Lechmere was Jack the Ripper

[Fisherman]

Only if you're running a fever. Besides, "sickly" doesn't mean "sick", necessarily, but "unhealthy" or "in poor health".

By "sickly", I was referring to her undernourished state - I should have been more explicit, sorry. Being malnourished, as Chapman was, and as Phillips noted, isn't conducive to maintaining a normal body temperature; indeed, it lowers it.

There are many diseases that give a heightened body temperature - or so I gather. I am not a biologist, as Caz so kindly has pointed out, but thatīs how it reads when you research it.

Malnourishment may lower the body temperature, at least in situations when yu have had no food for a while, and so you have no energy to burn. 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.

Besides, Phillips was indeed the one who pointed the malnourishment out, and so he will reasonably have weighed it in in his verdict. He had all the cards on hand.

[ohrocky]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;455918

So here goes again. For the umpteenth time:

We donīt know that he was NOT violent. We have no information either way. [/QUOTE]

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?

[caz]

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. Why? Because experts tell us that the methods employed to check TOD are subject to a multitude of variations which affect the final decision (even much later than 1888)
And for Richardson to have not seen the body he’d have had to conform to a very specific series of actions when entering and leaving the yard. He’d have had to have sat in a very specific position with the door in a very specific position and difficult position (for someone working on his shoe.) in short the chances are very slight.
Add this to the facts that we have no solid evidence that Richardson might have lied and that he was so confident (with good reason) that he couldn’t have missed her and we are left with the very obvious and overwhelming likelihood. That Annie Chapman was still alive at 4.45am.

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

[Patrick S]

Itīs a good thing then, that I see it very clearly. And when I do, I will point it out.

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.

The difference may seem a subtle one, but if I donīt apply it, I leave the field open for the ones who want to misrepresent me and take away from the overall credibility of what I say.

I trust you can see how that works.

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.

[caz]

Being sickly is probably more likely to raise your temperature, Gareth. And as I keep saying, Phillips would not have been alien to the fact that being out in the open cools your skin. On the contrary, he would have been quite aware of it and he would of course have weighed it in.

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.

I notice that you forget about the rigor and digestion parts. Please remember that they were all in sync with a TOD around 3.30. It is not just the temperature, it is multiple factors that you must spirit away.

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

[Sam Flynn]

Being sickly is probably more likely to raise your temperature.

Only if you're running a fever. Besides, "sickly" doesn't mean "sick", necessarily, but "unhealthy" or "in poor health".

By "sickly", I was referring to her undernourished state - I should have been more explicit, sorry. Being malnourished, as Chapman was, and as Phillips noted, isn't conducive to maintaining a normal body temperature; indeed, it lowers it.

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Herlock Sholmes;455986]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?

[Fisherman]

From the same book that I previously quoted from. This from a modern day case:

“The Defense called to the stand four equally renowned forensic pathologists who testified that the time of death could never be pinpointed by something as variable as digestion. Although a typical meal takes two to four hours to pass out of the stomach, a hundred different factors could speed or delay the process, they argued.”

Again, if you know better.......

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?

[Herlock Sholmes]

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. Why? Because experts tell us that the methods employed to check TOD are subject to a multitude of variations which affect the final decision (even much later than 1888)
And for Richardson to have not seen the body he’d have had to conform to a very specific series of actions when entering and leaving the yard. He’d have had to have sat in a very specific position with the door in a very specific position and difficult position (for someone working on his shoe.) in short the chances are very slight.
Add this to the facts that we have no solid evidence that Richardson might have lied and that he was so confident (with good reason) that he couldn’t have missed her and we are left with the very obvious and overwhelming likelihood. That Annie Chapman was still alive at 4.45am.

[Fisherman]

And, of course, you're less than accurate in your statement here. You have, repeatedly, used Lechmere's assumed psychopathy as explanation for his behavior in Buck's Row, Baker's Row, and at the inquest.

In Buck's Row, rather than simply walking away (or toward and past) Paul in Buck's Row he remained and chose to "bluff his way out". He did not flee because he did not suffer a "consciousness of guilt". He remained cool, in control. Of course, his behavior makes sense if he's only a man who found a body and alerted the first person he met. It makes no sense if he killed Nichols... but it DOES make sense, you have said, many times... because he was a psychopath.

He could have parted ways with Paul before reaching Mizen. He could have simply walked the other direction down Buck's Row in that he KNEW which way Paul was headed, promising to send a PC when he found one... "Let's double our efforts!". He didn't. He remained with Paul, found Mizen in Baker's Row and remained calm, cool, and in control and he made Paul his unwitting dupe and scammed Mizen. He was able to do this, you have said, because he was a psychopath.

Now, I do struggle with why this cool, unshakable psychopath would be RATTLED... DRIVEN out of his cage and AGAIN into police clutches by Paul's Lloyd's statement, but you've alleged that also. So that's what he does, able to pull of his ruse, calling Mizen a liar from the stand, pulling the wool over everyone's eyes... in control, calm... because he was a psychopath.

You have said all of these things. So, I apologize where I may have misled, although I don't see where.

Itīs a good thing then, that I see it very clearly. And when I do, I will point it out.

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.

The difference may seem a subtle one, but if I donīt apply it, I leave the field open for the ones who want to misrepresent me and take away from the overall credibility of what I say.

I trust you can see how that works.

[Fisherman]

Earthshattering, Fish? Really?? The difference between one hour or two? 5.30 or 4.30?

If you can show us all how much previous experience Phillips had with women in very poor health, who turned up in back yards at dawn, murdered and mutilated, lacking a large quantity of their blood, after spending much of a cool, early autumn night in the open air, at the mercy of the elements, I'll reconsider my position that his estimate of at least two hours, probably more, may easily have been out by - ooh - shall we say an hour or more?

Phillips only qualified his opinion with reference to the fact that the morning was a cool one and Chapman had lost a lot of blood, both factors relating to temperature and how much more rapidly than usual this particular body may have cooled as a result of both. If he had believed his 'at least two hours' was accurate and beyond question, when also taking into account the rigor mortis and digestion factors, he could have said so. But I don't think he did, did he?

Love,

Caz
X

Yes, earthshattering. "It is just an hours difference" you say - but the truth is that it is a 100 per cent addition when you go from 4.30 to 5.30. And it would have been MORE if Phillips was correct. So yes, earthshattering indeed. And just as unlikely.

He did say "at least two hours" and he did say "commencing rigor".

It is only the ones looking desperately for ways out of that who need to hear more.

[Fisherman]

"Cold" is only subjective description, arrived at only by Phillips having touched the skin with his hand. Furthermore, Chapman had been out in the open air before death, was a sickly person to begin with, had been eviscerated, and had lost a lot of blood in a very short time. No wonder she felt cold.

Being sickly is probably more likely to raise your temperature, Gareth. And as I keep saying, Phillips would not have been alien to the fact that being out in the open cools your skin. On the contrary, he would have been quite aware of it and he would of course have weighed it in.

I notice that you forget about the rigor and digestion parts. Please remember that they were all in sync with a TOD around 3.30. It is not just the temperature, it is multiple factors that you must spirit away.

[Herlock Sholmes]

And why is it that the potato meal was in the state of semi-digestion that it should have been if it was a couple of hours old?

From the same book that I previously quoted from. This from a modern day case:

“The Defense called to the stand four equally renowned forensic pathologists who testified that the time of death could never be pinpointed by something as variable as digestion. Although a typical meal takes two to four hours to pass out of the stomach, a hundred different factors could speed or delay the process, they argued.”

Again, if you know better.......

[caz]

No, we donīt know what Chapman had eaten and when. We only know that if that potato was her last meal, then it adds up nicely with the temperature factor and the rigor ditto.

Thatīs not half bad, as evidence goes.

Luck had very little to do with Phillips assessments of TOD. Experience and knowledge was what governed him. There was good knowledge of the temperatur drops after death back in 1888, and we must not loose track of what you are suggestion is not a minor flaw - it is an earthshattering one, and as such totally implausible. Next to impossible, Iīd say.

Earthshattering, Fish? Really?? The difference between one hour or two? 5.30 or 4.30?

If you can show us all how much previous experience Phillips had with women in very poor health, who turned up in back yards at dawn, murdered and mutilated, lacking a large quantity of their blood, after spending much of a cool, early autumn night in the open air, at the mercy of the elements, I'll reconsider my position that his estimate of at least two hours, probably more, may easily have been out by - ooh - shall we say an hour or more?

Phillips only qualified his opinion with reference to the fact that the morning was a cool one and Chapman had lost a lot of blood, both factors relating to temperature and how much more rapidly than usual this particular body may have cooled as a result of both. If he had believed his 'at least two hours' was accurate and beyond question, when also taking into account the rigor mortis and digestion factors, he could have said so. But I don't think he did, did he? After giving his estimate, he said: "...but it was right to mention..." the cooling factors of the outside temperature and blood loss. Why add this qualification, and not mention the other factors, if they were enough to nail it?

Love,

Caz
X

[Patrick S]

[I]

And you of course mislead about the psychopathy angle. What I DO say is that the Ripper was in all likelihood a psychopath, and that therefore, whoever we cast in the Ripperīs role, he must be regarded as one. That goes for Lechmere too - if he was the killer, he was also a psychopath.

It should surprise noone, by the way - around 90 per cent of serialists are psychopaths.

And, of course, you're less than accurate in your statement here. You have, repeatedly, used Lechmere's assumed psychopathy as explanation for his behavior in Buck's Row, Baker's Row, and at the inquest.

In Buck's Row, rather than simply walking away (or toward and past) Paul in Buck's Row he remained and chose to "bluff his way out". He did not flee because he did not suffer a "consciousness of guilt". He remained cool, in control. Of course, his behavior makes sense if he's only a man who found a body and alerted the first person he met. It makes no sense if he killed Nichols... but it DOES make sense, you have said, many times... because he was a psychopath.

He could have parted ways with Paul before reaching Mizen. He could have simply walked the other direction down Buck's Row in that he KNEW which way Paul was headed, promising to send a PC when he found one... "Let's double our efforts!". He didn't. He remained with Paul, found Mizen in Baker's Row and remained calm, cool, and in control and he made Paul his unwitting dupe and scammed Mizen. He was able to do this, you have said, because he was a psychopath.

Now, I do struggle with why this cool, unshakable psychopath would be RATTLED... DRIVEN out of his cage and AGAIN into police clutches by Paul's Lloyd's statement, but you've alleged that also. So that's what he does, able to pull of his ruse, calling Mizen a liar from the stand, pulling the wool over everyone's eyes... in control, calm... because he was a psychopath.

You have said all of these things. So, I apologize where I may have misled, although I don't see where.