Lechmere was Jack the Ripper

[Sam Flynn]

I'm inclined to believe Cadosch because if Annie was dead at 04:30 ish why at 05:25 ish would someone be heard to say "no" and fall against the fence with a body already there ?

Quite, whereas a cry of "No!" followed by the noise of something falling against the fence is precisely what one might expect to have heard if someone had been attacked and killed within touching distance of said fence.

[Joshua Rogan]

Quite, whereas a cry of "No!" followed by the noise of something falling against the fence is precisely what one might expect to have heard if someone had been attacked and killed within touching distance of said fence.

I don't think Cadosch ever described hearing a *cry* of "No!", Sam, most reports have this as him hearing a conversation, of which this was the only word he could make out. If it had been an actual cry, it surely would have attracted more attention from Cadosch. For all we know, it could have been Annie's reply to the question "do you have change for this shiny sovereign?"

Also, the noise of something hitting or falling against the fence was on his subsequent visit to the yard, so there were several minutes between the two events. I like to imagine it was a startled Ripper bashing his head on the fence at Albert's unexpected reappearance so soon after leaving.

Which doesn't mean he didn't overhear Chapman's murder, just that it's not as obvious as your post makes it sound.

[Sam Flynn]

It was either a "cry" or an "ejaculation", Josh; I chose the former, for some reason Besides, I never meant that the ejaculation and the sound of something hitting the fence were simultaneous.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And either way, the likelihood would have been that Lechmere would have been at work while this was happening.

[Abby Normal]

Quite, whereas a cry of "No!" followed by the noise of something falling against the fence is precisely what one might expect to have heard if someone had been attacked and killed within touching distance of said fence.

yup=Long was probably off on her timings

[Fisherman]

In case Fisherman doesn't know, "Iceland" is a chain of shops in Britain which serves the higher-end of the frozen food market. Their Cheesy Potato Pockets are, I'm reliably informed, a regular feature on the Queen's breakfast tray.

Oh, I am well aware of that, Gareth - it was something I caught wind of when Iceland (the country, not the shop) beat England in the football Euro championships a few years back. The net was riddled with "beaten by a cheap shop!" posts.

[Fisherman]

Why didn’t Lechmere the Ripper, on hearing Paul approaching and having decided to stick around, throw the knife over a wall or just into the shadows? This would have relieved him of the need to come up with a ‘Mizen Scam.’ There was no DNA at the time and as long as the knife didn’t have ‘property of C.A. Lechmere’ engraved on it there’s no way that it could have been connected to him (Caz will recognise Wallace case thinking here ) So what would have been the worst that the police could have said when the knife was discovered half an hour or an hour or more after Lechmere had long gone? They might easily have said “why would the killer have discarded his knife?” For which the suggested explaination would have been “the killer heard Lechmere approaching and in panic he rid himself of the murder weapon in case Lechmere raised the alarm and found himself confronted with a Constable or two.”

If Lechmere had the presence of mind and a cool enough head to stick around at the crime scene and then scam his way past a Constable with another witness in tow why didn’t he have the presence of mind to dump the knife and avoid the risk?

You seem to forget that Lechmere at this stage would not have had any idea at all that he would end up in a position where he sought out a PC together with Paul.
What he did on the night if he was the killer, was not something that was planned beforehand - indeed, he could not plan beforehand, since things will happen regardless if we plan.
He could not possibly have known that Paul would surface. Once he did, you are suggesting that he should throw the knife over the fence into Browns, or something such. If he could hear Pauls footsteps - why would not Paul hear the loud sound of a metal blade striking cobblestone? And what if Paul was not Paul but a PC?
Such things, you cannot plan. He held on to the knife, and at this stage, he was not aware that he was about to meet Mizen, was he? Maybe he reasoned "Whoever it is, I´ll bluff him, and then we will go our separate ways".
Then Paul suggests that Lechmere should remain with the body as he fetched a PC.
New game, new rules. He now needs to get away from the site, and so he says he is late too, and suggests they walk together - being two makes it look less suspicious, and maybe he wanted to find out who Paul was and what he was about.

I think you are forgetting the whole picture and how it is tied to circumstances that Lechmere could not rule over. And yes, I know, you think that he could have avoided that by legging it - but it is stepping into the same trap to suggest it, since he did not know at this stage that running could - and that is only could - have helped him avoid Mizen.
Then again, he could have run into the arms of another PC, as Paul yelled Blue murder.

The suggestions about how he should and would have acted differently will never take flight, I´m afraid. Never. I am either correct in saying that he chose to stay put and bluff it out, or I am not. Claiming that I am a fool for doing so is really not the way to go about it. All you can do is to accept that he COULD have done it, and then you must go looking for evidence to the contrary elsewhere. It will save you time, and it will be a better way to do it.

Your conviction that he would have thrown the knife away and run is duly noted, but it does nothing more for you than adding a remark to the protocol. What really happened is not goverened by such remarks, however. It was what it was, and all that CAN be proven is that it could have been either way. Meaning that I may be right, and yes - that you may also be right. End of story.

[Fisherman]

On of the problems with timings for me is the murder of Annie Chapman. I think that’s it’s reasonable to say that the vast majority of working men had to be at work at the same time every day. Therefore it’s reasonable to assume that Lechmere’s start time was 4am. If memory serves I think Fish goes for 4.30ish as the time of her death (I think as per one of the doctors.) This does contradict Long and Cadosch though. Even if we say between 4.30 and 5.30 it’s still after the time that we would expect Lechmere to have been at work. Not conclusive of course but a doubt that we have to make an assumption to overcome.

Memory did not serve you here, I´m afraid. Phillips saw Chapman at 6.30 and said that she had been dead for AT LEAST two hours, but... probably MORE! That means that he did NOT think that Chapman died at 4.30, he thought that she died BEFORE that time. And then he said that since the morning was cold and the damage extensive, he was able to see his way through to accepting two hours only. But it was NOT the probable thing, it was an extreme possibility.

I would go with what he actually believed - MORE than two hours. If you put it down to around three, you will be on my home turf. I think Chapman met the Ripper at somewhere around 3.30, 3.45, give or take a little something. I also think she was slain as he went to work, meaning that I find that time very logical - it jibes with his morning trek and it is in sync with what Phillips believed.

Now, please don´t go "You are fitting it to suit your theory!". I am NOT fitting it, I am listening to Phillips. I could just as easily say that those who throw Phillips to the wolves or choose to say "Phillips allowed for a TOD around 5.30" are doing their utmost to try and defuse what the doctor really said.

And then we would get into another brawl. If we could avoid that, it would be nice. Phillips DID say at least two hours, but probably more, and that DOES mean that Chapman MAY fit with the Lechmere work trail time. It really is that simple.

[Trevor Marriott]

Memory did not serve you here, I´m afraid. Phillips saw Chapman at 6.30 and said that she had been dead for AT LEAST two hours, but... probably MORE! That means that he did NOT think that Chapman died at 4.30, he thought that she died BEFORE that time. And then he said that since the morning was cold and the damage extensive, he was able to see his way through to accepting two hours only. But it was NOT the probable thing, it was an extreme possibility.

I would go with what he actually believed - MORE than two hours. If you put it down to around three, you will be on my home turf. I think Chapman met the Ripper at somewhere around 3.30, 3.45, give or take a little something. I also think she was slain as he went to work, meaning that I find that time very logical - it jibes with his morning trek and it is in sync with what Phillips believed.

Now, please don´t go "You are fitting it to suit your theory!". I am NOT fitting it, I am listening to Phillips. I could just as easily say that those who throw Phillips to the wolves or choose to say "Phillips allowed for a TOD around 5.30" are doing their utmost to try and defuse what the doctor really said.

And then we would get into another brawl. If we could avoid that, it would be nice. Phillips DID say at least two hours, but probably more, and that DOES mean that Chapman MAY fit with the Lechmere work trail time. It really is that simple.

You and others have been told time, and time again, that a time of death cannot be determined by subjective observation. Yet you keep relying on them. These times of death as stated by the doctors are totally unsafe to rely on

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

You and others have been told time, and time again, that a time of death cannot be determined by subjective observation. Yet you keep relying on them. These times of death as stated by the doctors are totally unsafe to rely on

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I have "been told, time and time again" many things, Trevor, and some of them have been outright asinine crap. The idea that the victorian doctors were totally unable to make any calls at all and basically could have been substituted with a twelve-year old icecream vendor is one such thing.

Yes, it can be hard to determine Tod, and yes, doctors sometimes get it wrong even today. There is a famous case where they got it a hundred years wrong. I might tell you about it some day, it is quite fascinating and plays a role in our understanding of these matters today.

What you need to understand about the Chapman case is that the factors that were found, the temperature and the onset of rigor, are perfectly in line with Phillips´suggestion, and that it would be totally bonkers if he was as much wrong as he needs to be to allow for Long being right.
There is only so many ways in which I can say that, and none of those ways seem to sink in with you. I am used to that.

To make Phillips wrong, we need to accept that what he said was onsetting rigor was instead some sort of muscle contraction - but why would we do that? The only purpose it would serve would be to put Philips in doubt, and of course, if we are dead set on that, then we may need to play such dubious cards.

Me, I am not dead set on it at all. I am saying that what the very experienced Phillips said, puts Chapmans TOD in the exact vicinity it needs to be to allow for Lechmere being the killer en route to work.

As theories go, I really could not ask for much more, so I´m apparently a lot happier about it than you are.

[Trevor Marriott]

I have "been told, time and time again" many things, Trevor, and some of them have been outright asinine crap. The idea that the victorian doctors were totally unable to make any calls at all and basically could have been substituted with a twelve-year old icecream vendor is one such thing.

Yes, it can be hard to determine Tod, and yes, doctors sometimes get it wrong even today. There is a famous case where they got it a hundred years wrong. I might tell you about it some day, it is quite fascinating and plays a role in our understanding of these matters today.

What you need to understand about the Chapman case is that the factors that were found, the temperature and the onset of rigor, are perfectly in line with Phillips´suggestion, and that it would be totally bonkers if he was as much wrong as he needs to be to allow for Long being right.
There is only so many ways in which I can say that, and none of those ways seem to sink in with you. I am used to that.

To make Phillips wrong, we need to accept that what he said was onsetting rigor was instead some sort of muscle contraction - but why would we do that? The only purpose it would serve would be to put Philips in doubt, and of course, if we are dead set on that, then we may need to play such dubious cards.

Me, I am not dead set on it at all. I am saying that what the very experienced Phillips said, puts Chapmans TOD in the exact vicinity it needs to be to allow for Lechmere being the killer en route to work.

As theories go, I really could not ask for much more, so I´m apparently a lot happier about it than you are.

The you are misguided and totally blinkered to anything that goes aginst what you believe. It is not me telling you that it is a forensic pathologist and I quote yet again, so i would suggest you extract your head from wherever you have it buried and take note.

Dr Biggs
"In the olden days, doctors used to state a confident and precise ‘time of death’ based on subjective observations, but this was little more than guesswork. Nowadays, we recognize that it is subjective and highly variable. In fact, the official guidance from the Forensic Science Regulator is that pathologists shouldn’t attempt to estimate the post mortem interval! Even with a measured temperature you couldn’t estimate a time since death to within less than a few hours. Suggesting that death happened 30 minutes previously based on subjective observations would be laughed out of court these days... but in 1888 people believed just about anything a doctor said"

Note this comment was in relation to his review of the Nichols murder, which you believe was committed by Lechmere.

It also applies to the estimated times of the deaths of the other victims

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

The you are misguided and totally blinkered to anything that goes aginst what you believe. It is not me telling you that it is a forensic pathologist and I quote yet again, so i would suggest you extract your head from wherever you have it buried and take note.

Dr Biggs
"In the olden days, doctors used to state a confident and precise ‘time of death’ based on subjective observations, but this was little more than guesswork. Nowadays, we recognize that it is subjective and highly variable. In fact, the official guidance from the Forensic Science Regulator is that pathologists shouldn’t attempt to estimate the post mortem interval! Even with a measured temperature you couldn’t estimate a time since death to within less than a few hours. Suggesting that death happened 30 minutes previously based on subjective observations would be laughed out of court these days... but in 1888 people believed just about anything a doctor said"

Note this comment was in relation to his review of the Nichols murder, which you believe was committed by Lechmere.

It also applies to the estimated times of the deaths of the other victims

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor, you are ridiculously predictable. You keep calling me blinkered and misguided, and the only conclusion I can draw from that is that posters who believe that the Ripper never took a single organ out from the C5 victims are the ones who are truly unblinkered and factbased.

For some reason, although this should have made you the genius out here, it would seem that the outcome has been a totally different one. But I suppose that is because each and everyone of us out here is misguided and blinkered?

Phillips said that Chapman had been dead for at least two hours, and probably more. He was hugely experienced, he had established TOD:s on multiple occasions before, and if he had always been wrong, I somehow suspect that it would have been noted. The practice was an uncertain one to a degree, but not to the degree that any such establishing can be thrown out. On the contrary - we must lend an ear to Phillips, for he has temperature and rigor in line with his suggestion.

You have a burning desire to nullify this, and I really could not care less about it, but for how I think it sad that somebodycan be so totally disrespectful of the knowledge of the collected victorian medicos. But disrespect away, by all means - in the end, all that matters is that the only professional estimation made of the TOD of Annie Chapman puts her death very close in time to when Lechmere would have passed 29 Hanbury Street, if he used that route that morning, as he did in the Nichols case.

I am deeply sorry for how the facts and estimations from back then all are in line with Lechmere as the killer. But I am even more sorry about how some out here, on noticing that, opt for saying that it is blinkered and misguided to point it out. Somebody who tells us that the body parts missing from the Ripper victims were taken after they had been carried to the morgue, who claims that it is a proven matter that the torso victims were likely not murders and who has a habit of getting things totally wrong whenever he dabbles in the subject of Ripperology.

Dabble away, Trevor, but don´t be surprised if I loose interest in you very quickly. Like now, for example.

[Trevor Marriott]

Phillips said that Chapman had been dead for at least two hours, and probably more. He was hugely experienced, he had established TOD:s on multiple occasions before, and if he had always been wrong, I somehow suspect that it would have been noted. The practice was an uncertain one to a degree, but not to the degree that any such establishing can be thrown out. On the contrary - we must lend an ear to Phillips, for he has temperature and rigor in line with his suggestion.

You have a burning desire to nullify this, and I really could not care less about it, but for how I think it sad that somebody can be so totally disrespectful of the knowledge of the collected victorian medicos. But disrespect away, by all means - in the end, all that matters is that the only professional estimation made of the TOD of Annie Chapman puts her death very close in time to when Lechmere would have passed 29 Hanbury Street, if he used that route that morning, as he did in the Nichols case.

Dabble away, Trevor, but don´t be surprised if I loose interest in you very quickly. Like now, for example.

Of course you will lose interest, we have seen the same stock answer time and again from you when you are presented with facts that blow a hole in your theory.

I am not being disrespectful to the Victorian Doctors. I am simply reminding you and others that the times of death you seek so much to rely on cannot be relied upon as being accurate

The only burning desire I have is to get to the truth, and in doing just that remove Lechmere from being a suspect to which his current suspect status is poorly deserved.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Michael W Richards]

Memory did not serve you here, I´m afraid. Phillips saw Chapman at 6.30 and said that she had been dead for AT LEAST two hours, but... probably MORE! That means that he did NOT think that Chapman died at 4.30, he thought that she died BEFORE that time. And then he said that since the morning was cold and the damage extensive, he was able to see his way through to accepting two hours only. But it was NOT the probable thing, it was an extreme possibility.

I would go with what he actually believed - MORE than two hours. If you put it down to around three, you will be on my home turf. I think Chapman met the Ripper at somewhere around 3.30, 3.45, give or take a little something. I also think she was slain as he went to work, meaning that I find that time very logical - it jibes with his morning trek and it is in sync with what Phillips believed.

Now, please don´t go "You are fitting it to suit your theory!". I am NOT fitting it, I am listening to Phillips. I could just as easily say that those who throw Phillips to the wolves or choose to say "Phillips allowed for a TOD around 5.30" are doing their utmost to try and defuse what the doctor really said.

And then we would get into another brawl. If we could avoid that, it would be nice. Phillips DID say at least two hours, but probably more, and that DOES mean that Chapman MAY fit with the Lechmere work trail time. It really is that simple.

Someone made a thud and a weak cry of "no" around 5:15, and Richardson was in the yard 15 minutes before 6 and saw nothing. Nuff said about dead 2 hours, considering she was found a little before 6am.

[Fisherman]

Someone made a thud and a weak cry of "no" around 5:15, and Richardson was in the yard 15 minutes before 6 and saw nothing. Nuff said about dead 2 hours, considering she was found a little before 6am.

I know that this was suggested. The police investigated things, and had no problems accepting that Phillips was correct, Michael. They apparently opted for his version.