Some questions re. Lechmere

[David Orsam]

So be ware if you murder a person: if the judge thinks there is a serial killer on the loose, YOU will be charged for not just the one murder you committed but for a whole set of murders.

I knew that someone would fail to grasp premise of my post and it's no surprise that it's you Pierre.

Just read my post properly and all will become clear.

[jerryd]

So be ware if you murder a person: if the judge thinks there is a serial killer on the loose, YOU will be charged for not just the one murder you committed but for a whole set of murders.

Pierre

Yes, based on the premise David set. That is: The belief that all five were murdered by the same hand.

[David Orsam]

Yes, based on the premise David set. That is: The belief that all five were murdered by the same hand.

Yes, thank you Jerry, that's the point. And to prevent any misunderstanding: the premise is that all five were murdered by Jack the Ripper (as opposed to a belief that they were).

[David Orsam]

Yes, thank you Jerry, that's the point. And to prevent any misunderstanding: the premise is that all five were murdered by Jack the Ripper (as opposed to a belief that they were).

Although, of course, if you are someone like Pierre who believes that all five canonical murders were Ripper murders it's illogical, and downright obtuse, to challenge the idea that the murderer of Mary Ann Nichols was Jack the Ripper (who murdered all the other four). Thus, to repeat, if JTR was responsible for the C5, all we need to do is identify the murderer of one of the victims and we have found Jack the Ripper.

[Columbo]

Although, of course, if you are someone like Pierre who believes that all five canonical murders were Ripper murders it's illogical, and downright obtuse, to challenge the idea that the murderer of Mary Ann Nichols was Jack the Ripper (who murdered all the other four). Thus, to repeat, if JTR was responsible for the C5, all we need to do is identify the murderer of one of the victims and we have found Jack the Ripper.

Hey David,

Ok this sounds like fun. So we are excluding all victims before Polly Nichols correct? Do you have any other parameters for your premise we should be aware of?

Columbo

[CertainSum1]

Can anyone answer me how we know Lechmere worked for Pickfords for 20 years? Is it simply his own one-time statement at the inquest?

[David Orsam]

Hey David,

Ok this sounds like fun. So we are excluding all victims before Polly Nichols correct?

I haven't excluded any victims Columbo. I have said that if the five canonical victims were all murdered by Jack the Ripper then you only need to solve one of those murders and you have solved all five.

[John Wheat]

Just popping in to this thread to say that if Jack the Ripper was a serial killer who murdered all of the five canonical victims then (based on that premise) you only need to prove that an individual murdered one of those canonical victims and you have found Jack the Ripper. You don't need proof for the other four, as long as there is no reason why the individual could not have murdered any of them.

An interesting premise David. But Lechmere can't be proven to have murdered any of the C5. He is merely a man who found a body.

Cheers John

[David Orsam]

An interesting premise David. But Lechmere can't be proven to have murdered any of the C5.

Then there should not be any problem in you agreeing with everything I've said John.

And I was really responding to comments that one needs to prove that Lechmere murdered every victim before drawing any conclusions. Thus, for example, Pierre said:

"Look for historical data, analyse them and validate them and see if they indicate that Lechmere did one, two, three or more murders and dismemberments."

Based on the premise that I have mentioned, you don't need to do this. If Jack the Ripper murdered all the C5, then finding the murderer of Mary Ann Nichols is enough to find Jack the Ripper.

[GUT]

Then there should not be any problem in you agreeing with everything I've said John.

And I was really responding to comments that one needs to prove that Lechmere murdered every victim before drawing any conclusions. Thus, for example, Pierre said:

"Look for historical data, analyse them and validate them and see if they indicate that Lechmere did one, two, three or more murders and dismemberments."

Based on the premise that I have mentioned, you don't need to do this. If Jack the Ripper murdered all the C5, then finding the murderer of Mary Ann Nichols is enough to find Jack the Ripper.

People seem to be missing the two ifs..

IF JTR killed all five

And

If Crossmere killed one..

Not that hard really.

[Billiou]

The documentary

Nice to see, like most threads on this forum, that it has run off without addressing my initial questions.

The intent of my original post was to ask about the documentary and what it presented. Not about theories, speculations, debates, arguments, just about what was presented in the documentary and my questions in post #5.

Now, if everyone is happy to just ignore it and debate about other things then I will simply take my bat and go play somewhere else....

[Columbo]

Nice to see, like most threads on this forum, that it has run off without addressing my initial questions.

The intent of my original post was to ask about the documentary and what it presented. Not about theories, speculations, debates, arguments, just about what was presented in the documentary and my questions in post #5.

Now, if everyone is happy to just ignore it and debate about other things then I will simply take my bat and go play somewhere else....

Hi Billiou

I thought your questions were pretty well covered in the first few pages. Unfortunately it is the norm for a thread to go off completely in another direction.

Let's see if we can get back on track.

Columbo

[John Wheat]

Then there should not be any problem in you agreeing with everything I've said John.

And I was really responding to comments that one needs to prove that Lechmere murdered every victim before drawing any conclusions. Thus, for example, Pierre said:

"Look for historical data, analyse them and validate them and see if they indicate that Lechmere did one, two, three or more murders and dismemberments."

Based on the premise that I have mentioned, you don't need to do this. If Jack the Ripper murdered all the C5, then finding the murderer of Mary Ann Nichols is enough to find Jack the Ripper.

I don't have any problem with what you are saying David. In my initial post I had failed to spot you were responding to Pierre.

Cheers John

[Billiou]

Hi Billiou

I thought your questions were pretty well covered in the first few pages. Unfortunately it is the norm for a thread to go off completely in another direction.

Let's see if we can get back on track.

Columbo

Well maybe I didn't express myself clearly enough.

The main point of my post was to ask, did the documentary present the position that Cross and Paul didn't see any blood because there wasn't any there (the argument being that the murder was so fresh that the blood hadn't had a chance to flow yet), but was noticed by Neil because by then it had had a chance to flow when he arrived a few minutes later [and he had a lamp to see with].

Did the documentary not mention how dark it was and Cross and Paul, not having a lamp, couldn't see the details, such as the blood flowing from the neck?

[Billiou]

It was dark. That is all we can conclude. Some say it was too dark to see anything at all, but that was not so - the carmen did not feel their way down Bucks Row. Paul hurried along on the pavement, and so he was able to see where he was going. He saw Lechmere standing in the street, silently waiting, some yards away. They saw that the dress was pulled up to the hips. They noticed the bonnet lying some little way from the body - a black object on the dark pavement.

That is why I think that blood would have been visible if it as there to see. Not only would it be moving by running (and movement always makes things easier to observe), it would also reflect the light there was, since it is a fluid.

Another thing to note is that Neil says that there was a pool under the victim´s neck, whereas Mizen adds that there was a stream of blood travelling from the pool down to the gutter.

I think that the killer cut the abdomen first, something Dr Llewlellyn suggested. That is why there was very little blood under the neck - most of it had seeped into the abdominal cavity.

Then he cut the neck, when Nichols was already dead and when a lot of blood had already seeped into the abdomen. It would have caused a smallis, passive stream of blood, slowly beginning to fill up a cavity under her neck. That was when Paul and Lechmere was in place.

Then the pool grew larger, and Neil arrived, shone his light on the victim and reported that pool - but no stream towards the gutter.

When the pool was filled to the brim, it ran over the brim and started floating towards the gutter. That was when Mizen saw it and reported it. He added that the blood was somehat congealed, which it would have been since six or seven minutes had passed since she was cut - and coagulation begins to show after three to four minutes.

Paul knelt by the head of Nichols. If there had been blood running towards the gutter at that stage, he would have been likely to get that blood on his person.

Thank you for the reply, but I was asking about the documentary, and what the documentary presented, not for every theory about what may have happened.