John Richardson

[Fleetwood Mac]

But the man seen throwing her to the floor just doesn't fit the ripper at all.

If we're honest we'd all say we have our own preconceived ideas about the murderer and his behaviour. I quite like PC Smith's clerk, and other witness descriptions, e.g. William Marshall, speak of a similar looking man.

How much of that is due to my preconceived idea that the murderer would have been more clerk than rough workman, I'm not sure.

The truth is, we don't really know how he was behaving. In an area like that, at that time, and more or less having to be caught red-handed; I think it's fair to say he could have taken a lot of risks that he wouldn't get away with today. He certainly didn't need to be some silent assassin making his way through 'the myriad of back alleys' unseen.

[Fleetwood Mac]

If Stride was already on the floor after being thrown to the floor, then there's a chance she never got up again.

I assume you mean ground not floor but regardless her body was not found where last seen by Schwartz. So it would seem she did get up again or was dragged but there is no evidence for the latter.

c.d.

Dr Phillips said this at the inquest:

It was possible for the woman to draw up her legs after the wound, but she could not have turned over.

I think this suggests that Dr Phillips believed Liz was conscious when her throat was cut, and Liz certainly wasn't able to drag herself anywhere afterwards.

[Lewis C]

If Stride was already on the floor after being thrown to the floor, then there's a chance she never got up again.

I assume you mean ground not floor but regardless her body was not found where last seen by Schwartz. So it would seem she did get up again or was dragged but there is no evidence for the latter.

c.d.

I agree. I think it's possible that Pipeman killed her, but if so, she would have gotten up first, and he would have persuaded her to go with him to the spot where she was found.

[c.d.]

I agree. I think it's possible that Pipeman killed her, but if so, she would have gotten up first, and he would have persuaded her to go with him to the spot where she was found.

Hello Lewis,

Do you think the Pipeman was the Ripper or associated with the Ripper? Can you think of any motive he might have had if he was not the Ripper?

Also, Pipeman has the same problem as the B.S. man. He was seen by Schwartz who might have been on his way to find the nearest P.C..

c.d.

[JeffHamm]

Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
Hi Trevor,

That depends upon how one squints when looking at things though. A slight change of focus, and is Berner Street really any different in terms of "location" as the backyard of Hanbury Street, lots of people nearby, neighbors coming and going, only one escape route, etc. or Buck's Row, which was a location out in the open street so there's no seclusion there at all - and Mitre Square is again, out in the open, hardly any more secluded than the dark ally where Stride is murdered.

But the comparison to Chapman does not stand up if Chapman was killed much earlier, and Stride was murdered almost on the main footpath at a time when it can be said that the streets were teeming with people.

But if Chapman was killed at a time that is consistent with all of the information we have, rather than at a time inconsistent with most of the remaining information, then the comparison holds up just fine.

And sure, we can say the streets were teeming with people. We can say anything. However, as we know Mrs. Mortimer says that the only person she saw while on her porch was Goldstein, and a young couple at the end of the street (who possibly were Spooner and his lady friend before they moved east along Fairclough, but that's just a possibility of course). Schwartz's statement to the police only mentions Broad Shoulders and Pipeman. While certainly there were people about, none of the statements we have point towards Berner Street being teeming with people around the time of the murder.

I also forgot to mention that Stride was the only victim who was murdered south of Whitechapel Road another factor to consider

And Eddowes was the only one in the City of London, and Kelly the only one indoors, and Chapman the only one in a yard, and Nichols the only one east of the hospital, etc.

Again, one can always find some way to make each of the crime locations sound "unique", because of course no two events occurred in exactly the same location.

As for the time, given Eddowes is murdered less than an hour later, the time can't be said to be different - or if it is, then the time for Eddowes must also be different - but what's left to be different from? Nichols, whose killed around 3:30-3:40 type thing, which is only a couple hours earlier than Chapman at 5:20ish, and possibly Kelly somewhere around 3 am (based on the cries of murder - although the time for Kelly's murder could be just about anything really, so one can make it similar or different as they see fit).

Of course it makes a difference a lot of people who would have been out an hour before would have gone home so making the streets less crowded

Or a lot of people may have come out during that hour, as per Lawende and company, making the streets more crowded. We know Blenkinsop says that there were people around in St. James, right next to Mitre Square. There is nothing to indicate that the area was any less "teeming" with people in the vicinity of Mitre Square than there is for applying such an assumption to Berner Street.

And people were around at the other murders too. We've got a number of people who were out and about for the Kelly murder, many seeing her that night. Also, for Eddowes, there's Lawende and company, and Blenkinsop mentions people about in the Orange Market and there's people living in units overlooking the square, and Chapman's murder has people in the house, but also there is mention of people going about their business in the street and going to the market. Buck's row has a number of residences, and there's slaughter house just one street over where men are working, there's people on their way to work (Cross/Lechmere and Paul, for example), and so forth. London was busy at night, and there were always people coming and going, so the fact that some are singing in the building next door could be viewed as neither here nor there.

But there was not the volume of people in close proximity to the other murders as there was with Stride where is the evidence to show the streets were teeming with people in the Eddowes and Nichols murders. bearing in mind the time it would only take a killer to murder and mutilate and that is proven if the killer was disturbed by Lechmere and if Chapman was killed at an earlier time.

We don't know that. The few statements we have with regards to Berner Street, around the time of the murder, point to a street with few people on it, and there are statements that there were also people in the vicinity of Mitre Square. We do not have the information to make an assumption about which area had more people near it.

If Stride was a Ripper victim then it adds even more weight to my belief that the killer's motive was simply murder and mutilation as we see no evidence of any attempts to remove organs from Stride or Nicholls nor from any of the later victims if they are to be attributed to the same killer.

But if Stride was a Ripper victim, her lack of mutilations either point away from mutilation being a motive (clearly unlikely), or that something happened that resulted in JtR leaving before he could begin the mutilations. And if the latter occurred, then he did not have the opportunity to take any organs because he left. That leaves open the possibility that he commits a 2nd murder, in Mitre Square, where he successfully completes both the mutilations and taking of organs, because he was unable to fulfil his motive in the Stride case.

Also, and you do seem to keep forgetting this, serial killers who take body parts are not necessarily motivated to commit the murder in order to get the body part per se, but rather they will take them to fulfil some bizarre desire, which gets magnified at the time of the murder. There will be some murders they commit where they do not take any body parts, either because that idea hasn't yet occurred to them (which might apply in the Nichols case, it being the first of the series), or for some other idiosyncratic reason (with Stride it would be because he didn't stay long enough to even perform any mutilations; with Nichols, it is also possible that Cross/Lechmere's arrival resulted in the same, although there are other possibilities too).

You seem to be hung up on the idea that JtR was harvesting organs along the line of "I have to kill someone as I need a body part." right from the start.. Those that take organs (heads are more common actually), just take something, and that sort of body-part-as-trophy taking often develops as they progress in their series. In fact, we shouldn't forget that part of Chapman's abdominal flesh was also missing, so in that case not only was the uterus taken but he also grabbed a random bit of flesh because in the end, JtR doesn't care what piece of the body he takes with him, he just takes something to relive the experience. Taking her cheap rings would serve the same purpose but provide something that would last longer. Serial killers learn from one crime to the next what it is that they like. It would not be unusual if, after the Nichols murder, he came up with the idea of taking something from Chapman for such reasons. Indications are that parts were missing from Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly, and so in all 3 of the mutilation murders that followed on from Nichols. Stride stands out not because none of her body parts were taken, but because she wasn't mutilated at all.

So while one can look at any individual crime and find things unique to it, on the whole, I find it hard to say that the Berner Street location, or time, or circumstances, are of a distinctly different character than the others.- Jeff

Thats your opinion

Indeed it is, just as everything you've said is your opinion.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

But if Chapman was killed at a time that is consistent with all of the information we have, rather than at a time inconsistent with most of the remaining information, then the comparison holds up just fine.

But it is a big but, and we cannot be certain of the TOD of Nicholls or Chapman

And sure, we can say the streets were teeming with people. We can say anything. However, as we know Mrs. Mortimer says that the only person she saw while on her porch was Goldstein, and a young couple at the end of the street (who possibly were Spooner and his lady friend before they moved east along Fairclough, but that's just a possibility of course). Schwartz's statement to the police only mentions Broad Shoulders and Pipeman. While certainly there were people about, none of the statements we have point towards Berner Street being teeming with people around the time of the murder.

Perhaps my use of the word teeming was a bit of an overkill but the point being that members of the club and members of the public were out and about at the time of the Stride Murder

And Eddowes was the only one in the City of London, and Kelly the only one indoors, and Chapman the only one in a yard, and Nichols the only one east of the hospital, etc.

You are being pedantic now Stride was the only one killed south of the Whitechapel road which makes her murder as far as the killing field different from the others and as there are other similarities connected to her murder it is questionable as to who murdered her

Or a lot of people may have come out during that hour, as per Lawende and company, making the streets more crowded. We know Blenkinsop says that there were people around in St. James, right next to Mitre Square. There is nothing to indicate that the area was any less "teeming" with people in the vicinity of Mitre Square than there is for applying such an assumption to Berner Street.

Of course, there is

We don't know that. The few statements we have with regards to Berner Street, around the time of the murder, point to a street with few people on it, and there are statements that there were also people in the vicinity of Mitre Square. We do not have the information to make an assumption about which area had more people near it.

I am not trying to quantify the number of people who were out and about all I need to prove is that the streets were not totally deserted

But if Stride was a Ripper victim, her lack of mutilations either point away from mutilation being a motive (clearly unlikely), or that something happened that resulted in JtR leaving before he could begin the mutilations. And if the latter occurred, then he did not have the opportunity to take any organs because he left. That leaves open the possibility that he commits a 2nd murder, in Mitre Square, where he successfully completes both the mutilations and taking of organs, because he was unable to fulfil his motive in the Stride case.

This same old chestnut used time and time again to try to explain why some of the victims showed no signs of any attempts to remove organs

Also, and you do seem to keep forgetting this, serial killers who take body parts are not necessarily motivated to commit the murder in order to get the body part per se, but rather they will take them to fulfil some bizarre desire, which gets magnified at the time of the murder. There will be some murders they commit where they do not take any body parts, either because that idea hasn't yet occurred to them (which might apply in the Nichols case, it being the first of the series), or for some other idiosyncratic reason (with Stride it would be because he didn't stay long enough to even perform any mutilations; with Nichols, it is also possible that Cross/Lechmere's arrival resulted in the same, although there are other possibilities too).

Conjecture on your part

You seem to be hung up on the idea that JtR was harvesting organs along the line of "I have to kill someone as I need a body part." right from the start.. Those that take organs (heads are more common actually), just take something, and that sort of body-part-as-trophy taking often develops as they progress in their series. In fact, we shouldn't forget that part of Chapman's abdominal flesh was also missing, so in that case not only was the uterus taken but he also grabbed a random bit of flesh because in the end, JtR doesn't care what piece of the body he takes with him, he just takes something to relive the experience. Taking her cheap rings would serve the same purpose but provide something that would last longer. Serial killers learn from one crime to the next what it is that they like. It would not be unusual if, after the Nichols murder, he came up with the idea of taking something from Chapman for such reasons. Indications are that parts were missing from Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly, and so in all 3 of the mutilation murders that followed on from Nichols. Stride stands out not because none of her body parts were taken, but because she wasn't mutilated at all.

If the killer progressed then why out of a possible 8-9 victims over a long period of time do we see only two removable of organs from two victims and I have gone into this reason previously so I am not going to reiterate it again and

Indeed it is, just as everything you've said is your opinion.Jeff

And it is a more plausible opinion than yours

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

-

[Fleetwood Mac]

On the TOD for Liz, Dr Phillips leaves room for an earlier time.

He arrived between 20 minutes and half an hour after Dr Blackwell, and stated that Liz had been alive within an hour.

Suggesting 12.36 approx. at the earliest.

And then of course, in the event we take Dr Phillips at face value, then he is saying 'alive'; meaning he could be leaving room for an attack before 12.30 depending upon how long it took Liz to bleed to death.

[Michael W Richards]

On the TOD for Liz, Dr Phillips leaves room for an earlier time.

He arrived between 20 minutes and half an hour after Dr Blackwell, and stated that Liz had been alive within an hour.

Suggesting 12.36 approx. at the earliest.

And then of course, in the event we take Dr Phillips at face value, then he is saying 'alive'; meaning he could be leaving room for an attack before 12.30 depending upon how long it took Liz to bleed to death.

When you take Blackwells estimates and Phillips you are left with a cut time that is around the time Israel's story takes place. Since no-one but Israel actually sees Liz after 12:35, its quite likely she was in the passageway at that time. Which leaves her final encounter with someone between 12:35 and around 12:45. There is a story that is present within the existing evidence that allows for a brief encounter, her turning to exit out into the street again...which might be revealing about the nature of that account, and the killer grabbing her by the scarf from behind, twisting and pulling it towards his..he being off balance, and him sliding the kinfe across her throat while releasing the scarf. The nicks on the scarf indicate it was taut and twisted when the cut is made, and Blackwell himself stated she may have been cut "while falling".

A few relevant points are raised...she wasnt cut while lying on her back, as in Nichols, Chapmans and Eddowes cases,..which indicated that they were subdued before the throat cuts..Mary was on her right side when the throat was cut, and it appears she wasnt subdued at the time, because there are defensive wounds. Also Liz is cut once, the three that were lying on the ground had their throats cut twice, severing both major arteries. The stream of blood the emanated from Liz had almost reached the kitchen door when most witnesses saw it, which indicates that she bleed out quite a bit before people gathered around her. She is left on her side, as she fell. Unlike the others, she is not adjusted for better access to her abdomen. So, no further plans for her...no mutilation of the abdomen.

When the above is factored in, the fact that multiple witness stories corroborate each other by virtue of the time they said they heard of the dead woman in the passageway, she may have been cut as early as 12:40 and discovered almost immediately after. The blood that runs almost to the door might suggest that she was discovered, and then bled out while they sent out for help. Which means she might have been alive and semi conscious when found.

Fanny Mortimer stated that she often heard people in that passageway after Saturday night meetings well after midnight, might there have been witnesses to her final altercation that never spoke up? Like Lave, who said he was by the gates until almost 12:45, or Eagle, who said he returned around 12:40. If that is the case, what would be a reason for not speaking up. Someone from the club was the killer? 1 of the 2 men I just mentioned actually killed her? Someone at the club, not necessarily a member or staff, just having a smoke in the alleyway after the meeting?

[Fleetwood Mac]

When you take Blackwells estimates and Phillips you are left with a cut time that is around the time Israel's story takes place.

I don't think we necessarily are. Both Dr Phillips and Dr Blackwell leave room for a murder that is very near to 1am.

What I would say is that among the statements relating to all of the murder scenes, there are a few very important and reliable pieces of information in there that get lost in the many witness accounts, some of which are dubious and others are plausible at best.

As an example, I read the Mary thread last night and I absolutely agree with you in terms of the medical evidence suggesting Mary was murdered while lying on one side of the bed. I think that is a very important piece of information that may tell us a lot about what went on that night, but it is often lost among the plethora of witnesses and their supposed importance.

I don't want to talk about Mary too much and so back to Liz.

The three most important pieces of information we have come from two people in a position of authority and one person who relays his account of discovering Liz. They are:

1) Dr Phillips was the most experienced and qualified doctor out of all them. A 12.35 attack is within his timeframe.

2) PC Smith is the person in the area paid to take notice of people. He is the only person who sees a woman with a flower after 12.30am.

3) Louis Diemschutz tells us that he passed Liz before he got off his cart and he didn't see her. Furthermore, upon getting off his cart he couldn't tell what the object was without lighting a match. I think that tells us it was pretty dark, dark enough to conceal a body. And then, the gates were wide enough to get a cart through them, meaning anyone walking out of the club, in say the middle of the gates, wasn't bound to see Liz.

These are the three most reliable bits of information, from pretty much guaranteed authoritative sources, the rest of it is hopeful.

From there, I would say the best bet is that Liz was murdered shortly after PC Smith departed.

In terms of the club members, they wouldn't necessarily have seen Liz lying there.

As an outlier, what if it turned out that Schwartz's attack did take place, and they were the people who disturbed Jack? Imagine that given the decades of discussion and whatnot.

[Lewis C]

Hello Lewis,

Do you think the Pipeman was the Ripper or associated with the Ripper? Can you think of any motive he might have had if he was not the Ripper?

Also, Pipeman has the same problem as the B.S. man. He was seen by Schwartz who might have been on his way to find the nearest P.C..

c.d.

Hello c.d.,

I think that Pipeman may or may not have been the Ripper. I think that whoever the Ripper was, he worked alone, without associates. I can't think of any motive he might have had if he was not the Ripper.

I agree that the problem you mention applies equally to Pipeman and BS man. A problem that Pipeman might not have had is that BS man could only have gotten Liz to where she was found by physically forcing her there, which wouldn't necessarily be true for Pipeman. However, I do think that it's also possible that BS man could have been her killer.

[Fleetwood Mac]

As an outlier, what if it turned out that Schwartz's attack did take place, and they were the people who disturbed Jack? Imagine that given the decades of discussion and whatnot.

Just a note on this bit here.

We've assumed that Schwartz's event must be connected to the murder, because we know a murder took place around that time.

But then, casual violence was an integral part of East End life. People were chasing one another 'round for some gain or pleasure pretty regularly.

Must these two events be connected?

Is it not possible that they were completely separate and Schwartz and associates had no idea there was a body lying in the yard?

[JeffHamm]

Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
But if Chapman was killed at a time that is consistent with all of the information we have, rather than at a time inconsistent with most of the remaining information, then the comparison holds up just fine.

But it is a big but, and we cannot be certain of the TOD of Nicholls or Chapman

Indeed, but given the information we have is not sufficient to draw a firm conclusion, we either avoid making any statements either way, which neither of us is doing, or we assess the options in comparison to the information we do have, which leads to our formation of our individual opinions. We make different decisions, hence we have different opinions, but given as you say we cannot be certain, neither you nor I can prove the other wrong. But that's the nature of JtR, we either say nothing, which is hardly interesting, or we take the risk of being wrong and present our reasoning for making choices when we have to.

And sure, we can say the streets were teeming with people. We can say anything. However, as we know Mrs. Mortimer says that the only person she saw while on her porch was Goldstein, and a young couple at the end of the street (who possibly were Spooner and his lady friend before they moved east along Fairclough, but that's just a possibility of course). Schwartz's statement to the police only mentions Broad Shoulders and Pipeman. While certainly there were people about, none of the statements we have point towards Berner Street being teeming with people around the time of the murder.

Perhaps my use of the word teeming was a bit of an overkill but the point being that members of the club and members of the public were out and about at the time of the Stride Murder

Fair enough. i would say, though, that at the time of the Stride Murder, unless Schwartz did witness the attack that led to her death, then it appears at the time of the murder nobody was in the street. If Schwartz, however, did witness the beginning of the fatal attack, then of course it began when Schwartz was behind B.S. (Schwartz says he saw B.S. in front of him), and pipeman appears to have emerged only after the attack begins. So even then, at the time of the attack, B.S. may very well have thought the street to be empty. The surprise appearance of Schwartz, and then pipeman, could itself be the very reason he aborts and does not engage in mutilations. Or, of course, Stride was killed by someone other than JtR, which is also possible.

And Eddowes was the only one in the City of London, and Kelly the only one indoors, and Chapman the only one in a yard, and Nichols the only one east of the hospital, etc.

You are being pedantic now Stride was the only one killed south of the Whitechapel road which makes her murder as far as the killing field different from the others and as there are other similarities connected to her murder it is questionable as to who murdered her

I'm not at all being pedantic, I'm simply demonstrating that if one starts with the idea that the Stride location is different, one can find things about that location that are different - it is a different location after all. But one can do exactly the same thing for any of the murders.

As for being south of Whitechapel Road, you haven't given any reason for why that matters? If JtR was prowling a circuit, which is not an unreasonable thing to consider, then it would appear he spent a fair bit of time along Whitechapel (probably met Nichols along Whitechapel as she was last seen alive heading along it - but that was some time before the murder, so other options for where they met must not be overlooked as possibilities of course). He also appears to have spent a fair bit of time along Commercial Street. The idea that he may have spent some time diverting down along Commercial Road, a natural flow on (either turn the other way off Whitechappel, or continue along if he had come down Commercial Street), makes perfect sense as to where he's seeking victims. Eddowes, after all, is the only one in the City of London, or the only one west of Commercial Street, etc. When we view where the other murders occur, look for reasonable ideas as to where the initial encounters happened (Nichols seems like it was on Whitechappel, Eddowes had been heading towards Houndsditch, which would take her to Whitechappel/High street area, Kelly appears to have been out around Commercial Street, Annie on Hanbury near Commercial Street as well. Hence my suggestion that travel on those routes appear to reflect JtR's prowling - and given that, Commercial Road becomes ho hum rather than an oddity.

Or a lot of people may have come out during that hour, as per Lawende and company, making the streets more crowded. We know Blenkinsop says that there were people around in St. James, right next to Mitre Square. There is nothing to indicate that the area was any less "teeming" with people in the vicinity of Mitre Square than there is for applying such an assumption to Berner Street.

Of course, there is

Such as? Lawende and co are 3 people, and if B.S. kills Stride, at most there are only 2 other people around. Add to the Eddowes case that Blenkinsop reports there were people about in St. James, then there are even more people outside and in the vicinity of the Eddowes murder than the Stride murder. The club members, being inside but obviously engaged in activity that makes it likely they are going to stay inside, are a different matter. And again, if they make a difference, we once again may even have an explanation for why the Stride murder does not go onto mutilations.

We don't know that. The few statements we have with regards to Berner Street, around the time of the murder, point to a street with few people on it, and there are statements that there were also people in the vicinity of Mitre Square. We do not have the information to make an assumption about which area had more people near it.

I am not trying to quantify the number of people who were out and about all I need to prove is that the streets were not totally deserted

But you are claiming that there were more in the street for Stride than Eddowes, even if you don't want to put an exact number on it. What I pointed out above is that we know of more people in the street around the Eddowes case than we do for the Stride case, which makes it hard for me to say you've proved your main point.

If you just want to relax it now to say there were people in the street for the Stride murder, that's fine. But there were people in the street for the Eddowes' murder as well (Lawende and co, for example), and the Kelly murder (Hutchinson, for example), Nichols (Cross/Lechmere and Paul), and Chapman (Long), which again makes the Stride murder not different on that point.

But if Stride was a Ripper victim, her lack of mutilations either point away from mutilation being a motive (clearly unlikely), or that something happened that resulted in JtR leaving before he could begin the mutilations. And if the latter occurred, then he did not have the opportunity to take any organs because he left. That leaves open the possibility that he commits a 2nd murder, in Mitre Square, where he successfully completes both the mutilations and taking of organs, because he was unable to fulfil his motive in the Stride case.

This same old chestnut used time and time again to try to explain why some of the victims showed no signs of any attempts to remove organs

It's not a chesnut Trevor, those are critically important things one has to consider. You can't make a big issue if the first murder of a series doesn't show all the hallmarks of the later ones. That's not a chesnut, that's properly assessing the events. Moreover, you can't make a big deal about no organs being taken from Stride if there were no mutilations in the first place. That latter point either needs to be explained as to why JtR aborted his attack, or it points to Stride being murdered by someone else. That's the big question with Stride, and if she's been killed by someone else, then clearly that means absolutely nothing about JtR. And if there is a reason for his aborting his attack, that too doesn't mean he wasn't a mutilating murderer.
You can't ignore the fact that serial killers are not robots. They do not always repeat the same thing each and every time. You can't just set aside how people are simply because it demonstrates that you are offering an alternative explanation, but not one that includes a refutation of the original explanation. Therefore, when it comes to evaluating the two explanations, recognizing that both "work", one is left to decide which one seems to be the more plausible.

Also, and you do seem to keep forgetting this, serial killers who take body parts are not necessarily motivated to commit the murder in order to get the body part per se, but rather they will take them to fulfil some bizarre desire, which gets magnified at the time of the murder. There will be some murders they commit where they do not take any body parts, either because that idea hasn't yet occurred to them (which might apply in the Nichols case, it being the first of the series), or for some other idiosyncratic reason (with Stride it would be because he didn't stay long enough to even perform any mutilations; with Nichols, it is also possible that Cross/Lechmere's arrival resulted in the same, although there are other possibilities too).

Conjecture on your part

Not really, it's a description of what we know about how other serial killers have behaved. Your notion would preclude the above, because you reject the idea as if it couldn't happen. But it does, a lot, in fact I am aware of no serial killer who reproduced exactly the same behaviours at every crime. As such, I see no reason to believe that JtR is the one serial killer who we have to view the way you are presenting things - that he must do exactly the same thing each and every time.

You seem to be hung up on the idea that JtR was harvesting organs along the line of "I have to kill someone as I need a body part." right from the start.. Those that take organs (heads are more common actually), just take something, and that sort of body-part-as-trophy taking often develops as they progress in their series. In fact, we shouldn't forget that part of Chapman's abdominal flesh was also missing, so in that case not only was the uterus taken but he also grabbed a random bit of flesh because in the end, JtR doesn't care what piece of the body he takes with him, he just takes something to relive the experience. Taking her cheap rings would serve the same purpose but provide something that would last longer. Serial killers learn from one crime to the next what it is that they like. It would not be unusual if, after the Nichols murder, he came up with the idea of taking something from Chapman for such reasons. Indications are that parts were missing from Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly, and so in all 3 of the mutilation murders that followed on from Nichols. Stride stands out not because none of her body parts were taken, but because she wasn't mutilated at all.

If the killer progressed then why out of a possible 8-9 victims over a long period of time do we see only two removable of organs from two victims and I have gone into this reason previously so I am not going to reiterate it again and

Well, the simplest possibility is that your 8-9 victims includes some not killed by JtR. We wouldn't expect the same behaviour from a different killer.

And, you keep forgetting that Kelly's heart was described as absent. Even if we take that to be ambiguous, that still just means it is entirely possible that "absent from the crime scene" is the correct interpretation, so you cannot assert safely that her heart was actually found. And if it was taken, then we have the 3 mutilation murders that followed Nichols all having some body part taken.

Indeed it is, just as everything you've said is your opinion.Jeff
And it is a more plausible opinion than yours

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
-

Well, I would be surprised if you didn't think that, but of course, you won't be surprised if my opinion is the opposite of yours. But simply saying we each believe our opinions to be plausible is not all that useful. People can believe very strongly in things that are not true after all.

- Jeff

[Michael W Richards]

I don't think we necessarily are. Both Dr Phillips and Dr Blackwell leave room for a murder that is very near to 1am.

Blackwell stated that he believed "Did you form any opinion as to how long the deceased had been dead? - From twenty minutes to half an hour when I arrived. The clothes were not wet with rain. She would have bled to death comparatively slowly on account of vessels on one side only of the neck being cut and the artery not completely severed." He arrived on the scene at 1:16am. Phillips said it had been within an hour of his arrival, just after 1:30. Neither of those statements suggest a time near 1am, in fact taking both together, with Blackwells estimate being made 15-20 minute before Phillips arrives, suggest that the time was between 12:46 and 1 being most probable. IF thats just a few minutes off she is cut around 12:40 then you have more that 3 witnesses who can validate that timing.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Blackwell stated that he believed "Did you form any opinion as to how long the deceased had been dead? - From twenty minutes to half an hour when I arrived. The clothes were not wet with rain. She would have bled to death comparatively slowly on account of vessels on one side only of the neck being cut and the artery not completely severed." He arrived on the scene at 1:16am. Phillips said it had been within an hour of his arrival, just after 1:30. Neither of those statements suggest a time near 1am, in fact taking both together, with Blackwells estimate being made 15-20 minute before Phillips arrives, suggest that the time was between 12:46 and 1 being most probable. IF thats just a few minutes off she is cut around 12:40 then you have more that 3 witnesses who can validate that timing.

I think there a few leaps of faith in your conclusion, or it may simply be that you haven't added enough detail to explain your conclusion.

I tend to agree that the most likely scenario is an earlier TOD, but not for the same reasons as you.

Dr Blackwell leaves room for Liz dying at approx. 12.56am. What he doesn't explain is 'bleeding to death comparatively slowly'. How slowly? What's he comparing Liz's death to? We don't know, it's not expanded upon.

Dr Phillips states this:

The carotid artery on the left side and the other vessels contained in the sheath were all cut through, save the posterior portion of the carotid, to a line about 1-12th of an inch in extent, which prevented the separation of the upper and lower portion of the artery.

My understanding is that in the event the carotid artery is 'cut through', then that person is going to bleed to death pretty quickly.

Unfortunately, Dr Phillips doesn't offer an opinion on how long that process would have taken, but Dr Phillips is the more experienced and qualified of the two doctors.

Dr Phillips certainly leaves room for a death close to 1am when he states: "had been alive within an hour." There is nothing in that suggesting it must have been around 12.45am and he doesn't add anything else which suggests that.

The inherent problem with the witnesses, is that they contradict one another to an extent and witness statements are known to be unreliable to an extent. You have to ignore some, bend the statements of others, and favour others out of not much more than mere hunch; to make them fit.

That demands a conclusion based upon the information we can rely on.

As I said, PC Smith was the person paid to take notice of people and he was the only person who saw a woman with a flower. Dr Phillips leaves good room for a TOD approx. 12.35 to 12.40. Louis Diemschutz tells us that he passed Liz's body and he didn't see it. His pony, with a much better sense of smell and sight than human beings, noticed something was lying near the wall. The yard gates were wide enough to get a cart through them, and we are told Liz's feet were almost touching the wall.

This suggests to me that the best bet, the one that makes most sense of the witness statements, is that Liz was murdered very close to PC Smith departing. The club members didn't see Liz's body because it was concealed in the dark. Fanny Mortimer didn't hear anything because by her own admission she was indoors around that time. It's not without its problems, but it's the best fit as far as I can tell.

[Michael W Richards]

This suggests to me that the best bet, the one that makes most sense of the witness statements, is that Liz was murdered very close to PC Smith departing. The club members didn't see Liz's body because it was concealed in the dark. Fanny Mortimer didn't hear anything because by her own admission she was indoors around that time. It's not without its problems, but it's the best fit as far as I can tell.

Its pretty amazing to me that people often suggest I do not have enough data to make a conclusion... then like above, they make basically the same deduction.

Ive said umpteen times that its probable Liz was killed just after her last legit sighting...Smith, because Fanny was likely not at her door...like she was, from 12:50 until 1am. She did not see or hear Louis and his cart arrive. In your summary above you also suggest by your comments that anyone claiming to have seen Liz on the street after 12:35 is probably not to be believed. Like Israel. You also have Lave and Eagle at that gate around 12:40, both claiming to have seen nothing...though Eagle says he "couldnt be sure" she wasnt there at the time. You have numerous witnesses state they heard of the event around 12:40, and the Arbeter Fraint in late Nov claims that she was killed around "quarter to 1". All these things Ive pointed out numerous times.

Yet you post "I think there a few leaps of faith in your conclusion, or it may simply be that you haven't added enough detail to explain your conclusion." Really? Just before essentially concluding the same timing? Is this a matter of who gets credit for discovering a logical path to reality? Ive had others take my comments and reword them, then just use the idea as if their own. On this topic and others. Its Odd.