Long v Cadosch. Seeing vs Hearing.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

So its not 3 or 5 minutes, its as many as 15.

I don't think that's right.

First, Watkins testified that he entered the Square at 1.44.

He had last entered it at 1.30.

Then the murderer had to leave before 1.44 in order to avoid being caught by Watkins.

If he left via Mitre Street, then 1.43 might have been too late.

If he left earlier than 1.43, via Church Passage, he might have been seen by Harvey.

Even if Lawende did not see Eddowes, the murderer could hardly have had more than ten minutes to do everything.

It was clear from Lawende's testimony that the woman he saw was a prostitute and the man whose chest she had her hand on was a prospective customer.

What likelier place would they have gone to next than the nearby square?

And if they did so, would they not have likely disturbed the murderer?

[Michael W Richards]

Whether it be 3 mins or 5 mins neither times were long enough for the killer to have done all he is alleged to have done in Mitre square

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

The amount of time that the killer had in Mitre Square is most often calculated by using Joseph Lawende's alleged 1:35am sighting of Kate at Duke and Church passage, juxtaposed with Watkins discovery at approx 1:45. The fact is Lawende ID'd the dark clothing, he didnt identify Kate Eddowes. Neither did Harris or Levy. If that sighting is not accurate, then the timing is down to PC Watkins last pass through the square to the time he then finds her. PC Harveys account takes us to the entrance of the square only. So then the probable actual time with the body can only be reasonably estimated by Watkins passes. He is the ONLY one, aside from the killer and Kate, who is inside that square during the critical times. So its not 3 or 5 minutes, its as many as 15.

[JeffHamm]

Whether it be 3 mins or 5 mins neither times were long enough for the killer to have done all he is alleged to have done in Mitre square

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

So how much time would be required for the killer to do all he was alleged to have done?

- Jeff

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Whether it be 3 mins or 5 mins neither times were long enough for the killer to have done all he is alleged to have done in Mitre square

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

As I pointed out in # 166, Dr Brown testified that he thought at least five minutes would have been required to do everything, including the excision.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Hi Doc,

This is something I definetly consider as important with Chapman. If an earlier ToD, the darkness in the backyard, especially once she had been laid down in the corner by the fence, must have been near total (short of some unidentified source of light). Could the killer have carried out his actions in those conditions? As you say, we know there was light enough in MSq.

Here is an excerpt from John Richardson's testimony:

Coroner] Did you sit on the top step? - No, on the middle step; my feet were on the flags of the yard.
[Coroner] You must have been quite close to where the deceased was found? - Yes, I must have seen her.
[Coroner] You have been there at all hours of the night? - Yes.
[Coroner] Have you ever seen any strangers there? - Yes, plenty, at all hours - both men and women. I have often turned them out. We have had them on our first floor as well, on the landing.
[Coroner] Do you mean to say that they go there for an immoral purpose? - Yes, they do.


His evidence suggests that Chapman might have taken a man into that back yard at such a time that it was at its darkest.

[Trevor Marriott]

You omitted Dr Sequeira, who testified as follows:

I arrived at five minutes to two o'clock, being the first medical man on the scene of the murder...

[Coroner] How long do you believe life had been extinct when you arrived? - Very few minutes - probably not more than a quarter of an hour.


Catherine Eddowes was murdered about 17 minutes before Dr Sequeira arrived.

Whether it be 3 mins or 5 mins neither times were long enough for the killer to have done all he is alleged to have done in Mitre square

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

3 doctors got their estimate medical opinions pretty spot on in the case of Eddowes, stride, Nichols,

You omitted Dr Sequeira, who testified as follows:

I arrived at five minutes to two o'clock, being the first medical man on the scene of the murder...

[Coroner] How long do you believe life had been extinct when you arrived? - Very few minutes - probably not more than a quarter of an hour.


Catherine Eddowes was murdered about 17 minutes before Dr Sequeira arrived.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Brown says at least 5 mins Sequeira 3 mins but everyone who wants to prop up the removal of the organs by the killer always uses Browns estimated time when there is a clear conflict between the doctors.

Is it possible you meant that people quote Sequeira - rather than Brown - because his estimate was less?

In his testimony, Brown gave the same estimate as the one you quoted from The Star, but included the mutilations in his five minute estimate:

I believe the perpetrator of the act must have had considerable knowledge of the position of the organs in the abdominal cavity and the way of removing them. It required a great deal of medical knowledge to have removed the kidney and to know where it was placed. The parts removed would be of no use for any professional purpose.

I think the perpetrator of this act had sufficient time, or he would not have nicked the lower eyelids. It would take at least five minutes.

[Trevor Marriott]

As we seem to be in agreement that the organs were removed by the murderer, would you not agree with me that he must have intended to do something similar to Nichols and Stride, but was unable to do so because he was disturbed?

It was so dark in Dutfield's Yard that Diemschutz could not see Stride, let alone the murderer - who may still have been there.

He had to strike a match in order to see her at all and it was only when he used a lighted candle that he saw any blood on the ground.

How could the murderer have contemplated committing mutilation, let alone the removal of internal organs, unless he had some means of seeing what he was doing?

This is a point that those who prop up the belief that the killer removed the organs will argue against. Modern-day medical experts opine that it is not just a case of ripping open the abdomen and sticking a hand in, the killer would have to know where the organs were located in the first instance.

Let me ask a general question how many on here would know where these organs were located and have the knowledge to be able to remove them in almost total darkness from a blood-filled abdomen?

Dr Sequeira states 3 mins the murder and mutilation could be done in that time but not the removal of the organs

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

No, there is no similar controversy about the Mitre Square murder. Dr Sequeira clearly stated on oath that there was sufficient light for the deed to be accomplished. You envisage the same deed with Chapman, but with no light whatever.

Whether the mutilations were done swiftly or not, I cannot believe that "the deliberate, successful, and apparently scientific manner" in which they were performed was achieved in near total darkness.

As we seem to be in agreement that the organs were removed by the murderer, would you not agree with me that he must have intended to do something similar to Nichols and Stride, but was unable to do so because he was disturbed?

It was so dark in Dutfield's Yard that Diemschutz could not see Stride, let alone the murderer - who may still have been there.

He had to strike a match in order to see her at all and it was only when he used a lighted candle that he saw any blood on the ground.

How could the murderer have contemplated committing mutilation, let alone the removal of internal organs, unless he had some means of seeing what he was doing?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Well, perhaps you would care to explain why the only victims who were found to be missing organs were the only two out of the whole series of murders which were attributed to the same killer were Chapman and Eddowes and why all those other victims, there was no attempts made to remove any organs at their crime scenes.?


www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The uterus was cut away with the exception of a small portion, and the left kidney was also cut out. Both these organs were absent, and have not been found.

(DR FREDERICK GORDON BROWN)



The Pericardium was open below & the Heart absent.

(DR THOMAS BOND)



The viscera were found in various parts viz: the uterus & Kidneys with one breast under the head, the other breast by the Rt foot, the Liver between the feet, the intestines by the right side & the spleen by the left side of the body. The flaps removed from the abdomen and thighs were on a table.

(DR THOMAS BOND)


Apart from the fact that Bond did not state explicitly that the heart was not found, it seems fairly clear that it was not found.

That would mean a third murder in which at least one internal organ was taken away by the murderer.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Doc,

This is something I definetly consider as important with Chapman. If an earlier ToD, the darkness in the backyard, especially once she had been laid down in the corner by the fence, must have been near total (short of some unidentified source of light). Could the killer have carried out his actions in those conditions? As you say, we know there was light enough in MSq.

Dr Sequeiras comments and Dr Brown's are ambiguous Sequeira made that statement which could be interpreted as to the cursory examination at the crime scene, equally his reference to enough light to do the deed could also relate to the murder and the mutilations only, which were observed by him and Dr Brown at the crime scene

In the final edition, Of The Star for Oct 1st there are two interesting quotes, one from Dr Brown, and a second from Dr Sequeira. Brown was asked a specific question by the reporter “How long would it have taken him (the killer) to mutilate the body as you found it” Brown replied “At least five minutes” Sequeira when asked the same question and states “three minutes”.

Note the term mutilate and not remove organs. If as some suggest that time is to be used to establish how long it would have taken the killer to murder mutilate and remove organs, Brown says at least 5 mins Sequeira 3 mins but everyone who wants to prop up the removal of the organs by the killer always uses Browns estimated time when there is a clear conflict between the doctors. I firmly believe that these times given by the doctors were relative to the crime scene only as the term "as you found it is mentioned"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Why would we need a reality check when the evidence supports the killer removed the organs at the murder scene?

With no evidence that supports otherwise .

This has been discussed at length on other threads .

So by all means have a personnel theory but remember its just a theory with no ""proof" other than your own opinion.

Herlock has already been over all this with you .

There doesn't have to be direct proof, enough circumstantial evidence will suffice

Well, perhaps you would care to explain why the only victims who were found to be missing organs were the only two out of the whole series of murders which were attributed to the same killer were Chapman and Eddowes and why all those other victims, there was no attempts made to remove any organs at their crime scenes.?

Strange do you not think of a killer who was said to be collecting trophies he clearly wasn't an avid collector

And I don't take any notice of Herlocks rants

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Aethelwulf]

Whether the mutilations were done swiftly or not, I cannot believe that "the deliberate, successful, and apparently scientific manner" in which they were performed was achieved in near total darkness.

Hi Doc,

This is something I definetly consider as important with Chapman. If an earlier ToD, the darkness in the backyard, especially once she had been laid down in the corner by the fence, must have been near total (short of some unidentified source of light). Could the killer have carried out his actions in those conditions? As you say, we know there was light enough in MSq.

[FISHY1118]

I totally agree that the degree of difficulty required in not only locating the organs but being able to grip them to be able to remove them in almost total darkness is beyond comprehension and those who belive the killer removed the organs needs a reality check

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Why would we need a reality check when the evidence supports the killer removed the organs at the murder scene?

With no evidence that supports otherwise .

This has been discussed at length on other threads .

So by all means have a personnel theory but remember its just a theory with no ""proof" other than your own opinion.

Herlock has already been over all this with you .