Tweet
Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes
View Post
-
The two different extractions I refer to are in regard to the uterus of Chapman and Eddowes and not the kidney of Eddowes, because this was the only kidney taken in the whole series of murders. My point yet again is that if the same killer was responsible for the murders of Chapman and Eddowes and he removed the uterus intact from Chapman, contrary to what you want to believe that whoever took the uterus from Eddowes did not use the same method of extraction as he had allegedly used with the taking of the uterus from Chapman showing two different persons at 2 different mortuaries The kidney is incidental to this argument
-
The kidney point is just an inconvenient one to you that you want to sidestep.Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
The two different extractions I refer to are in regard to the uterus of Chapman and Eddowes and not the kidney of Eddowes, because this was the only kidney taken in the whole series of murders. My point yet again is that if the same killer was responsible for the murders of Chapman and Eddowes and he removed the uterus intact from Chapman, contrary to what you want to believe that whoever took the uterus from Eddowes did not use the same method of extraction as he had allegedly used with the taking of the uterus from Chapman showing two different persons at 2 different mortuaries The kidney is incidental to this argument
Why would an organ thief clumsily removed a uterus and then skilfully remove a kidney? You are the one trying to deduce different people by different methods so I’ll ask again for about the 6th time (perhaps one day you’ll answer)
How could an organ thief have been, one the one hand a clumsy operator by botching the uterus extraction and yet seconds later he becomes a skilled knife man, removing the trickier kidney. Why doesn’t this, using your own thinking, point to two men at the mortuary, one removing Eddowes uterus (Mr. Clumsy) and one removing her kidney (Mr. Skilled)?Regards
Sir Herlock Sholmes.
“A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”Comment
-
You ignore the kidney because it undermines your argument. The kidney was one of two organs taken from the same victim. One was more skillfully extracted than the other. Based on your theory, the only possible explanation of that would be two different people extracting organs from the same victim at the same mortuary.Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
Not that your theory had a leg to stand on in the first place.
Coroner Langham:Would the parts removed be of any use for professional purposes?
Dr Brown: None whatever.
"The full picture always needs to be given. When this does not happen, we are left to make decisions on insufficient information." - Christer Holmgren
"Unfortunately, when one becomes obsessed by a theory, truth and logic rarely matter." - Steven BlomerComment
-
Hi Trevor,
If your starting point were correct, then yes, all that follows. What people are pointing out, though, is that the difference in the quality of the uterus removals can easily be explained if JtR removed all the organs due to theOriginally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
1) differences in lighting at the two crime scenes
2) the evidence of increased frenzy and haste at the Eddowes crime scene
3) a non-medically trained individual with knife skill (being non-medically trained means they have not been trained and so do not have an "approach" to how to remove the uterus, so they are likely to do it differently each time).
and I'm sure there are other possible explanations people could list.
What I'm getting at is that your suggestion is simply putting forth a hypothesis. Nobody, other than you, is saying that the evidence is sufficient to prove any of the hypotheses to the exclusion of all others. You keep rebutting something nobody is saying, and try to present your idea as if it is the only explanation that works. It simply isn't, and that is what people are pointing out. Your responses fail to demonstrate you comprehend that, and your responses indicate you think your organ thieves are somehow either proven by the fact that Chapman's and Eddowes' uterii were removed with different degreess of success, or by different methods. That too is not the case, because there are many alternatives to organ thieves that also account for that evidence (I've listed 3 above, there are probably more too).
What that means is that some explanations, that also explain the data, do no require the introduction of a complex web of organ thieves. That makes your hypothesis unnecessarily complex. When people evaluate two explanations, both of which can account for the evidence, the unnecessarily complicated one is considered to be the worse one. And so when people are telling you that your idea is not sufficient to change their view from preferring the less complicated explanations, they are entirely right to do so.
Instead, you miscomprehend their rejection of your explanation as the preferred explanation as if they are saying the better, simpler, explanation has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Nobody is saying that though, they are simply saying your explanation is too complicated for the data.
Both of those are probably true. Neither of those being true, though, shows there is a link to the JtR case. The Queen existed, that doesn't mean she was JtR. To show that there is a link to the illegal trade in organs and the JtR cases, you need to start showing evidence of that link. I've suggested a few ideas, such as show a link to someone who worked at the mortuaries in question who has been shown to trade in illegal organs. You say there was a demand by teaching hospitals for organs specifically, not whole bodies, which most of the illegal trade was focused on - they wanted bodies for dissection and anatomical research. Can you provide any cases to support your claim that there was a trade in excised organs, rather than whole bodies? I've not seen you present any evidence that there was such a trade going on in 1888. You have at times tried to say that the coroner's act allowed for this, but it expressly forbids such trade prior to an autopsy, which again suggests you don't comprehend the coroners act, making your theory built upon incorrect information.Do you acknowledge that there was an illicit trade in organs for medical research in the LVP?
Do you acknowledge that part of this illicit trade involved mortuary attendants who worked with body dealers who provided organs to teaching hospitals?
People are not blinkered simply because they recognize that your theory is too complex given the limited, and at times ambiguous, information that we have to work with. What they are doing is demonstrating an understanding of how theory and evidence are linked, which your replies do not reflect. There is nothing wrong with presenting an overly complex idea, but when it only continues to work by ignoring most of the limited evidence we have, that's a pretty good sign it's increased complexity is not warranted in light of a number of viable, less complex, possible explanations.
That is how evidence and theory work together. Nobody, other than you when you set up your straw men, is claiming things are "proven", they are discussing the relative merits of different explanations, and they are recognizing the inadequacies of the information we have to draw firm conclusions, and sharing ideas about how different explanations stand up to the various possible interpretations of the information statements we have.
You can knock down all the straw men you want to set up, but since only you are presenting them, you are not rebutting anyone but yourself.
- Jeff
Comment
-
Without wishing to take sides in this debate, I would like to take the liberty of attempting to correct a misapprehension about the extraction of the uterus from the two victims.Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
My daughter looked at the autopsies from both victims and commenting that the surgical skill level was far higher in the Eddowes case than that of Chapman. She commented that to remove from the pelvis the uterus and its appendages, the upper portion of the vagina and the posterior two thirds of the bladder with one sweep of the knife was more indicative of someone with anatomical knowledge and the knife skills of a butcher. She has assisted in many abdominal hysterectomies and comments that they are very difficult due to the proximity of the bladder, and added that she has seen several highly skilled and experienced surgeons nick the bladder in the course of this operation, conducted with assistance in optimum conditions rather than kneeling by a body on the ground in the dark. Added to this, the removal of the kidney places the surgical skills at a far higher level that those exhibited by Chapman's evisceration.
Here is Prosector's comment: "Anyone just hacking away in order to find either a kidney or a uterus, especially using a long bladed, sharp pointed knife, would very quickly perforate the small bowel. That would instantly cause the abdominal cavity to fill with liquid small bowel content and make further progress impossible".
We can only speculate as to why the methods, and the results, were different. Did a time element (Cadosche's second appearance?) necessitate the speedy removal of the pelvic organs (one sweep of the knife) without regard to the damage to the bladder? Why would the excisor of Eddowes uterus have felt the need to preserve intact the bladder that had been (carelessly??) cut open in Chapman's case. It should be noted that the incision in Eddowes abdomen that circled the navel is also an established surgical technique.
While reading through the autopsy report I came across this statement:
"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.".
To what does "it" refer? Modern medical opinion seems to indicate that the injuries visited upon Eddowes could not have been done in 9 minutes. Was the five minutes referring to just the eyelid cuts rather than the whole murder?
I will close with another quote from Prosector:
"Of all the doctors involved, the one I respect least is Dr Sequeira. He had only been qualified for two years with the lowest practicing qualification possible (LSA - although he later got the MRCS), he was not a police surgeon (and therefore had little or no autopsy experience and, as far as I know, he only turned up to confirm death and was not present at the autopsy so how would he have known how much skill had been displayed?) Phillips was by far the most experienced doctor involved in the Ripper cases (and I include Bond in that) and Brown was the next. They both thought that JTR had both anatomical knowledge and some degree of surgical skill".
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.
Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff HammComment
-
Hi George,
Good post, and nice to see another medically trained opinion to add to the mix. I don't know where you get the modern medical opinion of 9 minutes from though? I've seen various modern opinions get offered, and have seen at least one (forensic medical expert, experienced in criminal autopsies, etc) go as low as 2 minutes, though their initial estimate was 3. Other's have generally been in the 5 minute range. I believe Dr. Phillips (or one of the doctors at the time), even attempted a removal and was able to complete both in just under 5 minutes (or there abouts), although some argue that may be due to working on a table, etc.Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
As for the removal of the kidneys, William Chase, a modern serial killer who mutilated his victims, removed both kidneys from one victim, split them, and then put them back in! Chase had no medical training whatsoever, and developed psychosis (schizophrenia) due to his drug use (or at least exacerbated by it). He obtained his anatomical knowledge by cutting up and mutilating animals. His motive for his crimes was he believed his blood was turning to dust and he needed to drink blood to stay alive (like I said, he was psychotic and had bizarre delusions). His crimes were committed in doors, and I've not seen anything with regards to how long he spent at the crime scenes, but of course he also wouldn't have been under the time pressure associated with committing such crimes out doors (as per Chapman and Eddowes).
The size of the knife would indeed make it difficult for a surgeon to do things, but then a surgeon would have training to do it a certain way, and with regards to not wanting to damage the other organs, etc. A frenzied serial killer has no regard for the other organs (as evidenced by the various cuts and slices shown to organs like the liver, and so forth). He cuts enough to lift out the intestines, he's not going to worry if he damages anything because damage is just fine to him - it's the destruction, the removal by any way possible, that he's engaging in not the careful hunt for anything in particular (as far as we know).
Obviously, we can't know exactly how long JtR was at each crime scene. All we can do is try and work out, as best we can, how much time does it appear he may have had. That is what guides us with respect to working out how quickly he did things. If we piece together the time lines, and find that JtR could have between 6 and 9 minutes, then it appears that JtR required no more than 6-9 minutes. He may not have used all that time, so maybe he required less, but we know he's got 6-9 minutes at his disposal.
In the Chapman case, for example, going with my reading of it (which you need not agree with, but humour me for the purpose of illustration), I suggest the attack appears to have begun after Cadosche's first visit to the loo and before the 2nd (somewhere around 5:25 am). It may even have been over with by then, which is a time window something like 4 minutes. However, the body isn't discovered until Davies finds it close to 6:00 ish. Now Davies testifies he gets up at 5:45, makes some tea, and so forth, so I think it is reasonable to suggest that JtR has left before 5:45, otherwise Davies probably would have seen him in the hall way, or at least heard him exiting. Based upon that, the upper limit of time for JtR in that hypothesis is 5:25 to 5:45, so 20 minutes. That, I think, is much larger than necessary, which fits with JtR leaving well before Davies getting up. The Eddowes case has a narrower window of opportunity, more in the 5m to 9m range, which seems to correspond to an acceptable range given the range of medical opinions that have been offered. Yes, there are some that have opined that isn't enough time, but they are the exception rather than the rule. So when we collate all of the medical opinions, the time available tend to correspond with, or exceed, the estimated times required. And that, to me at least, indicates that we have no basis upon which to prefer a theory that is more complicated than JtR took the organs. I'm not saying it proves that, only that to suggest something more complicated than that requires evidence to support that increased complexity. What is being offered as evidence, however, does not meet that fairly straightforward standard in my view.
- JeffComment
-
Hi Jeff,Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
This is the exact quote from my daughter who has no knowledge of the Whitechapel murders other than reading the two autopsy reports:
"I read the reports about Annie Chapman and Catherine Eddowes. Are there any theories that support more than one person committing the crimes? It just strikes me from the descriptions that it was done by two different people. Annie Chapman's is rushed and careless, a butchery. Catherine Eddowes' is carefully executed and skilled".
My modern medical opinion also involves the experts that appeared in Trevor's video. As you point out, a frenzied killer is not going to worry about collateral damage, and this is the point made by Trevor's experts, that there appear to be wounds inflicted by a frenzied attack, but other cuts that look more like surgical procedures. For instance, how did Jack remove Eddowes uterus, crouching beside her in the dark under time pressure, without even nicking the bladder? And to address your point, why did he even bother to be so precise in avoiding said damage?
As you know I tend to lean slightly toward the earlier TOD, but in the spirit of humouring each other for the purpose of illustration, my reading is that the "No" was unrelated to the case. I'm unsure when you say "I suggest the attack appears to have begun after Cadosche's first visit to the loo and before the 2nd" whether you are proposing that Cadosche was in the loo the first time or had returned inside after the first trip. The latter would mean Jack hadn't seen Cadosche before he emerged from the house headed for the loo the second time. I think that Cadosche may have been in the loo for the second time when Jack and Annie arrived in the backyard of #29, so our opinions seem to be only marginally different. I have formed my opinion because I believe that had Jack witnessed Cadosche's first visit to and from the loo, he would have fled when Cadosche re-appeared on the assumption that Cadosche had detected his presence on the first trip and returned, possibly with assistants or the police, to further pursue the matter. I would concur with your hypothesis of 20 minutes, which is larger than the estimate of Phillips for a slash and grab. However, I remain reticent on the Eddowes murder taking less than 9 minutes.
Just to comment on your comment in a previous post regarding the nurses being the only person's present who could have effected the organ theft, I did read, some years ago, a dissertation on the guardian at the autopsy shed who ordered the stripping and washing of the body. In that dissertation the identity of the guardian was traced, together with his history which was dodgy to say the least. From memory he ascending to higher office but was eventually brought down due to corruption and involvement in the black-market organ trade. I have spent some time trying to relocate that dissertation, but with no joy so far.
Best regards, George
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.
Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff HammComment
-
Hi George,Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
Just to be clear, I don't hold a strong view with regards to when the attack began in the Chapman case, the information is insufficient for that. However, of late I've been toying with the idea of something like "Annie & JtR go into the back yard, and are conversing -> Cadosche comes out the first time, hears someone say "No" -> Cadosche goes to the loo -> Cadosche exits the loo and goes back inside, Cadosche never notes anything that draws his attention -> Now that Cadoshe has gone inside, JtR attacks Annie, possibily strangling her to unconsciousness, cuts her throat, mutilates her, removing the uterus in the process -> Cadoshe returns (about 4-5 minutes after having gone back inside the first time) -> JtR shifts towards the fence to avoid detection as Cadoshe's head is above the fence, when JtR shifts and bumps the fence Cadoshe has started descending the stairs and so does not see JtR crouched down but the noise is not enough to rouse his curiosity enough to check things out and also he's going to the loo -> Cadoshe enters the loo -> JtR leaves the scene in a hurry, not washing his hands in the water, and leaving the door to the street open and leaving the area -> Cadoshe exits the loo a 2nd time and goes back inside -> Cadoshe leaves for work at 5:30, passing the Spittle Field's clock at 5:32.
Obviously, that is not the only sequence of events that could happen, there are some things that are nothing more than an interpretation of things, like the bump on the fence, and so forth. If you feel that Eddowes' crime required more than 9 minutes, then obviously the idea of Chapman in 4-5 is not going to work for you. Given I think Eddowes' crime could be done in around 5 minutes, then obviously I can see Chapman in a similar time frame. There's no way for us to know which of us is correct, but that's the nature of having to work with insufficient information - one either just says "no inferences possible", or one has to make their choices and see where they lead.
Interesting that your daughter felt Eddowes' murder showed the greater evidence of skill, as that is exactly the opposite of the medical opinion of the day where the doctors tended to view the Chapman murder as the one suggesting more skill demonstrated. Like anything JtR, the more people we ask, the more variable the range of opinions, expert and otherwise, we will obtain. Opinions vary, even amongst experts, and we are probably best not to work with any particular one of them but to put as many of them together and look at the range of those opinions, and work with that range as a guide (effectively, work out the error margin we need to consider).
Unfortunately, rather than gather all the medical opinions together, it is all too common to sift through them to find the one that fits our own beliefs and reject all others. Because I've seen some that result in really short intervals, like 2 minutes for Eddowes (which I admit I find hard to accept, but I'm not an expert on these so I'm loath to reject) and up to usually around 5-6 minutes, but you've seen 9, I tend to consider the fact that if the crimes appear to have a window of opportunity between 2 and 9 minutes, then we've got overlap with the combined medical opinions that produce the range, and therefore no real conflict. I'm not insisting we go with 2 minutes, or any particular value, because we don't know what particular value to go with. Nor should we go with any particular medical expert, because all of them will have their own error, some prone to estimate shorter intervals, some prone to longer intervals, and the truth probably lies somewhere between them.
- Jeff
P.S. Oh, obviously if the time between Cadoshe's loo visits is shorter than 4-5 minutes, the above proposal is probably untenable, but there are those who favour the idea of the bump being JtR putting Annie to the ground, meaning the attack had only begun a minute or so before Cadoshe's return. Like you, I do find that a bit harder to imagine as I would think your idea of JtR fleeing upon Cadoshe's 2nd visit more understandable than him going on to mutilate her and so forth all the while knowing Cadoshe is in the loo next door. So either JtR didn't notice Cadosche return (that seems a stretch), or he leaves at that point, meaning the mutilations had to have been completed by that point. And yes, I recognize I'm working from a view that includes the "No" as being related to the crime and that you do not ascribe to that, so I'm not expecting you to change your mind, rather just spelling out how I'm putting things together. As always, the information we have is insufficient to determine which of us is closer to the real events, so either of us (or neither) could be right.Last edited by JeffHamm; 07-21-2023, 04:24 AM.Comment
-
Hi Jeff,Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
Once again I find myself in the awkward position of having to be annoying (
) by quoting the inquest with regard to Cadosche.
"I got up about a quarter past five in the morning, and went into the yard. It was then about twenty minutes past five, I should think. As I returned towards the back door I heard a voice say "No" just as I was going through the door. It was not in our yard, but I should think it came from the yard of No. 29. I, however, cannot say on which side it came from. I went indoors, but returned to the yard about three or four minutes afterwards. While coming back I heard a sort of a fall against the fence which divides my yard from that of 29. It seemed as if something touched the fence suddenly".
As you see he testifies to hearing the bump when returning from the second visit to the loo, which is why I stated I thought Jack and Annie arrived when he was in the loo for the second time. This would mean that Jack was aware of Cadosche only once rather than up to four times.
Best regards, GeorgeThe needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.
Disagreeing doesn't have to be disagreeable - Jeff HammComment
-
Well if you want to go ahead and postulate that there were two persons acting together and stealing organs from the same mortuary then feel free to go with that belief, you could be right. but it doesn't change the fact that the organs were not taken away by the killer at the crime scene.Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
But the same argument could be said in relation to the two different extractions from Eddowes and Chapman, why was he able to remove the uterus from Chapman with skill and not from Eddowes? With Chapmans removal he not only took the uterus but with the appendages also still attached.
The two methods of extraction of the uterus are totally different in both cases from two different mortuaries the removal of the kidney is irrelevant to this argument
Comment
-
Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
Well if you want to go ahead and postulate that there were two persons acting together and stealing organs from the same mortuary then feel free to go with that belief, you could be right. but it doesn't change the fact that the organs were not taken away by the killer at the crime scene.
Yes they were. You don’t have a single piece of evidence that they weren’t. Not one. You’ve simply added the existence of a trade in body parts to your intuition that the parts weren’t taken at the scene and ‘hey presto,’ a theory. A theory which only you appear to believe reasonable.
But the same argument could be said in relation to the two different extractions from Eddowes and Chapman, why was he able to remove the uterus from Chapman with skill and not from Eddowes? With Chapmans removal he not only took the uterus but with the appendages also still attached.
We know that’s what happened because that’s what happened.
The two methods of extraction of the uterus are totally different in both cases from two different mortuaries the removal of the kidney is irrelevant to this argument
www.trevormarriott.co.uk
I can’t help thinking that your deliberately misunderstanding my very obvious point Trevor. It’s not remotely complicated.
YOU have suggested that two methods of extraction points to 2 different people……ok. I’m assuming that you don’t dispute that point?
so,
If you’re aiming for consistency then WHY are you avoiding the fact that at the SAME mortuary, on the SAME body, TWO different standards of work was done. The more accessible uterus was botched and yet the more difficult to access kidney wasn’t. So my question again!!
If you are being consistent then why aren’t you claiming that Catherine Eddowes uterus and kidney were removed by 2 different people at the same mortuary?
Regards
Sir Herlock Sholmes.
“A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”Comment
-
JeffOriginally posted by JeffHamm View Post
I will make some important evidential observations on both the murders in relation to the organs
Chapman
The actual TOD cannot be firmly established
A bump on a fence is not conclusive evidence that the murder was taking place at that time
There are discrepancies in the witnesses' timings and sightings of the victims
Clear anatomical/surgical skill shown in the removal of the uterus
The victim's ID at the mortuary in conjunction with the witness testimony is unsafe.
Eddowes
No one saw her or made a positive ID of her following her release from the police station
No one knows where she went within that 45 minute window
If the couple seen by Lawende were the killer and Eddowes we have no evidence to show what time they moved off into the square, the later they moved off the less time the killer would have had to do what he is alleged to have done.
Dr Sequeira`s time cannot be relied upon and there is no way the killer could have done all of that in 2 mins other than simply murder and mutilate.
Anatomical knowledge was observed by the way the kidney was removed, but not so much with the uterus.
From an investigative aspect, the evidential flaws in all of these murders are all over the place as quoted above and in my opinion in this day and age unsafe to readily accept as fact.
Comment
-
As ever in this case you do your usual self-serving trick Trevor. We all accept that very few (if any) witnesses are perfect but you use this to try and portray certain witnesses or pieces of evidence that don’t suit a particular theory of yours as being totally unreliable when this isn’t the case. Look how you just dismiss Sequeira - purely because he doesn’t confirm to your theory. You also dismiss Bond who said that it could have been done in 5 minutes (and pleeeese don’t give me that balderdash about him only talking about wounds and not organ removal because that’s not in line with the facts) Look how you dismiss everyone that disagrees with the notion of the killer having medical knowledge (Nick Warren for example and others) And you do all of this to promote your own ideas so that you can go around the country giving talks to make money (and I have no problem with anyone, including yourself, making a living from this subject btw but you are simply trying to add fuel to more sensational ideas to put bums on seats) The reality is though that no one ever agrees with your theories Trevor and you can’t accept that fact or even the possibility that you might be wrong so you respond by using the tired old piece of dismissiveness that we’re all somehow attached to the ‘old established theories.’ This is simply a get out clause for people who peddle far-fetched nonsense and can get no one to back them.Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
Jeff
I will make some important evidential observations on both the murders in relation to the organs
Chapman
The actual TOD cannot be firmly established
But the evidence massively favours a letter TOD. It’s not even close. Nothing is ever 100% but this is pretty close.
A bump on a fence is not conclusive evidence that the murder was taking place at that time
It’s 99% proof that someone was in that yard and if someone was in that yard them it was the killer.
There are discrepancies in the witnesses' timings and sightings of the victims
Utterly irrelevant given that we absolutely know that we can’t hold witnesses who were estimating to exact times. There are no timing issues here.
Clear anatomical/surgical skill shown in the removal of the uterus
Then why have untold numbers of medical experts over the last 135 disputed this. You wouldn’t be cherrypicking again would you Trevor. I think so.
The victim's ID at the mortuary in conjunction with the witness testimony is unsafe.
Its unsafe to claim a 100% certainty of course but we have to look at likelihood. What is the likelihood that Elizabeth Long saw a man talking to a woman who just happened to look exactly like Chapman a very few feet from where she was found dead 30 minutes later and it turned out to have been an unfortunately located different man and a lookalike?
Eddowes
Dr Sequeira`s time cannot be relied upon and there is no way the killer could have done all of that in 2 mins other than simply murder and mutilate.
So Dr. Sequeira’s time cannot be relied upon because it disagrees with Trevor Marriott’s opinion. Glad you’re still being objective Trevor.
Anatomical knowledge was observed by the way the kidney was removed, but not so much with the uterus.
A pretty vague statement. You’re clutching at straws.
From an investigative aspect, the evidential flaws in all of these murders are all over the place as quoted above and in my opinion in this day and age unsafe to readily accept as fact.
Regards
Sir Herlock Sholmes.
“A house of delusions is cheap to build but draughty to live in.”Comment
-
Im not weighing in with one of these enormously overwinded posts, but I would like to address the above Trevor;Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
1. Yes, the TOD can be approximated.... within a 15 minute window.
2. There was also an earlier womans voice heard from the other side of the fence. If this wasnt the killer and victim just who do you think was standing over her "dead" form at that time? Who made the "no" call? It seems abundantly clear that the murder took place between 5:15 and 5:20, and the suggestions that it took place much earlier are incorrect, as the good doctor said himself, he could have been mistaken due to the coolness of the air. "The body was cold, except that there was a certain remaining heat, under the intestines, in the body. Stiffness of the limbs was not marked, but it was commencing."
3. If you mean Mrs Long, she was wrong.. or lied. Like many witnesses in these cases. There are a plethora of unprovable witness statements, accepting any or all at face value isnt what cops like you were are trained to do, is it?
4. Yes, correct.
5. No comment
The problem with modern day Ripperology, if I may observe, is that still there is far too much time discussing witnesses and statements that are... if not provably wrong, are stand alone statements without any substantiation.
Comment
-
I don't dismiss Sequeria he does that to himself, no one can walk into Mitre Square and murder and mutilate a victim and then remove a uterus and a kidney in 3 mins. But it would be possible to just murder and mutilate in that short time.Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
Dr Brown states at least 5 mins so why is it right to accept and calculate a time based on nothing more than a guess, and the ambiguous question both doctors were asked with the line "As you found it" Did that refer to how the body was found at the crime scene or at the post mortem? good luck with that one
The coroner highlights the medical knowledge of who removed the organ from Chapman at the inquest not to mention modern-day medical experts who also say the same thing.
Comment
Comment