilated remains were placed in a coarse coffin, which had apparently been used on many previous occasions for the conveyance of the dead, and which was partially covered with a coarse canvas cloth. The straps of the coffin were sealed. The coffin was conveyed in a one horse ordinary furniture van, and was escorted by several constables under Sergeant Betham. A large crowd followed. At the mortuary another throng was waiting to see the coffin transferred to the building. The photographer who had been called in to photograph the room removed his camera from the premises at half past four, and shortly afterwards a detective officer carried from the house a pail, with which he left in a four wheel cab. The pail was covered with a newspaper, and was stated to contain portions of the woman's body. It was taken to the house of Dr. Phillips, 2 Spital square. The windows of the room where the crime was committed were boarded up and a padlock put on the door. The streets were patrolled by the police all last evening, and no one was allowed to loiter near the place. At night the neighbourhood was a scene of restless excitement and activity, the streets being filled with thousands of idlers, attracted doubtless by morbid curiosity.

Why was it sent to the house of Phillips?

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;398411]

That was in relation to the intestines which were outside the body

Please tell us what you base this statement on?





lets look at what was actually said


"[Coroner] Was the whole of the body there? - No; the absent portions being from the abdomen."


The coroner is asking are there any portions of the body missing, Phillips informs him yes, from the abdomen.

From the data we can see that some portions of the body were missing- this is an established fact.



"[Coroner] Are those portions such as would require anatomical knowledge to extract? - I think the mode in which they were extracted did show some anatomical knowledge."



We can see the coroner asks Phillips if he feels that anatomical knowledge was require, Phillips replies that in his opinion some would be needed.

From the data we can see that Phillips gives an opinion, while not a fact this should still be taken into account and studied more closely if we intend to look at the issue of skill shown by the killer.




"[Coroner] You do not think they could have been lost accidentally in the transit of the body to the mortuary? - I was not present at the transit. I carefully closed up the clothes of the woman. Some portions had been excised."


The Coroner now asks if these organs/tissues could have been lost during transportation. Phillips replies by saying he was not present during the actually movement of the body, but before that he carefully closed up the clothing and noticed portions of the body were gone.

This testimony was given later than the part where he gave information about the intestines,

"The small intestines and other portions were lying on the right side of the body on the ground above the right shoulder, but attached. There was a large quantity of blood, with a part of the stomach above the left shoulder."


The data shows that portions of the body was missing- it also shows that Phillips says this was the case before the body is moved.

The exchange between Phillips and the Coroner is about the MISSING organs/ tissues and the skill level shown.

The intestines are not mentioned at any time at all as being missing or lost



The inevitable conclusion we can draw from this is that the exchange between the Coroner and Phillips was about some missing portions(plural) of the body, and these were not the intestines.


Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;398432]

Please tell us what you base this statement on?





lets look at what was actually said


"[Coroner] Was the whole of the body there? - No; the absent portions being from the abdomen."

Was the whole body there when the post mortem was carried out


The coroner is asking are there any portions of the body missing, Phillips informs him yes, from the abdomen.

Yes when the post mortem was carried out

From the data we can see that some portions of the body were missing- this is an established fact.

[B]Yes but these were only found when the post mortem was done/B]


"[Coroner] Are those portions such as would require anatomical knowledge to extract? - I think the mode in which they were extracted did show some anatomical knowledge."

Again referring to the uterus

"[Coroner] You do not think they could have been lost accidentally in the transit of the body to the mortuary? - I was not present at the transit. I carefully closed up the clothes of the woman. Some portions had been excised."

Intestines !

The Coroner now asks if these organs/tissues could have been lost during transportation. Phillips replies by saying he was not present during the actually movement of the body, but before that he carefully closed up the clothing and noticed portions of the body were gone.

This testimony was given later than the part where he gave information about the intestines,

"The small intestines and other portions were lying on the right side of the body on the ground above the right shoulder, but attached. There was a large quantity of blood, with a part of the stomach above the left shoulder."

The data shows that portions of the body was missing- it also shows that Phillips says this was the case before the body is moved.

The exchange between Phillips and the Coroner is about the MISSING organs/ tissues and the skill level shown.

The intestines are not mentioned at any time at all as being missing or lost

Thats because they were not but they were excised at the crime scen they were out of the abdomen.

The inevitable conclusion we can draw from this is that the exchange between the Coroner and Phillips was about some missing portions(plural) of the body, and these were not the intestines.

You need to look at the inquest evidence in the right context. This is from the Times newspaper

Phillips is called to give evidence the first part of his evidence relates to the crime scene, with no mention of any organs or intestines. The he goes onto say that he went to the mortuary at 2pm and found the body had been tampered with.

After being interrupted by the coroner his evidence then switches to the post mortem in which he says "The whole body was not present, the absent portions being from the abdomen" (this is the first mention of any organs being found missing, and that is when the organs were first found to be missing?

He then says"The mode in which these portions were extracted showed some anatomical knowledge, and does not think they were lost in transit"

Now how could they be lost in transit if they were removed with anatomical knowledge. Something is not right with this

He mentions nothing about examining the body at the crime scene and discovering that the uterus was missing which he would have to have done for your theory to stand up.

The Daily telegraph

Again Phillips talking about the post mortem and the crime scene.

"There was a large quantity of blood, with a part of the stomach above the left shoulder" (intestines) Excised

[Coroner] Was the whole of the body there? - No; the absent portions being from the abdomen. (Post mortem observation, not crime scene)
[Coroner] Are those portions such as would require anatomical knowledge to extract? - I think the mode in which they were extracted did show some anatomical knowledge.
[Coroner] You do not think they could have been lost accidentally in the transit of the body to the mortuary? - I was not present at the transit. I carefully closed up the clothes of the woman. Some portions had been excised. (Intestines)

Again no mention of an examination at the crime scene and finding the uterus missing. Sorry to dispel another one of your whammys


Steve

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PaulB]

Of course he was even in 1896 this is what he says about the murders
Nichols
She was found with her throat cut and on the post-mortem examination taking place it was found that her body was [sic] been cut about in a brutal, haphazard manner with a knife.
Chapman
The body of the woman had again been slashed and hacked about in the clumsiest possible manner.
Eddowes
In a quiet, dark corner of Mitre-square
we found the body of a woman with the throat cut, and her body mutilated in the same horrible manner as in the other cases. This woman’s nose and ears had been cut off, and her face slashed.
Kelly
the horrible sight of the woman lying on her bed hacked to pieces, and pieces of her flesh placed upon the table.

Reid uses the word "slashed" in the case of Chapman ("slashed and hacked") and Eddowes, although he only says the face was slashed, which was true, so he only referred to Chapman's mutilation as "slashed",

The term slashes seem to be a term Reid has used throughout his career and I would say that 1903 article which you heavily rely on is out of context and makes the 1896 article even more authentic.

(1) So far we have two examples of Reid referring to the mutilations as mere slashes. That does not permit you to conclude that he described the mutilations as slashes "throughout his career". (2) The authenticity of the 1896 article is not and never has been in question, so I'm not sure what you mean. (3) I am not making the case for anything, so I am not relying on the 1903 article, as you claim. However, you are relying on the 1896 article, which is the only source-based support for your contention that the heart was not missing. I have simply brought the 1903 article to your attention because it raises questions and possibly doubts about Reid's reliability.

All this is very telling about you, however. I said that Reid described the mutilations as no more than post-mortem slashes. You replied, "That is incorrect..." (post 652). You then tried to argue that Reid didn't describe the mutilations at slashes in the 1896 article and you tried to restrict discussion to that article (post 673). Then you said that you didn't know the article I was referring to and you strutted your stuff about primary and secondary sources, trying again to restrict discussion to Kelly. Somebody then came to your assistance, or maybe you had a sudden brain wave, because just over an hour later you claimed that the article I cited referred to the murder of Alice McKenzie (post 683). I told you it didn't refer to McKenzie. You insisted that it did and told me that my definition of primary and secondary sources was wrong (post 688). I then quoted the relevant paragraph of Reid's letter (post 689). Finally, after all these posts, you, or somebody helping you out, thought to produce other examples of Reid describing the mutilations as "slashes" In reality, just one example.

So, after enduring an absolute mountain of drivel from you, as you wriggled and squirmed, denying that Reid said what he did about slashes, claiming that Reid was repeating hearsay, claiming that Reid was referring to McKenzie, insisting that it referred to McKenzie when you were told it didn't... Finally you, or Santa's little helper, get off their metaphorical backside and bring some source-based supporting evidence to the fore. It doesn't really support you that much, but you can add a bit of waffle.

And you have not supplied any evidence in support of the Dr Bond. You mention Dr Hibbert. He was initially present but took no further involvement after the initial examination and before the crime scene was revisited so as I said his evidence is hearsay. Because we dont know what went on after that.

What sort of evidence in support of Dr. Bond would you like me to supply? And why? And you are being very silly trying to devalue what Dr Hebbert, Dr. Bond's assistant, said. Hebbert is unlikely not to have known Dr. Bond's conclusions and it is also quite probable that he had a copy of Dr. Bond's report. Anyway, all I am doing is citing sources which challenge what Reid said. I'm not making a case for anything.

b]That is not true as I have said in the previous reply[/

It is true. I have quoted and given details of the source where it was said.

See above answer[/

I have seen the above answer. It doesn't resolve what Drs. Bond, Hebbert, and Gabe said. As I said ages ago, there are problems with these sources, but they said what they said.

Well something arrived in my mail box from another history expert on the subject of primary and secondary sources.

"I think you have analysed the primary sources about Kelly's 'missing' heart correctly and incisively.[/

Alas, I disagree. Of course, I don't know the reasons on which your "history expert" bases that statement.

One thing: a primary source is simply a source from the time being studied. A secondary source is simply not. This is confused by loads of people with the terms first-hand and second-hand -- they are different.[/

I am grateful to your "history expert" for confirming that my definition of primary and secondary sources is correct and that you are wrong. Also for explaining to you that primary and secondary are not the same as first-hand and second-hand. You have repeatedly made that very mistake, as you did a few posts back. I must say, though, that for some reason I get the feeling that you don't realise that your 'history expert" is telling you that you are wrong.

A fourth-hand source, for example, can be primary if it is from the time being studied, but it is will probably be very unreliable.[/

In essence, that is absolutely true, as I have been saying for ages.

Edmund Reid was there, and in 1896 he made some comments which can be verified and measured. Some of what he recalled was in error whilst other bits of data are probably correct -- like the issue of Kelly's organs"[/

Edmund Reid was there and in 1896 he did indeed make some comments which can be verified and measured. Some of what he recalled was in error whilst other bits are probably correct - but not the question of Kelly's organs. If we could say that Reid was correct about Kelly's organs then it would not be a point of disention and we wouldn't be discussing it..

[Elamarna]

You need to look at the inquest evidence in the right context. This is from the Times newspaper

I think I am, You of course are seeing what you want to see.

Phillips is called to give evidence the first part of his evidence relates to the crime scene, with no mention of any organs or intestines. The he goes onto say that he went to the mortuary at 2pm and found the body had been tampered with.

Please give a link or a copy of the text used where you say Phillips specifically says the body had been tampered with after it left the murder scene ?


Actually despite saying this is from the times newspaper you appear to give more opinion than quotes, the only quotes are ones I have already given.


In the first part of his evidence given on 13th September, before he talks about the mortuary he mentions the crime scene and intestines.

After being interrupted by the coroner his evidence then switches to the post mortem in which he says "The whole body was not present, the absent portions being from the abdomen" (this is the first mention of any organs being found missing, and that is when the organs were first found to be missing?

This paragraph give an impression that Phillips just volunteered this information at the inquest, it implies he is not responding to questions

He then says"The mode in which these portions were extracted showed some anatomical knowledge, and does not think they were lost in transit"

Now how could they be lost in transit if they were removed with anatomical knowledge. Something is not right with this

They were taken by the killer, you see what you want to see,


That is how you wish to interpret it, fair enough.

Basically you are repeating what I posted, using the same data and giving a different analysis of said data,

However I am confident in my view,

However I have some concerns about the details of this post which I will move on to presently.

He mentions nothing about examining the body at the crime scene and discovering that the uterus was missing which he would have to have done for your theory to stand up.

I interperet the source to say he does mention it, he says he closed the clothing and saw portions had been excised.

If the word intestines is used at this point please provide the actuality quote or link please?

The Daily telegraph

Again Phillips talking about the post mortem and the crime scene.

"There was a large quantity of blood, with a part of the stomach above the left shoulder" (intestines) Excised

my understanding is that the text was:

"The small intestines and other portions were lying on the right side of the body on the ground above the right shoulder, but attached. There was a large quantity of blood, with a part of the stomach above the left shoulder."



Is the word Excised in the actual text, or is an addition giving your view?

I ask because it is not in the versions I have seen, nor is(intestines) in the form you present and neither are covered by quotation makes.

[Coroner] Was the whole of the body there? - No; the absent portions being from the abdomen. (Post mortem observation, not crime scene)

It is your interpretation that it cannot apply to what was seen at the crime scene.
It is entirely plausible that at the scene Phillips noted missing parts but was not sure of the extent until the post postmortem.

it is covered by my interpretation of his comments that "some portions had been excised" in response to the Coroners question about lost body parts.

[Coroner] Are those portions such as would require anatomical knowledge to extract? - I think the mode in which they were extracted did show some anatomical knowledge.

Again referring to the uterus

Now this is interesting, you accept that when talking about the skill and the missing parts both the coroner and Phillips are talking about: the uterus, the upper part of the vagina and about two thirds of the bladder.

It is also interesting that Phillips talks about "some portions excised".
It is a statement in the plural, which would fit the uterus, vagina and bladder, of course it could also be applied to the intestines and stomach part, so it is not conclusive either way.

You argue that all the exchange up to this point is about these parts, I agree 100%; however you then claim that when being asked about these lost organs Phillips sudden mentions the intestines, which I repeat are not missing, to mention them as you claim seems to have no bearing or relation to the question asked.

[Coroner] You do not think they could have been lost accidentally in the transit of the body to the mortuary? - I was not present at the transit. I carefully closed up the clothes of the woman. Some portions had been excised. (Intestines)

We now have the second area where I have a concern (the first being the addition of excised and (intestines)


This concern is of the same type, where does (intestines ) come from?
Is it part of the actual report ?

If so can you provide a link

The copies I have seen do not have that. and I see none of the quote is given quotation marks so it is hard to see if this is meant to be included in the actual report or not? or if it is just an oversight on your part?

Again no mention of an examination at the crime scene and finding the uterus missing. Sorry to dispel another one of your whammys

Again that depends on how one interprets what the source says

You have included (intestines) twice as additions to the quotes and an additional use of the work excised, before commenting any further one needs to know if those are your input or part of the original documents.



Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

I think I am, You of course are seeing what you want to see.





Please give a link or a copy of the text used where you say Phillips specifically says the body had been tampered with after it left the murder scene ?


Actually despite saying this is from the times newspaper you appear to give more opinion than quotes, the only quotes are ones I have already given.


In the first part of his evidence given on 13th September, before he talks about the mortuary he mentions the crime scene and intestines.





This paragraph give an impression that Phillips just volunteered this information at the inquest, it implies he is not responding to questions







They were taken by the killer, you see what you want to see,


That is how you wish to interpret it, fair enough.

Basically you are repeating what I posted, using the same data and giving a different analysis of said data,

However I am confident in my view,

However I have some concerns about the details of this post which I will move on to presently.




I interperet the source to say he does mention it, he says he closed the clothing and saw portions had been excised.

If the word intestines is used at this point please provide the actuality quote or link please?





my understanding is that the text was:

"The small intestines and other portions were lying on the right side of the body on the ground above the right shoulder, but attached. There was a large quantity of blood, with a part of the stomach above the left shoulder."



Is the word Excised in the actual text, or is an addition giving your view?

I ask because it is not in the versions I have seen, nor is(intestines) in the form you present and neither are covered by quotation makes.






It is your interpretation that it cannot apply to what was seen at the crime scene.
It is entirely plausible that at the scene Phillips noted missing parts but was not sure of the extent until the post postmortem.

it is covered by my interpretation of his comments that "some portions had been excised" in response to the Coroners question about lost body parts.







Now this is interesting, you accept that when talking about the skill and the missing parts both the coroner and Phillips are talking about: the uterus, the upper part of the vagina and about two thirds of the bladder.

It is also interesting that Phillips talks about "some portions excised".
It is a statement in the plural, which would fit the uterus, vagina and bladder, of course it could also be applied to the intestines and stomach part, so it is not conclusive either way.

You argue that all the exchange up to this point is about these parts, I agree 100%; however you then claim that when being asked about these lost organs Phillips sudden mentions the intestines, which I repeat are not missing, to mention them as you claim seems to have no bearing or relation to the question asked.




We now have the second area where I have a concern (the first being the addition of excised and (intestines)


This concern is of the same type, where does (intestines ) come from?
Is it part of the actual report ?

If so can you provide a link

The copies I have seen do not have that. and I see none of the quote is given quotation marks so it is hard to see if this is meant to be included in the actual report or not? or if it is just an oversight on your part?





Again that depends on how one interprets what the source says

You have included (intestines) twice as additions to the quotes and an additional use of the work excised, before commenting any further one needs to know if those are your input or part of the original documents.

Steve

I am not going to continue to argue on these issues when it is plainly clear that the uterus was not found to be missing until the post mortem, If you want even more corroboration as to that I will quote the coroner in his summing up.

"The amount missing would go into a breakfast cup, and had not the medical examination been of a thorough and searching character it might have easily been left un-noticed that there was any portion of the body which had been taken"

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

I am not going to continue to argue on these issues when it is plainly clear that the uterus was not found to be missing until the post mortem, If you want even more corroboration as to that I will quote the coroner in his summing up.

"The amount missing would go into a breakfast cup, and had not the medical examination been of a thorough and searching character it might have easily been left un-noticed that there was any portion of the body which had been taken"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

On the summing up, it is about interpretation, you are seeing it as saying something very clearly, I do not see that.



However of more importance I see you have not answered the question asked you in my previous post, Trevor, can I please ask that you do

Are your use of the two instances of (intestines) and the work "Excised" part of the original reports or are they your creation?

If you decide not to respond, I am sure others will.

As previously posted I will comment no further until I am clear about this issue.



Steve

[Elamarna]

Why was it sent to the house of Phillips?

Regards, Pierre

Pierre,

I can think of no idea why it would go to his house:


Conditions there for storage would have probably been worse than at the mortuary, not knowing exactly what facilities either may have had it is hard to take any clear view on that.


I can think of creative ideas for it, but nothing which could be substantiated in any way.

The only thing I would note is that it says:


" was stated to contain portions of the woman's body".

My underlining, its plural so more than one organ/tissue



Steve,

[DirectorDave]

I've just seen this Documentory Lechmere/Cross is a new suspect to me too and didn't know much of him as a witness, beyond his step-dad being a copper.

The Doc takes a few liberties...ie including Tabram because she is on his route to work and making things out to be strange that have a more simple explanation but all in all at first glance makes Cross a plausible suspect and certainly not a silly one.

I did wince a bit at the end with the guy judging the photograph...he did have a bit of the "Cornwell-craziness" like she did over the film of Sickert.

[Pierre]

Interestingly, the Daily News (and probably other papers) on 10 Nov reports that the body was removed from no.13 in a shell and taken to the mortuary. A bucket thought to contain more remains was taken and sent to Dr Phillips' house. Is it possible that this contained the heart, and it couldn't be found because Phillips forgot to bring it with him in the morning?

"At four o'clock in the afternoon the body was removed from Dorset street to Shoreditch Mortuary, which stands at the back of Shoreditch Church. The mutilated remains were placed in a coarse coffin, which had apparently been used on many previous occasions for the conveyance of the dead, and which was partially covered with a coarse canvas cloth. The straps of the coffin were sealed. The coffin was conveyed in a one horse ordinary furniture van, and was escorted by several constables under Sergeant Betham. A large crowd followed. At the mortuary another throng was waiting to see the coffin transferred to the building. The photographer who had been called in to photograph the room removed his camera from the premises at half past four, and shortly afterwards a detective officer carried from the house a pail, with which he left in a four wheel cab. The pail was covered with a newspaper, and was stated to contain portions of the woman's body. It was taken to the house of Dr. Phillips, 2 Spital square. The windows of the room where the crime was committed were boarded up and a padlock put on the door. The streets were patrolled by the police all last evening, and no one was allowed to loiter near the place. At night the neighbourhood was a scene of restless excitement and activity, the streets being filled with thousands of idlers, attracted doubtless by morbid curiosity.

Why was it sent to the house of Phillips?

Regards, Pierre

[John Wheat]

I've just seen this Documentory Lechmere/Cross is a new suspect to me too and didn't know much of him as a witness, beyond his step-dad being a copper.

The Doc takes a few liberties...ie including Tabram because she is on his route to work and making things out to be strange that have a more simple explanation but all in all at first glance makes Cross a plausible suspect and certainly not a silly one.

I did wince a bit at the end with the guy judging the photograph...he did have a bit of the "Cornwell-craziness" like she did over the film of Sickert.

Hi DirectorDave

Yeah the doc is a load of bilge.

Cheers John

[Pierre]

Hi DirectorDave

Yeah the doc is a load of bilge.

Cheers John

It is a shame though that Lechmere is such a boring "suspect".

Regards, Pierre

[John Wheat]

It is a shame though that Lechmere is such a boring "suspect".

Regards, Pierre

Hi Pierre

Yes he's both a boring and terrible suspect I don't know why he's discussed so often on these boards.

Cheers John