Long v Cadosch. Seeing vs Hearing.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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]

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?

IF Watkins' earlier pass was at precisely 1:30 then youre probably right, more than 10 minutes and not quite 15 minutes with the victim. Harvey claimed to have looked into the square around 12:40, he didnt enter it. The square was very dark. The killer could have been there in the dark and left the same way Harvey had come to the square, just after Harvey left. Lawende saw a dark clothed woman with a sailor"ish" man, her hand placed on his chest. That could signify a local woman, be she a part time/full time street prostitute or not, out with her sailor man while his ship was in town. A man and a woman out at night doesnt translate to a prostitute and client unless there is substantive evidence that was the case. There is no such evidence here. Lets not forget that all the victims, ALL of them, had personal relationships with men that were not clients. Liz Stride was seen out with several men before she is found dead, yet there is no evidence there that these were solicited encounters of a sexual nature. Be careful with assumptions.

We do not know what happened to Sailor Man and the dark clothed woman after being seen, so again any assumptions about what they did or where they went are just that. For example, they were not seen heading into, or away from, the square.

My point is that there is no empirical evidence that exists to discount the idea that the killer had...shall we say approx 10 minutes?...alone with Kate.

[Doctored Whatsit]

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?

I suggested some time ago on another thread that JtR might have been unable to mutilate Stride as he wished because of the darkness.I don't think anyone agreed with me! Louis D needed to strike a match, just to be able to identify the object on the ground was a woman. I still think it is possible that Stride was not mutilated because JtR couldn't see to do it. Assuming, of course, that Stride was a victim of JtR.

[Doctored Whatsit]

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.

It has never been disputed that the yard was used for immoral purposes at night. The question is how much light would JtR have needed to perform the mutilations as expertly as Phillips descibed, and what time might that have been. I think most of us would argue that some light, say very early dawn would be the absolute minimum.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The killer could have been there in the dark and left the same way Harvey had come to the square, just after Harvey left.

A man and a woman out at night doesnt translate to a prostitute and client unless there is substantive evidence that was the case. There is no such evidence here.

We do not know what happened to Sailor Man and the dark clothed woman after being seen, so again any assumptions about what they did or where they went are just that. For example, they were not seen heading into, or away from, the square.

My point is that there is no empirical evidence that exists to discount the idea that the killer had...shall we say approx 10 minutes?...alone with Kate.

Why would the murderer follow Harvey when he could leave via the nearest exit, i.e. Mitre Street?

Is it reasonable to ask for evidence that the woman and man were a prostitute and prospective client?

Here is what Joseph Levy testified:

I passed on, thinking they were up to no good at so late an hour.

Do you really think he was making an invalid assumption?

You say she could have been a local woman ... out with her sailor man while his ship was in town.

Why then were they not walking hand in hand or arm in arm rather than her having her hand on his chest, with the two facing each other in a street at 1.35 a.m.?

You say we cannot make any assumptions about what they did or where they went afterwards.

One thing we can safely assume is that they were not still there when Harvey next arrived.

I recall reading in his testimony - a more detailed version than the one published in the Telegraph - that he took his time walking down Church Passage and then walking back.

If he approached Church Passage at about 1.38 a.m., where was the couple?

[FISHY1118]

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

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Circumstantial evidence is ''Never'' enough , you of all people should know this.


''There doesn't have to be direct proof,''


''Whole series ''????? Just 5 murders were attributed to the Whitechapel Murderer .


He put your Theory to rest many time tho didnt he [ where is he btw ]

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

Not if you factor in PC Harvey`s time !

and to put another nail in the organ removal theory there is no evidence to show what time the couple left the point where they were seen by Lawende and moved into the square

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

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

- Jeff

A lot longer than has been suggested by Sequeira and Brown, but of course, their times were based on what they saw when they arrived at the crime scene before the organs were ever found missing. Not even a modern-day surgeon could open up a body and remove a uterus and a kidney from a blood-filled abdomen in almost total darkness in those times as stated by the doctors.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk