John Richardson

[Wickerman]

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".

Hey George.

I understand I am addressing the comments of your daughter, but I wonder if her view was hindered by not having an accurate medical report for Chapman, we only have press coverage, and likely edited at that.
It's a bit like comparing apples with oranges, not your daughters fault.
Whereas we do have the autopsy for the Eddowes inquest, which is more detailed.

If you recall Dr Phillips, at the Chapman inquest, was asked by the coroner if he thought there was any anatomical knowledge displayed.

Wynne Baxter:
Was there any anatomical knowledge displayed?

Dr Phillips:
- I think there was. There were indications of it. My own impression is that that anatomical knowledge was only less displayed or indicated in consequence of haste. The person evidently was hindered from making a more complete dissection in consequence of the haste.

I won't get into the issue of surgical knowledge as opposed to anatomical knowledge, what we can safely assume in his response is that he saw evidence of a skilled man at work, but one under the pressure of time.

So, not the best examples for a comparison.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

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, George

Ah, thanks for that George. I had read that as him returning as in the 2nd visit, but I think your reading makes more sense. It does strike me odd that JtR would stick around, though that in part will be due to the idea I was exploring. Guess it may require oing back to the drawing board.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

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
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.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

Thank you for saying what I and everyone else has been saying all along - that the evidence is insufficient to draw firm conclusions.

Given you agree with that, why do you insist the ToD was earlier and that anyone who favors the latter is blinkered? (Please consult a dictionary for the word favors before replying).

Also, given what you said above, why do you have a theory at all if you think the evidence is so unable to inform on any point?

Given how inadequate the evidence is, are you saying that your organ thieves are only something you made up to illustrate how many holes remain in a case iver 130 years old for which most of the official documents are lost? That you use something so preposterous in order to emphasize how the current data can't even rule out the rediculous? Is that what you are doing here?

I'm curious, did you really think anyone here thought differently? This may come as a surprise to you, but nobody here thinks the evidence behind their suggestions is beyond reproach, rather we are discussing what the information seems to be indicating in our opinions. Somethings are factual bits, like the error margins for ToD estimations, others are subjective calls, like how strongly one feels Lawende saw Eddowes.

But you say the evidence is full of holes and then proceed to talk about your theory as if we should all drop our views and agree you got it right? But given the evidence is so unsafe, again I ask you, why do you even have a theory at all? But given you do, why are you so convinced by it given it is based in such unsafe evidence?

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

Thanks Doctor.

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.

Its only ‘ambiguous’ because you choose to make it so. It’s like the ‘apparently’ in Collard’s statement which you try to load with mysterious meaning just to make your point.

Why is Brown’s opinion a guess? A Victorian Doctor would have had a much greater chance of correctly estimating the time for injuries and extractions than he would have done for estimating TOD but of course you continue to cherrypick.

Phillips TOD for Chapman - he knew what he was doing and should be considered correct.

Brown’s 5 minutes with Eddowes - guesswork that should be dismissed.

Good to see your impartiality is working as well as ever.

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.

And some disagree. So you’re cherry picking.

Also, you appear to equate ‘medical/anatomical’ knowledge with the skill of a trained surgeon. Why? Oh yeah, so you can find an excuse to try and dismiss the suggestion that one man removed all of the organs.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I couldn’t respond better than to ditto Jeff’s post # 3648.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

Thank you for saying what I and everyone else has been saying all along - that the evidence is insufficient to draw firm conclusions.

Given you agree with that, why do you insist the ToD was earlier and that anyone who favors the latter is blinkered? (Please consult a dictionary for the word favors before replying).

Also, given what you said above, why do you have a theory at all if you think the evidence is so unable to inform on any point?

Given how inadequate the evidence is, are you saying that your organ thieves are only something you made up to illustrate how many holes remain in a case iver 130 years old for which most of the official documents are lost? That you use something so preposterous in order to emphasize how the current data can't even rule out the rediculous? Is that what you are doing here?

I'm curious, did you really think anyone here thought differently? This may come as a surprise to you, but nobody here thinks the evidence behind their suggestions is beyond reproach, rather we are discussing what the information seems to be indicating in our opinions. Somethings are factual bits, like the error margins for ToD estimations, others are subjective calls, like how strongly one feels Lawende saw Eddowes.

But you say the evidence is full of holes and then proceed to talk about your theory as if we should all drop our views and agree you got it right? But given the evidence is so unsafe, again I ask you, why do you even have a theory at all? But given you do, why are you so convinced by it given it is based in such unsafe evidence?

- Jeff

You are fully entitled to your opinion, and as the original evidence you clearly seek to rely on is unreliable which again you clearly can't or won't accept that fact.

I have suggested an alternative to the killer removing the organs and I believe I have shown enough with that theory to cast a major doubt about the old accepted theory you are so keen to prop up.

You cannot speculate on the evidence 130+ years later in this day and age we have to go with what has been left and assess and evaluate that evidence using modern-day investigative methods to prove or disprove the truthfulness, or to cast doubt on that witness testimony

You mention the fact that the couple seen by Lawende may not have been Eddowes and the killer which I totally agree with but if that be the case then when did the killer enter the square with Eddowes and from what direction? If that is suggested as being correct then the evidence of Pc Watkins is unsafe and proves my point that the witness testimony in these murders cannot be relied upon.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

You are fully entitled to your opinion, and as the original evidence you clearly seek to rely on is unreliable which again you clearly can't or won't accept that fact.


www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I couldn’t calculate how many wasted hours I’ve spent trying to explain this point to you Trevor. Is it that you don’t understand it or is it that you just keep saying the same thing as an obfuscation tactic? No one is ‘relying’ on anything. We assess it and come to a different conclusion to yourself.

Why is it that all evidence that in any way opposes your viewpoints/theories are dismissed by you as ‘unsafe to rely on?’ What evidence do you have to support your viewpoints/theories that is completely ‘safe to rely on?’

The problem Trevor (and everyone is aware of this theme) is that you judge the reliability of evidence on whether it conforms to your viewpoint/theory or not.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have suggested an alternative to the killer removing the organs and I believe I have shown enough with that theory to cast a major doubt about the old accepted theory you are so keen to prop up.


www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes Trevor…you believe….no one else does though.

And while you are desperately trying to ‘prop up’ your theory you, right on cue, resort to the tired old ‘propping up the old established theories’ mantra.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You cannot speculate on the evidence 130+ years later in this day and age we have to go with what has been left and assess and evaluate that evidence using modern-day investigative methods to prove or disprove the truthfulness, or to cast doubt on that witness testimony


www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And you don’t have a smidgeon, iota or scintilla of evidence that organs were taken at the mortuary. It’s wild, baseless speculation. The starting point of which is your own opinion.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You mention the fact that the couple seen by Lawende may not have been Eddowes and the killer which I totally agree with but if that be the case then when did the killer enter the square with Eddowes and from what direction? If that is suggested as being correct then the evidence of Pc Watkins is unsafe and proves my point that the witness testimony in these murders cannot be relied upon.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Why did the killer have to have entered the square with Eddowes? They could have entered the square from different ends and met by chance.

Get a grip Trevor.

[Trevor Marriott]

I couldn’t calculate how many wasted hours I’ve spent trying to explain this point to you Trevor. Is it that you don’t understand it or is it that you just keep saying the same thing as an obfuscation tactic? No one is ‘relying’ on anything. We assess it and come to a different conclusion to yourself.

Why is it that all evidence that in any way opposes your viewpoints/theories are dismissed by you as ‘unsafe to rely on?’ What evidence do you have to support your viewpoints/theories that is completely ‘safe to rely on?’

The problem Trevor (and everyone is aware of this theme) is that you judge the reliability of evidence on whether it conforms to your viewpoint/theory or not.

I could say the same many wasted hours trying to explain to you, why don't you just reply to the posts and stop your constant barrage of quoting the same old same old stuff in all your posts? This thread is about discussing the evidence which you seem to not understand the basic element of.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Why did the killer have to have entered the square with Eddowes? They could have entered the square from different ends and met by chance.

Get a grip Trevor.

Are you for real? I mentioned in a previous post that the killer could have entered from another entrance and if that happened then Pc Watkins evidence is unsafe

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

And you don’t have a smidgeon, iota or scintilla of evidence that organs were taken at the mortuary. It’s wild, baseless speculation. The starting point of which is your own opinion.

and the evidence to show they were taken by the killer is not proven

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I could say the same many wasted hours trying to explain to you, why don't you just reply to the posts and stop your constant barrage of quoting the same old same old stuff in all your posts? This thread is about discussing the evidence which you seem to not understand the basic element of.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Unbelievable….

unsafe to rely on……old established theories…… you seek to rely on…..propping up theories…..blah blah.

What you mean Trevor is that it’s ok for you to speculate but no one else.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Are you for real? I mentioned in a previous post that the killer could have entered from another entrance and if that happened then Pc Watkins evidence is unsafe

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

“when did the killer enter the square with Eddowes and from what direction.”

[Herlock Sholmes]

and the evidence to show they were taken by the killer is not proven

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Eddowes entered Mitre Square with organs. She met the killer who mutilated her horrendously. A PM revealed organs missing. Could these to facts have been connected? Let me think.