Charles Allen Lechmere - new suspect?

[Fisherman]

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

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

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

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

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


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

Fairīs fair, so thank you for that.

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

What happens...?

[Trevor Marriott]

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

Steve

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

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, I agree they are secondary sources, as is Reid`s, as it is a recollection.



Bond clearly states where all the organs were situated in the room, apart from the heart, which he states is absent.

No he doesnt say that.

Okay, I`ll have another look.
Is this the article where Reid gets details of the McKenzie crime scene wrong, when we do know that he was at the scene and his recollections differ from the official report he himself submitted ?

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

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

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

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

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

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

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

Steve

[Elamarna]

I sense this is wrongly worded...?

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

Is it not true that not all the murder sites are on a direct route to his place of work from home? And as such the theory lacks strength.

The only two that differ were killed on a Saturday night, so it stands to reason that Lechmere was not en route to work. The other four are all on a direct route to his place of work from home, however.

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

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

It just it seems this post reinforces my view that there is no middle ground on the issue in your mind.


I donīt think you can read my mind, Steve. You can read my posts. I certainly look at both the middle ground and the one far off, but I donīt think I need to argye it out here. Others do it for me.

You are obviously fully convinced of his guilty, the issue is that at present you have not convinced others, maybe you Will, maybe not , time will tell.

I am very nearly fully convinced of his guilt, yes.

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


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


all the best


Steve

[Elamarna]

So essentially there is likely to have been a sizeable gap between the killer absconding and Lechmere finding the body.

John,

You may argue that blood loss at the scene means nothing, I would however like to see some backup for this from a few scientific papers, rather than the word of one "expert".

However even if the view Trevor puts forward were true: if the blood loss means nothing, then logically one can not set anytime based on it at all,


So it is not:

"likely to have been a sizeable gap between the killer absconding and Lechmere finding the body",

It is just as likely there was a no gap as there is that there was very sizable one.

Just for the record, I am not supporting Fisherman in anyway on his Lechhmere theory, as I hope I have made clear.



Steve

[Jon Guy]

Chapman and Eddowes, whose bodies were left for 12 hours before the doctors came back to carry out the post mortems and left in situations where it would have been possible for someone to remove the organs quickly using anatomical knowledge

12hrs. Eh ... ?

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

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

[John Wheat]

Here is what Dr Biggs says

"Blood can leak out after death (and for quite some time). You can’t tell anything about time of injury / death by assessing the blood loss at the scene"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So essentially there is likely to have been a sizeable gap between the killer absconding and Lechmere finding the body.

[John Wheat]

Here is what Dr Biggs says

"Blood can leak out after death (and for quite some time). You can’t tell anything about time of injury / death by assessing the blood loss at the scene"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Well that sounds correct to me.

[Jon Guy]

I have no idea what the sources were, but all the articles corroborate each other do they not?. At the risk of waking Paul Begg up I would say that they are secondary sources. But Reids statement is a primary source and corroborates the newspaper articles.

Yes, I agree they are secondary sources, as is Reid`s, as it is a recollection.

Dr Bonds statement is ambiguous to say the least. It is strange that after the Kelly murder and post mortem there is almost no mention of Kellys heart being taken by anyone connected to these murders, does that not tell you something. It tells me that the newspaper articles and what Insp Reid said were all spot on.

Bond clearly states where all the organs were situated in the room, apart from the heart, which he states is absent.

Read Insp Reids article again regarding the Kelly murder, despite you and others all trying to say he got it wrong or was confused. The only thing he gets wrong in that part of the article is the time that Indian Harry went to Millers Court, the rest is spot on, so no confusion at all. This confusion you speak of is another smoke screen put up by those who seek to protect the old accepted theories.

Okay, I`ll have another look.
Is this the article where Reid gets details of the McKenzie crime scene wrong, when we do know that he was at the scene and his recollections differ from the official report he himself submitted ?

[Fisherman]

They may seem wacky to you but your theory about Lechmere is even more wackier.

If it is suggested that the same killer killed Kelly Chapman and Eddowes the non taking of any organ from Kelly supports the theory that the killer did not remove the organs from Chapman and Eddowes, because with kelly he could have taken away most of the organs in one go from her and took nothing.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I mispelt whacky, so you should not have cottoned on. And itīs either "even whackier" or "even more whacky". So your smiley should not be too pleased.

Itīs kind of weird to hear from an ex-copper that the person found with the body makes for a whacky suggestion for the killers role. But I simply accept that you could not come up with anything clever, so you turned to the good old kindergarten stuff. "Your dad is fat!" "Well, your dad is fatter". Brilliant.

The killer certainly REMOVED organs from each of the three victims. Or, if that is your contention, SOMEBODY definitely did, unless they were all severe cases of suicide, where somebody helped out to spirit the murder weapon away afterwards.

As for Chapman and Eddowes, we cannot say what the killer did with the organs. There is no reason to suggest that he must have taken them as trophies, and there is actually not any certainty that the killer must have carried the organs away from the murder site. A passing hungry dog or cat can have done that. So we donīt know per se, that the killer did this. We assume it on very good grounds, but thatīs all we can say.

The important matter therefore becomes whether this killer took out organs of the body or not, and it would seem that he did precisely that in the Kelly case. It therefore applies that the same thing would reasonably have happened in Hanbury Street and Mitre Square too. Itīs called factbased logic, a very rare creature indeed in some quarters.

This means that you can bundle up your "ingenuity" and "fresh new take on things" and float these things down the Thames. If somebody then fishes them out of the water further downstream, it can always be argued that an illegal abortionist must be responsible...

[Trevor Marriott]

What are the sources for the claims made by the Times and The Echo, Trevor ?

Reid`s recollections for a newspaper interview 8 years later don't hold much water, when we have Dr Bond telling us otherwise the day after the event in an official document. (Dr Brown ? -see how easy it is to make a mistake, Edmund ..sorry I mean Trevor)

I have no idea what the sources were, but all the articles corroborate each other do they not?. At the risk of waking Paul Begg up I would say that they are secondary sources. But Reids statement is a primary source and corroborates the newspaper articles.

Dr Bonds statement is ambiguous to say the least. It is strange that after the Kelly murder and post mortem there is almost no mention of Kellys heart being taken by anyone connected to these murders, does that not tell you something. It tells me that the newspaper articles and what Insp Reid said were all spot on.

Read Insp Reids article again regarding the Kelly murder, despite you and others all trying to say he got it wrong or was confused. The only thing he gets wrong in that part of the article is the time that Indian Harry went to Millers Court, the rest is spot on, so no confusion at all. This confusion you speak of is another smoke screen put up by those who seek to protect the old accepted theories.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Very interesting, Iīm sure.

On the other hand, what I tried to point to was that the killer of Kelly actually seems to have taken organs out of the body, clearly implicating that he had a penchant for such things. By extension, this means that the organ-taking in the Chapman and Eddowes cases is not something that should surprise us.

One may of course also infer that opening up the abdominal cavity is very much in line with such an intent, but maybe that is getting overenthusiastic?

You see, this is pretty much why I said before that being Trevor Marriott is something that not lends itself to much inspiration of credence. You throw forward one suggestion wackier than the other, and you seem unable to weigh probabilities in a fair manner. And when you get this pointed out to you, you say that old-school thinking on behalf of 99 per cent of the rest of the ripperological community is all that stands in the way of you having your views accepted as the better scenarios.
Thatīs just not gonna happen, Trevor.

They may seem wacky to you but your theory about Lechmere is even more wackier.

If it is suggested that the same killer killed Kelly Chapman and Eddowes the non taking of any organ from Kelly supports the theory that the killer did not remove the organs from Chapman and Eddowes, because with kelly he could have taken away most of the organs in one go from her and took nothing.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Joshua Rogan]

Daily Telegraph 13th Nov 1888;

"We are enabled to state, on good authority, that notwithstanding all that has been said to the contrary, a portion of the bodily organs was missing."


The Echo quote clearly (to me at least) refers to the uterus, as the organ removed in previous mutilations, but not taken away in the case of Kelly.

[Jon Guy]

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

The Times 10th November

“The latest account states upon what professes to be indisputable authority that no portion of the woman's body was taken away by the murderer. As already stated, the post-mortem examination was of the most exhaustive character, and surgeons did not quit their work until every organ had been accounted for and placed as closely as possible in its natural position.”

The Echo 12th November

“Nothing of any importance was discovered in the ashes at the deceased's house. A small portion only of the remains is missing, while it is noticeable as a special incident in the barbarous murder that the organ hitherto taken away at the mutilations was found in the room, although it had been cut out of the body...”

The Times 12th November

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

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

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

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

What are the sources for the claims made by the Times and The Echo, Trevor ?

Reid`s recollections for a newspaper interview 8 years later don't hold much water, when we have Dr Bond telling us otherwise the day after the event in an official document. (Dr Brown ? -see how easy it is to make a mistake, Edmund ..sorry I mean Trevor)