Lechmere was Jack the Ripper

[Fisherman]

Normal outcomes would discount your description of Richardson’s actions.

You are a bit triggerhappy, and that wonīt do.

These matters are something we can only judge when we know exactly how he moved on the night and in what light conditions, how the door moved and so on. It is in relation to those factors, all of them unknown to a larger or lesser degree, we can judge how a normal outcome would look.

[Fisherman]

Typo alert!

Disembowelled corpse, Herlock; the Ripper dismembered no-one.

Actually, he very probably did.

[Sam Flynn]

Annie Chapman was cold but for a little remaining heat under the intestines. She was no longer 36,5-38 degrees celsius and had not been so for the longest time.

If only we knew the exact figure, eh? Sadly, since Phillips did not use a thermometer, we'll never know. Instead, he gives us a vague "cold" outer skin and an unspecified "remaining heat" under the intestines, merely by using his hands. Both measures unquantified and subjective.

[Sam Flynn]

But it just so happens that we know that Chapman did eat before she went out on the murder night, and so that factor does not need to come into play.

According to Phillips she showed signs of long-standing deprivation. One meal isn't going to fix that, never mind one potato.

[Sam Flynn]

It’s far, far easier to look around a yard and see I dismembered corpse

Typo alert!

Disembowelled corpse, Herlock; the Ripper dismembered no-one.

[Elamarna]

am back

Just a brief post to say that I will be posting regularily again in the very near future, the gap as been due to:

a) Relocation from London to Glasgow.

b) Writing up "Inside Bucks Row", nearly complete now. a summary report here in October before publication in November, nearly a year late, but such is life.

Looking at this thread, its the same repeated arguments seen before:
The opinion of a 19th century Doctor, should be regarded as being acurate, even when his own reports are vague, as with temperature; there was no attempt to record an actual temperature, just general descriptive terms are used.
Words like "cold" or "warm"tell us nothing of any real value.

The same reports also show a failure to comprehend what is actually being observed, as demonstrated by the comments on the time that would be required to carry out the murders.

Of course, phillips is not alone, similar failures are evident in Bucks Row.

It is not that the Medics made mistakes, its that their knowledge was sadly lacking, compared to even a few years later.

To take these utterances on such issues as TOD as factually acurrate is to actually ignore medicine and science, not to use it.


Glad to see nothing changes

Steve

[Fisherman]

Sometimes when the wind is blowing at a certain angle, I can still hear old David Radka intoning something about British empiricism vs Continental rationalism.

"Evidence schmevidence," is how he put it.

Fish, I believe, is European. I'm an empiricist so I don't quite grasp his thinking, but it could be that he is attempting something along the lines of "pure reason" and is not as enamored of empirical data as the average Yank or Brit.

That said, I'm afraid I'm with Patrick S on this one. Put the horse back in front of the cart. Find evidence of psychopathy independent of the Ripper murders and then proceed forwards.


I've done so. Like Melville Macnaghten, I can name three men more likely to have been the Ripper, but I don't leave Tom Cutbush out either: Klosowski. Tumilty. Deeming. Widespread psychopathic behavior, proven criminal records, etc.

Any takers? I doubt it.

The trouble is, most 'Ripperologists' actively campaign against these four men as vigorously as they campaign against Lechmere and Hutchinson and Barnett and the rest of the choir boys.

Maybe Crazy Mike Barrett stumbled upon the perfect metaphor for "Ripperology": a compass without 'fingers.'

With no methodology to point north, all directions are the same.

Fish is actually Swedish. And he does not put the cart before the horse.

The Ripper murders display a total lack of empathy for the victims. They were treated as objects by the killer, objects with organs and flesh that he desired to cut into and - sometimes - take away.

That is a surefire indication of psychopathy if I ever saw one.

I therefore say that we may be very certain that whoever killed the C5, that person - if it was indeed one person, and I think it was - was undoubtedly a thoroughbred psychopath.

Any objections so far? Or?

As a consquence of this, I say that IF Charles Lechmere was the killer, then he must have been a psychopath. Actually, regardless of who the killer was this applis: psychopath. Doubtlessly.

Any disagreements that far?

Now, I am of course of the meaning that Lechmere is the killer, and in that respect, his behaviour after the murder seems to be very coldblooded and in line with psychopathy. But that is a suggestion, a possibility only. But one that must be looked into, I think.

Horse. Carriage. Okay?

[Patrick S]

It is apparently too subtle for you to see the difference, even.

I am not saying "Lechmere was a psychopath because he was Jack the Ripper"

I am saying "The Ripper was a psychopath. Therefore, anyone who was the killer must have been so. Ergo, if Lechmere was the Ripper, he was a psychopath".

Surely, it is not THAT subtle? Your faulty example works from how being Jack the Ripper guaranteed that Lechmere was a psychopath, but I donīt say that he was Jack the Ripper. I am saying that I THINK he was, and REGARDLESS if he was or not, it remains that the one person who WAS the Ripper will have been a psychopath.

Can you see how your variant leaves me open to all sorts of accuastions of a circular reasoning, whereas my variant does not? Thatīs subtlety for you.

Accordingy, I donīt have to present any kind of evidence at all that Lechmere was a psychopath. I am fine with saying that the Ripper undoubtedly was, and that Lechmere will have been - if he was the killer.

You see, clumsy as I may seem, I am not clumsy enough to walk into that kind of trap, Patrick And in the end, it is only more of the "you cannot prove that he was violent" stuff - and therefore utterly useless.

I'm not trying to put you in a trap. You're ascribing your own MO to me. You use a lot of words here to say.... essentially nothing. You haven't refuted, in the least, what I've described: YOU say that you THINK Lechmere was Jack the Ripper and that the person who WAS Jack the Ripper WILL have been a psychopath. These are your words, taken from above! Then we see that you use the fact that you THINK Lechmere was the Ripper and the Ripper WILL have been a psychopath to explain reasonable behavior that becomes sinister when we... allow that Lechmere was a psychopath. Remaining at the scene, bluffing and duping Robert Paul, The Mizen Scam, his ability to kill and appear at work completely unflustered, his appearance at the inquest. In fact, in a recent reply to me you called much of what I've listed here EVIDENCE. None of this can be credibly disputed.

[Herlock Sholmes]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;455988]

There is less chance of Richardson missing an horrifically mutilated corpse in a small yard than there is of Phillips being out in his estimated TOD.

/QUOTE]

"And if you believe THAT, weīre gonna get along just fine"

(Steve Earle, "Snake Oil")

Basically, what you are saying is that an experienced medico is more likely to get things totally wrong than it is that a witness who has been shown to give wildly differing versions of events at different times is shaky - to say the least.

You are saying that it is more likely that all three parameters involved in the case are likely to have been misjudged or off - although they are in perfect sync - than it is that a shaky witness is overoptimistic about something.

Letīs just say I disagree. Totally.

But have we not been over this a hundred times now, Herlock? Do you think reiterating sillyness makes it true?

What I’m saying is that, as the experts have said, there are so many ways that a TOD estimation could be wrong. It’s far, far easier to look around a yard and see I dismembered corpse, especially when that person says that he couldn’t have missed it.

This is end of.

You’re desperation to cling on is just an embarrassment.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Again, I donīt. Again, I DO know that there are normal outcomes and there are extreme deviations at times. Again, since all three parameters in this case jibe, everything points to all these parameters having developed along the normal scale.

You can dig as long as you wish for exceptions to the rule. Itīs all good and well as long as you understand what "rule" means.

This is the same approach as has been used visavi Nichols, where it has been said that that blood can go on running forever in the odd case.

Odd cases. That is what you lean against. Extremes, deviations, exceptions.

Much as I do not say they do not exist, I thoroughly recommend sticking with the normal outcome as the more logical one. Not least when we have three (3) parameters in sync along the normal scale.

Anything more, Herlock?

Normal outcomes would discount your description of Richardson’s actions.

[rjpalmer]

Surely that isn't a reasoned argument?

Sometimes when the wind is blowing at a certain angle, I can still hear old David Radka intoning something about British empiricism vs Continental rationalism.

"Evidence schmevidence," is how he put it.

Fish, I believe, is European. I'm an empiricist so I don't quite grasp his thinking, but it could be that he is attempting something along the lines of "pure reason" and is not as enamored of empirical data as the average Yank or Brit.

That said, I'm afraid I'm with Patrick S on this one. Put the horse back in front of the cart. Find evidence of psychopathy independent of the Ripper murders and then proceed forwards.


I've done so. Like Melville Macnaghten, I can name three men more likely to have been the Ripper, but I don't leave Tom Cutbush out either: Klosowski. Tumilty. Deeming. Widespread psychopathic behavior, proven criminal records, etc.

Any takers? I doubt it.

The trouble is, most 'Ripperologists' actively campaign against these four men as vigorously as they campaign against Lechmere and Hutchinson and Barnett and the rest of the choir boys.

Maybe Crazy Mike Barrett stumbled upon the perfect metaphor for "Ripperology": a compass without 'fingers.'

With no methodology to point north, all directions are the same.

[Fisherman]

There's no difference, subtle or otherwise. You just said, again, exactly what I'd said you said. And... No one need misrepresent you. I think what you've written here should stand as both prologue and warning to those wishing to advocate Lechmere as Jack the Ripper.

"I cannot say that things make sense since Lechmere was a psychopath, all I can say is that IF he was the killer, then he MUST have been a psychopath, and IF he was, what he did makes sense."

With an eye on what you've written here, what evidence - however slight - do you have that Charles Lechmere was a psychopath? Do you have any such evidence? Do you have evidence that he was violent? Do you have evidence of mental issues of any kind (depression, anxiety)? Do you have evidence that he was treated for any mental disorder or issues? Do you have evidence of his arrest or incarceration?

Oh. And please don't respond with more examples of "serialists" with no history of violence or mental issues before they were arrested for serial murder. That's quite different because they were, in the end, arrested for serial murder. If we apply your metric of assuming psychopathy without something like an ARREST and/or CONVICTION for serial murder to ANY person or witness involved with nearly ANY case... then we begin to view their actions quite differently, as you should well know.

It is apparently too subtle for you to see the difference, even.

I am not saying "Lechmere was a psychopath because he was Jack the Ripper"

I am saying "The Ripper was a psychopath. Therefore, anyone who was the killer must have been so. Ergo, if Lechmere was the Ripper, he was a psychopath".

Surely, it is not THAT subtle? Your faulty example works from how being Jack the Ripper guaranteed that Lechmere was a psychopath, but I donīt say that he was Jack the Ripper. I am saying that I THINK he was, and REGARDLESS if he was or not, it remains that the one person who WAS the Ripper will have been a psychopath.

Can you see how your variant leaves me open to all sorts of accusations of circular reasoning, whereas my variant does not? Thatīs subtlety for you.

Accordingly, I donīt have to present any kind of evidence at all that Lechmere was a psychopath. I am fine with saying that the Ripper undoubtedly was, and that Lechmere will have been - if he was the killer.

You see, clumsy as I may seem, I am not clumsy enough to walk into that kind of trap, Patrick. And in the end, it is only more of the "you cannot prove that he was violent" stuff - and therefore utterly useless.

[Fisherman]

Hi HS,

I suppose we should have known, from how Fish slithers his way round any and all objections concerning Buck's Row, that he would do the same with Hanbury Street. He's like an electric eel.

Love,

Caz
X

Yes, I am a bit of a power source, whereas you are more of a curfew. Lights out.

But you are correct in pointing out "all the objections" about Bucks Row - I call these objections "alternative innocent explanations", and they do come thick and fast.

None of them can be ruled out.

And none of them can change the points of suspicion. They steadfastly remain. Itīs not as Trevor Marriott seems to think - he corked up the champagne when he realized that there are alternative innocent explanations in spades (there always is) and told me that my theory had been "blown out of the water".

Thatīs a memorable moment.

[Fisherman]

But how would Phillips have known whether she'd been 'out in the open' for hours on end, or for only a couple of minutes before being attacked? For all he knew, when arriving at his estimate, she could have been struck down as she popped out to use the privy, at whatever hour of the morning that happened to be. Popping out warm and killed at 4.30, cold two hours later at 6.30. Out and about from 1.30 and killed at 5.30, equally cold by 6.30.



All these factors are now known to be inherently unreliable, Fish, as others have pointed out to you, quoting from the experts in each case.

Forget about multiple factors; think multiple variations and multiple unknowns and you might get a little warmer. Warmer than Chapman felt at 6.30am at any rate!

Love,

Caz
X

Body temperature is normally around 36,5-38 degrees celsius. Once we die, it normally subsides by a degree and a half per hour during the first twelve hours, regardelss if we pop out to use the privy or not.

Annie Chapman was cold but for a little remaining heat under the intestines. She was no longer 36,5-38 degrees celsius and had not been so for the longest time. Going inside will not raise or lower our body temperature. Otherwise, we would catch a fever when going to the pub and sitting by the fire.

We donīt.

"Forget about the multiple factors"? Why on earth would I do that? What possible reason could I have? And why would I think "multiple variations" when the medical factors disallow for it? It matters very little that the factors are, ehrm, "inherently unreliable" (which is a bit thick), since our troubles are over when we DO have multiple factors that are in sync. Once that happens, there is no reason at all not to accept their indications.

[Fisherman]

So the presumption should be that we assume that everybody IS violent until there is evidence that they are NOT violent?

Surely that isn't a reasoned argument?

Nor is it my argument, but instead something you ascribe to me for no reason at all.

Why?