Long v Cadosch. Seeing vs Hearing.

[JeffHamm]

And why should he have been?

If he lived not far from there, in Spitalfields, had only minutes before left his lodgings, met Chapman in a deserted street in the early hours, and murdered her, before going straight back home, why should anyone have noticed him?

I have no idea why he should be. I just know that to suggest there was such a person you have to show that there is evidence that he was.

- Jeff

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I do not think that pointing out that Dr. Phillips' 2 hour estimation might be out by 55 minutes or so is to disparage him in any way, rather it is to agree with him as he himself tells us that we should view that estimate as simply that, an estimate, with a range of acceptable values. Since his time we are fortunate enough to be able to put values to that range, and given how large the error is, being out by only 55 minutes is in fact pretty impressive.

- Jeff

But is it reasonable to say that Phillips could have meant an hour and five minutes rather than two hours, when his estimate was actually probably more than two hours?

[JeffHamm]

But is it reasonable to say that Phillips could have meant an hour and five minutes rather than two hours, when his estimate was actually probably more than two hours?

It is reasonable, given the error associated with estimating ToD, for Annie to have been killed at 5:25 and for Dr. Phillips to have made the statement he did. Moreover, given Dr. Phillips himself points to factors that we should consider when evaluating his statement, I think it is reasonable to suggest that Dr. Phillips would not argue against a ToD around 5:25.

- Jeff

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It is reasonable, given the error associated with estimating ToD, for Annie to have been killed at 5:25 and for Dr. Phillips to have made the statement he did. Moreover, given Dr. Phillips himself points to factors that we should consider when evaluating his statement, I think it is reasonable to suggest that Dr. Phillips would not argue against a ToD around 5:25.

- Jeff

It is reported that Dr Phillips estimated that Kelly was murdered between six and twelve hours before he began her post-mortem, based on the degree of rigor mortis, i.e. between 2 3/4 and 8 3/4 hours before her body was discovered.

That is nowhere near one hour, either.

[JeffHamm]

It is reported that Dr Phillips estimated that Kelly was murdered between six and twelve hours before he began her post-mortem, based on the degree of rigor mortis, i.e. between 2 3/4 and 8 3/4 hours before her body was discovered.

That is nowhere near one hour, either.

Notice that his states a 6 hour spread (+-3 hours), which is today's gold standard for the accuracy of such predictions. So you are correct, it is nowhere near 1 hour as it is the same as saying 9 hours previous with a +- 3 hour spread of times to consider. While I don't know the reasons for his choice to report as such, it could be that he realized that it was important to emphasize the variability rather than the centre point of the range due to the confusion that doing the opposite may have led to during the Chapman inquest.

- Jeff

[Doctored Whatsit]

Please see my reply below.

But that is the whole point that you are deliberately ignoring. At the inquest he specifically chose to testify, in effect, that his original ToD may have been incorrect, by saying "but it was right to mention that it was a fairly cool morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost a great quantity of blood".

He chose to offer this information voluntarily, and without it his ToD was firmly and positively stated, but after he had offered this additional information, there was doubt about the reliability of his estimate.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Well, similar controversy surrounds the mutilations committed in Mitre Square, but unless the mortuary attendants were involved, the murderer somehow managed it.

If you find it impossible to envisage this being done swiftly, then perhaps it was not done swiftly but at such a time that the murderer was much less likely to have been disturbed.

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.

Yes, I am aware of the suggestion that some of the mutilations may have been carried out at the mortuary by persons unknown. None of the many police surgeons involved in the post mortems seem to have thought this. I believe that doctors were of the opinion that the same knives that committed the murders also removed the organs. But that is an assumption, based on the fact that they didn't report otherwise.

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.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, I am aware of the suggestion that some of the mutilations may have been carried out at the mortuary by persons unknown. None of the many police surgeons involved in the post mortems seem to have thought this.

Just to put the record straight I am not postulating that mutilations were carried out at the mortuary, but extra cuts could have been made at the mortuary to facilitate the removal of the organs.

What I am suggesting is that the abdomens of Eddowes and Chapman had been ripped open in such a manner and to great extent so that it would have been easy for the organs to have been removed at the mortuary from their abdomens un-noticed, so that when the doctors carried out the post mortems on both victims, the missing organs were attributed to the killer having taken them.

But having to repeat for the umpteenth time the fact that these two victims were the only two that were found missing organs, they were taken to different mortuaries and the uteri of both was removed using two different procedures, not withstanding that out of all the victims which if you include them all amount to double figures were the only two that showed any signs of organs being taken.

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.

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

[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 .

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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?

[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

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk