Lechmere was Jack the Ripper

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve

I agree about TOD`s.
However, I will stand by my belief that the doctor would have a pretty good idea that a victim had or had not been killed within the hour.
Dr Brown had to make the same educated guess in Mitre Square, and he estimated Eddowe had been killed within the last 40 mins or so.

However, one is left to wonder if those estimates were entirely based on medical evidence, or if input from witnesses played any part, in Mitre Square
the evidence of Watkins may well have influenced him, here the time of discovery may have influenced Philips

As police surgeon for Whitechapel, he would have seen some pretty horrendous things. In fact, I can`t think of an another area in England which would have come anywhere near the viciousness of E1.

Yes I agree, but had he ever had to attend anything like the murder of Chapman?


Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Steve



I agree about TOD`s.
However, I will stand by my belief that the doctor would have a pretty good idea that a victim had or had not been killed within the hour.
Dr Brown had to make the same educated guess in Mitre Square, and he estimated Eddowe had been killed within the last 40 mins or so.



As police surgeon for Whitechapel, he would have seen some pretty horrendous things. In fact, I can`t think of an another area in England which would have come anywhere near the viciousness of E1.

But with Eddowes he didnt have to make a guess, if he knew what time she was released from the police station, and what time she was found

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Jon Guy]

Hi Steve

However I fail to see that there was any reliable medical evidence present to tell Philips that she had not died within the hour.
No temperature was taken, Blood flow had ceased, Rigor is not a good indicator of the time of death.

I agree about TOD`s.
However, I will stand by my belief that the doctor would have a pretty good idea that a victim had or had not been killed within the hour.
Dr Brown had to make the same educated guess in Mitre Square, and he estimated Eddowe had been killed within the last 40 mins or so.

All the Doctor could do was make an educated guess, however did he have anything in his medical career to compare Chapman too, i seriously doubt that.

As police surgeon for Whitechapel, he would have seen some pretty horrendous things. In fact, I can`t think of an another area in England which would have come anywhere near the viciousness of E1.

[Bridewell]

Of all aspects of the case I think that we would all agree that timings are the most troubling due to the fact that very few of those involved would have owned a watch. They relied on things like factory clocks and church bells. Errors were inevitable. So can we construct a possible timeline to allow for Long, Richardson and Cadosch all being ‘correct.’ By using ‘correct’ I mean ‘honest if slightly mistaken.’

Let’s assume that Richardson was correct when he said that he sat on the steps at 4.45 and that he couldn’t possibly have missed a body had it been there.

Long said that she heard the Brewery Clock chime half past the hour allowing her to place her sighting of Annie Chapman at 5.30. What if she was wrong and it was actually 5.15. Not a massive, unbelievable error but possibly an honest error just the same. So let’s postulate that she actually saw Chapman with her killer at 5.15.

Cadosch got up at 5.15 and then went into the yard where he heard the word ‘no.’ So with him having to get dressed this could easily have been 5.20 when he got to his back door. He then returned to the yard a few minutes later when he heard something brush against the fence. This could have 5.23/24 or 25. The gap might been seen as troubling but nothing like prohibitively so. Maybe Annie needed to relieve herself before doing business? Or maybe Chapman was killed at 5.20 and Cadosch heard the killer brushing against the fence at 5.25 as he was finishing off the mutilations. Cadosch then left for work at 5.32 seeing no-one.

So we have:

4.45 - Richardson sits on the steps and sees nothing. He then leaves at 4.50.
5.15 - Long sees Chapman with her killer near to 29, Hanbury Street.
5.20 - Chapman and her killer are at the steps of the yard. Cadosch hears a voice.
5.25 - Cadosch hears something brushing against the fence as the killer positions himself to finish off the mutilations.
5.30 - The killer leaves.
5.32 - Cadosch leaves for work.

Of course this is conjecture but it’s not wild conjecture. It requires the acceptance of the elasticity of timings. And not massive differences in timings either.

The argument that Phillips was absolutely correct in his TOD, despite the multitude of expert opinion as to how this TOD could have been considerably inaccurate, gives us a scenario which means this (if Chapman was dead by 3.30-3.45am):

John Richardson - Liar or idiot.
Elizabeth Long - Liar or 2 hours out in her sighting.
Albert Cadosch - Liar or 2 hours out in his testimony.

Which is the likeliest?

Cadosch's time of 5.32 records when he passed the Spitalfields Church (Christchurch) which is about a two minute walk from 27 Hanbury Street; presumably, if correct, that means he left home about 5.30am - but as ever the timings can only be seen as approximate.

[Bridewell]

Actually, Fish, no. This thread is called 'Lechmere was Jack the Ripper' - not 'Richardson may have missed Chapman's body at 4.45am, allowing for Lechmere to have ripped her up on his way to work before 4am'.

In fact, Hanbury Street hardly featured until I posted the following on page 15 - #146:



I presume you would say he 'dared' to do this because he was a psychopath, who couldn't grasp the concept of being caught, even within days of having lied to PC Mizen, lied again at the inquest and having given a surname to the authorities, which none of his associates would recognise him by.

Then, on page 17 - #164, Herlock posted this:



The above triggered a response from you on page 18 - #173, concerning your touching faith in the ability of a Victorian doctor to determine TOD in a case like Chapman's [when it couldn't be done even today], and it all went tits up from there really, whenever anyone has dared to question a single argument or interpretation you favour, which, by amazing coincidence, all help rather than hinder your quest to make a case for Lechmere being Jack the Ripper: Richardson was a crap witness, so we should all shut up and accept that Chapman's body could have been there when he opened the door to the yard; Phillips was 130 years ahead of his time, so we should all shut up and trust his opinion that Chapman was killed early enough for Lechmere to have done it and still got to work on time; and as for who Long and Cadoche saw and heard, they may have had nothing to do with the murder, so we should all shut up and not ask who else they could have been seeing and hearing.

And so on and so on and so on, until the conditions are 100% perfect for Lechmere to enter the frame.

You can squirm all you like, Fish, but we weren't all born yesterday, and it will all happen again like clockwork if someone decides to stroll over to Mitre Square.

Love,

Caz
X

I so don't want to ever fall out with you!

[Elamarna]

Hi HS

I believe Phillips is the most likely to be correct, as basically, he knew Chapman hadn`t been killed within the last hour.

John Richardson - the body was obviously not there when he was in the yard - my guess then, is that Chapman was killed not long after Richardson left the yard.

Liz Long - flaky witness at best. She went to the police a number of days after the event, and on what was her recollection based ? A couple of people speaking to each other as she passed them

Albert Cadosch - only aware of the murder after the event, and didn`t investigate the noises he said he heard. So noises could have been somewhere else.

Hi Jon,

your comments on Long and Cadosch are both true, they may well have been mistaken or just made the stories up, who knows?

However I fail to see that there was any reliable medical evidence present to tell Philips that she had not died within the hour.
No temperature was taken, Blood flow had ceased, Rigor is not a good indicator of the time of death.


All the Doctor could do was make an educated guess, however did he have anything in his medical career to compare Chapman too, i seriously doubt that.

In this particular case, the main determining factor for TOD appears to be the "feel" of the body temperture by Philips, that can in no circumstances be seen as in anyway a reliable method.

I have serious isssue with all TOD's which are based on the limited knowledge availble in the LVP.


Steve

[Jon Guy]

John Richardson - Liar or idiot.
Elizabeth Long - Liar or 2 hours out in her sighting.
Albert Cadosch - Liar or 2 hours out in his testimony.

Which is the likeliest?

Hi HS

I believe Phillips is the most likely to be correct, as basically, he knew Chapman hadn`t been killed within the last hour.

John Richardson - the body was obviously not there when he was in the yard - my guess then, is that Chapman was killed not long after Richardson left the yard.

Liz Long - flaky witness at best. She went to the police a number of days after the event, and on what was her recollection based ? A couple of people speaking to each other as she passed them

Albert Cadosch - only aware of the murder after the event, and didn`t investigate the noises he said he heard. So noises could have been somewhere else.

[MrBarnett]

I was going to say “that sucks” Gary but I decided not to.

Admin! He'f fwearing again!!

[Herlock Sholmes]

I once found an early press report of a man who committed suicide in the Ratcliff Highway by hanging himself in 'the neceffary'.

I was going to say “that sucks” Gary but I decided not to.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Of all aspects of the case I think that we would all agree that timings are the most troubling due to the fact that very few of those involved would have owned a watch. They relied on things like factory clocks and church bells. Errors were inevitable. So can we construct a possible timeline to allow for Long, Richardson and Cadosch all being ‘correct.’ By using ‘correct’ I mean ‘honest if slightly mistaken.’

Let’s assume that Richardson was correct when he said that he sat on the steps at 4.45 and that he couldn’t possibly have missed a body had it been there.

Long said that she heard the Brewery Clock chime half past the hour allowing her to place her sighting of Annie Chapman at 5.30. What if she was wrong and it was actually 5.15. Not a massive, unbelievable error but possibly an honest error just the same. So let’s postulate that she actually saw Chapman with her killer at 5.15.

Cadosch got up at 5.15 and then went into the yard where he heard the word ‘no.’ So with him having to get dressed this could easily have been 5.20 when he got to his back door. He then returned to the yard a few minutes later when he heard something brush against the fence. This could have 5.23/24 or 25. The gap might been seen as troubling but nothing like prohibitively so. Maybe Annie needed to relieve herself before doing business? Or maybe Chapman was killed at 5.20 and Cadosch heard the killer brushing against the fence at 5.25 as he was finishing off the mutilations. Cadosch then left for work at 5.32 seeing no-one.

So we have:

4.45 - Richardson sits on the steps and sees nothing. He then leaves at 4.50.
5.15 - Long sees Chapman with her killer near to 29, Hanbury Street.
5.20 - Chapman and her killer are at the steps of the yard. Cadosch hears a voice.
5.25 - Cadosch hears something brushing against the fence as the killer positions himself to finish off the mutilations.
5.30 - The killer leaves.
5.32 - Cadosch leaves for work.

Of course this is conjecture but it’s not wild conjecture. It requires the acceptance of the elasticity of timings. And not massive differences in timings either.

The argument that Phillips was absolutely correct in his TOD, despite the multitude of expert opinion as to how this TOD could have been considerably inaccurate, gives us a scenario which means this (if Chapman was dead by 3.30-3.45am):

John Richardson - Liar or idiot.
Elizabeth Long - Liar or 2 hours out in her sighting.
Albert Cadosch - Liar or 2 hours out in his testimony.

Which is the likeliest?

[MrBarnett]

Ah, the wifdom of Folomon.

I once found an early press report of a man who committed suicide in the Ratcliff Highway by hanging himself in 'the neceffary'.

[Patrick S]

One more post about how good a family man Lechmere was, from the guy who is supposedly quite aware that it has no bearing on the risk of such a man being a serial killer.

One more post about alternative innocent explanations.

Some more errors (for example, I don´t think anybody at all has suggested that Mizen was given the idea that the carmen had been interrogated by "the other PC" - such a thing would predispose that they were on the scene before that ghost PC. Instead, what has been - and is - suggested is that Lechmere would have given the picture that he and Paul arrived at the murder site AFTER the PC, and so never were considered as suspects in any shape or form. If they had been found with the body, they would certainly not have been sent on their way!).

I will leave you to your personal form of reasoning. There is no need to comment further on it, and nothing new offered.

Thanks for the correction and I'll amend that in future posts. That's a pretty specific conclusion to draw from Mizen saying he was told "you're wanted in Buck's Row by another PC". But, okay. You've used the verbiage in the past that Mizen was under the impression that Paul and Cross had "been cleared" by the PC in Buck's Row, thus he let them go on their way without detaining them, asking their names, etc.

[MrBarnett]

HI Gary,

John is i feel over the top in his view.

Lechmere is in my humble opinion a viable person for a suspect.

1.He lived in the area, during the entire period of the murders.
2.He discovered a body, at the very least, a few seconds before Paul also came across it.

However that is a different thing from saying that he is a likely killer. The evidence which would support this view is either incomplete or non existent.

And because of this neither can he be dismissed entirely.



Steve

That's exactly my view, Steve. The sources that we currently have to hand do not convincingly rule him in or out. I long ago stopped pondering the 'blood evidence' 'Mizen/name scams' etc.

It's the Lechmere family dynamic that interests me these days. And that's something else that can be spun for/against his guilt.

[Patrick S]

Question away. I cannot say more than this: it is a sad thing when criticism must start from a point of how something presented by an expert in a docu should not be believed, especially when no evidence whatsoever can be presented that this was so.

It goes hand in hand with the allegations of me not being truthful or only pointing to different matters because I am infatuated with lechmere.

If you can´t shoot down the message, shoot the messenger instead. If you do not like what an expert says, lead on that he or she has been misinformed, bribed or threatened.

That´s how we work out here, right?

You're purposely twisting the overall point in order to impugn the poster's intent and imply motives that don't exist. The overall point, I think, is not that Scobie and Griffiths are liars or incompetent men. The questions you've been asked center around the scope of information these men were provided, how much did they study the crime(s) and Cross/Lechmere prior to and during filming? Were they provided an opposing view, details not seen in the program? We understand these men were invited to participate in this production in order to allow a presentation of the case that's as believable as possible, for the viewer's entertainment. Both men certainly understood that this is 130 year old case and that a documentary is not a court of law. Having some connection and understanding of productions of this type I think it's likely that both men asked to consider only the view presented in the documentary without an opposing view or mountains of evidence (beyond the facts presented by you and others in the Lechmere camp). Thus their opinions are true based on the information they were given. In this respect, this is no different from a detective or DA finding suspicion upon initial investigation or the presentation of the case, respectively, only to find conflicting facts and evidence that either explains or invalidates what had initially appeared as reason for suspicion.

If that's off-base and these men were provided full details and counter arguments against Lechmere as JtR, that's fine, too. I think that many posters - like myself - understand the case you've presented (thus far) and find it does not, IN THEIR VIEW, seem believable... and they'd be surprised if Scobie and Griffiths do find it believable. But, that's not to say that it's impossible that that they do. This is not some ploy to upset you, some ruse targeting you as a charlatan... its just the reality of how posters to these threads feel.

[Elamarna]

Well, he lived "next door" strictly speaking, in Bethnal Green as opposed to Whitechapel. Although only a 12 minute walk away from the Nichols murder, make that 20 minutes for Chapman, 22 minutes for Stride, 28 minutes for Eddowes and 25 minutes for Kelly (approximate timings based on Google Maps). Not insurmountable times or distances by any means, but not particularly conducive for a killer on foot, either.

If he was prepared to venture West for up to 28 minutes in search of a victim, one has to wonder why nothing remotely like the Ripper murders happened within a similar radius to the North, East or South of Doveton Street. Unless he only felt the urge to kill whilst en route to work or his mother's residence; rather unlikely on both counts, I'd suggest.

On the contrary, someone confident enough to kill whilst a fair distance to the West of his home could easily have struck at any time and in any direction - particularly given the fact that, once at work and sat behind his horse, he could have extended his reach so much further.

I would say he is only 7 minutes from Browns Yard Gareth, but it does depend on the route he took, if he stopped to talk to anyone and the pace he walked at.

your points are however valid to my to my way of thinking.



Steve