Charles Allen Lechmere - new suspect?

[Trevor Marriott]

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

Steve

Of course they were by a killer who was a skilled anatomist, in almost total darkness, working with a six inch long bladed knife, in a blood filled abdomen, who was able to locate these organs,take hold of them, and the remove them with medical precision in a matter of minutes

And all of this, which goes against the opinions of a team of modern day medical experts.

You have been around Fisherman to long his wackiness has rubbed off on you. I bet you believed in fairy stories when you were a child

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PaulB]

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

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

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Can you cite examples of medical men taking organs from the bodies of murder victims prior to the inquest?

What sources are there to the effect that it was thought possible that the organs were removed in the mortuary by a medical man?

Since the police and doctors in 1888 were not stupid, any supposed problems inherent in removing the missing organs in the pertaining time and conditions would have occurred to them (in fact, we know it did occur to them), so what sources do you have to suggest that anyone at the time seriously thought that the organs were removed at or after the body had been removed from the crime scene?

Speculation without supportive sourcing is imagination. It carries no real weight.

[Trevor Marriott]

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

Well why mention it in the first place if you didnt want me to commnet on it?

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

Well it was a misplaced observation on your part

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

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

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.

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

Typical Paul Begg move ducking an answer

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

And what was that source?

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

Anderson has proved to have been factually wrong in his book
Swansons marginalia is questionable given the content
Macnaghtens Memo has proved to be unsafe to totally rely on

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

You cannot show any flaw in the part which relates to Kelly and thats the important part

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

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.

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. 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. 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.

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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Can you cite examples of medical men taking organs from the bodies of murder victims prior to the inquest?

Stop trying to be a smart arse, of course I cant. But thats not to say it didnt happen

What sources are there to the effect that it was thought possible that the organs were removed in the mortuary by a medical man?

My sources ! previously documented

The doctors who performed the post mortems said that the organs had been removed by persons with anatomical knowledge. If the organs were removed at the mortuary by a medical person that would be where the signs of anatomical knowledge came from and not the killer

Since the police and doctors in 1888 were not stupid, any supposed problems inherent in removing the missing organs in the pertaining time and conditions would have occurred to them (in fact, we know it did occur to them), so what sources do you have to suggest that anyone at the time seriously thought that the organs were removed at or after the body had been removed from the crime scene?

There is none because when they did the post mortems that is when they found the organs were missing, and suspicion fell on the killer, No one checked before. This could be why Dr Brown was concerned enough with the time factor with regards to Eddowes to instigate a similar test to time how long it would take to remove the organs.

Speculation without supportive sourcing is imagination. It carries no real weight.

Its not speculating it is suggesting another plausible explanation in the light of the accepted one not standing up to close scrutiny.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Joshua Rogan]

I am referring to the part of the interview that aplied to Kelly.

When Reid says "In every instance the body was complete" is he saying that no organs were taken from Kelly, or from any of the victims? I'd go for the latter myself.

[John Wheat]

I dont know who specifically I wasnt there !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So it's all wild speculation then? Just as I thought.

[Elamarna]

Here we go again

Of course they were by a killer who was a skilled anatomist,

Not proven by any stretch of the imagination, just your opinion, I see that your now stretching it from someone with medical knowledge to a skilled anatomist, amazing.

in almost total darkness,

Not according to the doctors onsite who said there was enough light to perform the procedure. Primary sources again.

working with a six inch long bladed knife,

What significance pray tell does the length of the blade have on the skill of the killer, or where it was used ?

in a blood filled abdomen, who was able to locate these organs,take hold of them, and the remove them with medical precision in a matter of minutes

Oh dear here we go again


You have been informed before that the abdomen would not be blood filled, certainly bloody, but not filled.
That really has little effect considering recovery is not an issue.

Again demonstrating a fundamental lack of knowledge on this issue.

And again it has be shown that a butcher or similar would have all the skills needed.

Who could do it? you shake your head trevor.

I certainly could. Its not that difficult

And that assumes the killer knew what he was looking for and not just taking what comes to hand, in which case the numbers capable increases exponentially.





[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;398214]

And all of this, which goes against the opinions of a team of modern day medical experts.

Medical experts seldom agree with each other, take the views of your experts and Fishermans:

Do they agree?

Certainly not, who is right?

The real issue is we are talking about opinions.

Such are best guesses, informed ones, but still guesses.
They should not be view as being set in stone. but as reasonable guides.

Much will depend on the information and data supplied to them of course.

You have been around Fisherman to long his wackiness has rubbed off on you. I bet you believed in fairy stories when you were a child

The number of posts between me and Fish is actually reasonable small, so wrong on yet another issue.
And of course I do not agree with him, expect on a few very small issues, none of which tie Lechmere to being the Whitechapel killer or the Torso killer.

The final comment is so silly, most small children believe for a time in fairy tales, the Tooth Fairy and Father Christmas, its part of life and growing up.

If you never did, I feel so sorry, it must have been miserable.


steve

[Trevor Marriott]

When Reid says "In every instance the body was complete" is he saying that no organs were taken from Kelly, or from any of the victims? I'd go for the latter myself.

He is specifically talking about Kelly when he uses that term. Why would he suddenly out of context refer to other victims?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

Its not speculating it is suggesting another plausible explanation in the light of the accepted one not standing up to close scrutiny.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

If you were merely suggesting no one would have any issue with this.

However you present it as the truth, as fact, and attack, poorly it has to be said, any one who disagrees.

When asked to back up suggestions you just give either more opinion, or insults, you have posted yourself today :

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


That says all about the approach taken that anyone needs to know



Steve

[Michael W Richards]

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

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

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
B. Kate was mutilated somewhere else and dropped in the square..the contemporary cops thought that might be the case
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.

I know your theory I just see nothing in terms of hard evidence to found it upon.

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;398223]Here we go again






Not proven by any stretch of the imagination, just your opinion, I see that your now stretching it from someone with medical knowledge to a skilled anatomist, amazing.

Doesnt an anatomist have medical knowledege


Not according to the doctors onsite who said there was enough light to perform the procedure. Primary sources again.

They dont specifically mention procedure. Dr Sequeira used the term deed. Interpret that as you will


What significance pray tell does the length of the blade have on the skill of the killer, or where it was used ?

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.


Oh dear here we go again


You have been informed before that the abdomen would not be blood filled, certainly bloody, but not filled.That really has little effect considering recovery is not an issue.

Again demonstrating a fundamental lack of knowledge on this issue.

And again it has be shown that a butcher or similar would have all the skills needed.

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.

A modern day master butcher gave his opinion on this issue

Who could do it? you shake your head trevor.

I certainly could. Its not that difficult

And that assumes the killer knew what he was looking for and not just taking what comes to hand, in which case the numbers capable increases exponentially.

Well if it believed the killer took the organs then it must be assumed he knew what he was looking for. But if that were the case why stab the victim sevarl times in the area where you are looking to take organs from?

When you open up and abdomen none of those organs readily comes to hand. The Kidney sits at the back of the abdominal cavity.

If you think you could do it i would suggest you need to stop using your doctors and nurses box set

Medical experts seldom agree with each other, take the views of your experts and Fishermans:

Do they agree?

Certainly not, who is right?

The real issue is we are talking about opinions.

Such are best guesses, informed ones, but still guesses.
They should not be view as being set in stone. but as reasonable guides.

Much will depend on the information and data supplied to them of course.

No guesswork practical tests


steve

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

He is specifically talking about Kelly when he uses that term. Why would he suddenly out of context refer to other victims?

However the language and grammar used are indicative of some one talking about more than a single case:

"In every instance the body was complete"

If he is talking purely about one case, be it Kelly or another, " in every instance" makes no sense at all.


Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

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
Then Watkins would have seen them at 1.30am

B. Kate was mutilated somewhere else and dropped in the square..the contemporary cops thought that might be the case
The doctors didn't subscribe to his

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.

You cant smash and grab these organs its impossible

I know your theory I just see nothing in terms of hard evidence to found it upon.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

However the language and grammar used are indicative of some one talking about more than a single case:

"In every instance the body was complete"

If he is talking purely about one case, be it Kelly or another, " in every instance" makes no sense at all.

Steve

It wouldn't to you, to much knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PaulB]

Stop trying to be a smart arse, of course I cant. But thats not to say it didnt happen

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.

My sources ! previously documented

The doctors who performed the post mortems said that the organs had been removed by persons with anatomical knowledge. If the organs were removed at the mortuary by a medical person that would be where the signs of anatomical knowledge came from and not the killer

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.

There is none because when they did the post mortems that is when they found the organs were missing, and suspicion fell on the killer, No one checked before. This could be why Dr Brown was concerned enough with the time factor with regards to Eddowes to instigate a similar test to time how long it would take to remove the organs.

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.

Its not speculating it is suggesting another plausible explanation in the light of the accepted one not standing up to close scrutiny.

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.