Lechmere was Jack the Ripper

[Patrick S]

"If one can be recruited to viewing what you present with "an eye on Lechmere's guilt", then it all may add up and that individual may go forth and trumpet the case closed!"

THERE you are, Patrick! It wasn´t all that hard, was it?

I see you still honour the age-old misapprehansion that family men are not serial killers. I have explained to you before how that relates to reality, as described by - among others - Robert Ressler.

I won´t do it again.

Oh, please do explain again! You do it so well.

I don't honor that misapprehension, in fact. However, I do not ASSUME that family men are serial killers, just as I do not assume they alcoholics. Yet, if every Sunday, Tuesday, and Thursday for five years, I strolled by my family man neighbor's home and saw him babbling on the ground in a pool of his own urine, I may reach that conclusion. But, if you TOLD me that this man was alcoholic before I ever met him... Well, then. I'd view each beer can or wine bottle I saw in his trash bin as confirmation of that "fact". This is why we do not, as a rule, view individuals as GUILTY of anything before we have EVIDENCE of that guilt. Thus we begin seeing "evidence" everywhere we look.

[Sam Flynn]

why is it that she also had a very dramatical temperature drop, rendering her cold?

"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.

[Fisherman]

It's exactly what the boards are for. I used the quote, and pointed out that it was yours because, as best I can tell, it's quite unique. That is to say, I cannot recall anyone who's postulated a theory or proposed a "suspect" or "candidate" asking their audience to "view the evidence with eye on ____ 's guilt".

Usually one presents evidence to be considered without prejudice, hoping they've presented a compelling enough case that their theory will be accepted to some degree, considered possible, plausible, etc.

And it wasn't posted as "just a fluke", obviously, because it get's the the heart of this years-long debate, doesn't it? If one can be recruited to viewing what you present with "an eye on Lechmere's guilt", then it all may add up and that individual may go forth and trumpet the case closed! If one cannot, well, I think they rather find themselves where myself and so many others find ourselves: understanding that we MUST view these many scenarios with prejudice in order for it stand in the slightest. Because ONLY if we view this "evidence" prejudging Lechmere as Jack the Ripper can we believe in the Mizen Scam, Robert Paul's duel roles as Lechmere's dupe and self-aggrandizing police-hater, John Richardson's lies, Phillips' inaccuracy in establishing Chapman's time of death....ONLY if we believe in Lechmere's guilt from the outset can we fit these things as "evidence" pointing to Lechmere's guilt.

As well... and as you've said here may times... we must ALSO believe that Lechmere was a psychopath. And must believe "he was a psychopath because he was Jack the Ripper". Even though we have no evidence from the man's life that he was a psychopath.... we have no arrest records, no complaints of violence, ten children, a long career with Pickfords, a fifty-plus year marriage... yet... we must assume he was a psychopath, ONLY because you postulate that he was Jack the Ripper.

"If one can be recruited to viewing what you present with "an eye on Lechmere's guilt", then it all may add up and that individual may go forth and trumpet the case closed!"

THERE you are, Patrick! It wasn´t all that hard, was it?

I see you still honour the age-old misapprehansion that family men are not serial killers. I have explained to you before how that relates to reality, as described by - among others - Robert Ressler.

I won´t do it again.

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 Ripper´s 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.

[Fisherman]

In her book Time Of Death, Jessica Snyder-Sachs, when writing specifically about 19th century Pathologists and their use of the trio of ‘stopwatches’ -rigor mortis, algor mortis and livor mortis to determine time of death, says:

“But from their first use, the Pathologist’s three standard timepieces have proved unreliable, plagued as they are by death’s infinite variations. Age, body size, health, manner of death, ambient temperature, air movement, even something seemingly ineffable as the agony of the victim’s final moments has been found to skew the body’s post-mortem changes beyond predictability.”

Now of course Fish if you know better than the experts........

Oh, but I don´t. However, I DO know that the matter at hand HAS a normal development. I also know that there will always be exceptions to the rule.

In the case of your snippet here, I do not see it suggested that rigor can occur within the hour, of course - but as such, I do not rule out that it can, in exceptional cases.

However,if rigor HAD occurred within the hour with Chapman, why is it that she also had a very dramatical temperature drop, rendering her cold?

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?

You see, we can always say "but maybe THIS was the exceptional case, where all of these three parameters for some reason failed to stay normal" - but I would recommend saying that it was instead a case where we should expect the normal outcome, just as always.

If ONE parameter had been out, that is to say that if the potato meal was entirely digested and the body was quite warm wheras rigor had commenced, then we could say "how odd that rigor should not follow the normal curve". But when all three parameters suggest a TOD around three hours back in time, we really should not spend our time looking for extreme cases to compare with. There was nothing at all extreme with Chapman if she died at 3.30. Then again ALL parameters were extreme if she died at 5.30.

Go figure, that´s what I say.

[Patrick S]

What made you use the quotation? And point out that it was mine? Nothing at all, it was just a fluke...?

This is not what the thread and boards are for.

It's exactly what the boards are for. I used the quote, and pointed out that it was yours because, as best I can tell, it's quite unique. That is to say, I cannot recall anyone who's postulated a theory or proposed a "suspect" or "candidate" asking their audience to "view the evidence with eye on ____ 's guilt".

Usually one presents evidence to be considered without prejudice, hoping they've presented a compelling enough case that their theory will be accepted to some degree, considered possible, plausible, etc.

And it wasn't posted as "just a fluke", obviously, because it get's the the heart of this years-long debate, doesn't it? If one can be recruited to viewing what you present with "an eye on Lechmere's guilt", then it all may add up and that individual may go forth and trumpet the case closed! If one cannot, well, I think they rather find themselves where myself and so many others find ourselves: understanding that we MUST view these many scenarios with prejudice in order for it stand in the slightest. Because ONLY if we view this "evidence" prejudging Lechmere as Jack the Ripper can we believe in the Mizen Scam, Robert Paul's duel roles as Lechmere's dupe and self-aggrandizing police-hater, John Richardson's lies, Phillips' inaccuracy in establishing Chapman's time of death....ONLY if we believe in Lechmere's guilt from the outset can we fit these things as "evidence" pointing to Lechmere's guilt.

As well... and as you've said here may times... we must ALSO believe that Lechmere was a psychopath. And must believe "he was a psychopath because he was Jack the Ripper". Even though we have no evidence from the man's life that he was a psychopath.... we have no arrest records, no complaints of violence, ten children, a long career with Pickfords, a fifty-plus year marriage... yet... we must assume he was a psychopath, ONLY because you postulate that he was Jack the Ripper.

[Fisherman]

And your source for that is...?
Who's talking about "many, many degrees"? The skin of a living person can, and does, feel cold if s/he's been out and about in the open air. It only requires a drop of a few degrees for something to feel colder to the touch, but it requires a thermometer to measure such things accurately.

Rigor mortis is a complex process, influenced by a number of factors. For example: "In deaths from diseases causing great exhaustion and wasting, e.g. cholera, typhoid, tuberculosis, cancer etc, and in violent death as by cut-throat, the onset of rigor is early and duration is short"
(http://www.forensicpathologyonline.c...scular-changes)

The facts are that Richardson saw nobody, and no body, in the yard just before 5AM despite sitting two or three feet away from the body and that Cadosch heard voices and something fall against the fence next door some 40-odd minutes later, shortly before Davis saw that the front door had been left (wide) open.

What we have from Phillips is a subjective assessment of temperature (by hand!), and a subjective opinion (which he himself caveated) of time of death - neither of these is a fact.

Yes, Phillips did not use a rectal thermometer. No, that does not open up for him being wildly wrong. Yes, rigor is a complex business. No, that does not mean that we should expect wild deviations.

The fact of the matter is that all the parameters on show tied up nicely. She should not have been cold if she had been in place an hour only, but she was. She should not have had commencing rigor if she had only been on place for an hour, but she had. The meal of a potatoe should be in the process of semi-digestion, and it was.

The "facts" are not that Richardson saw, or Cadosch heard or Long noticed - the true fafcts are that they SAID they saw, heard and noticed.

Phillips never caveated in a way that allowed a single minutes detraction from his two hour mark. He clearly said AT LEAST two hours, but probably more. He would not say that and then add that he may well have been wrong. His caveat allowed for two hours only, but he did NOT think that it sufficed, which is why he said "probably more".
This has been tormented languagewise by those who want to dismiss Phillips, which goes to show just how much they have on their hands.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No, we don´t 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.

That´s 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, I´d say.

In her book Time Of Death, Jessica Snyder-Sachs, when writing specifically about 19th century Pathologists and their use of the trio of ‘stopwatches’ -rigor mortis, algor mortis and livor mortis to determine time of death, says:

“But from their first use, the Pathologist’s three standard timepieces have proved unreliable, plagued as they are by death’s infinite variations. Age, body size, health, manner of death, ambient temperature, air movement, even something seemingly ineffable as the agony of the victim’s final moments has been found to skew the body’s post-mortem changes beyond predictability.”

Now of course Fish if you know better than the experts........

[Sam Flynn]

All of these matters will play small but important roles. They will however not add up to a leading role or come even close.

And your source for that is...?

The body heat will not go lost in an hour or less. Ambient temperature in Chapmans case was way below ordinary body temperature, and her being cold implicates a lengthy cooling off period.

The myth about the woman who dropped many, many degrees in the blink of an eye and developed rigor in that same period is just that - a myth.

Who's talking about "many, many degrees"? The skin of a living person can, and does, feel cold if s/he's been out and about in the open air. It only requires a drop of a few degrees for something to feel colder to the touch, but it requires a thermometer to measure such things accurately.

Rigor mortis is a complex process, influenced by a number of factors. For example: "In deaths from diseases causing great exhaustion and wasting, e.g. cholera, typhoid, tuberculosis, cancer etc, and in violent death as by cut-throat, the onset of rigor is early and duration is short"
(http://www.forensicpathologyonline.c...scular-changes)

It cannot be allowed to obscure the facts, just as no myth can.

The facts are that Richardson saw nobody, and no body, in the yard just before 5AM despite sitting two or three feet away from the body and that Cadosch heard voices and something fall against the fence next door some 40-odd minutes later, shortly before Davis saw that the front door had been left (wide) open.

What we have from Phillips is a subjective assessment of temperature (by hand!), and a subjective opinion (which he himself caveated) of time of death - neither of these is a fact.

[Fisherman]

The experimenters also understood the importance of taking rectal temperature, which is the method they used, but which Phillips didn't. Their method also entailed allowing the bodies to cool at room temperature, not in the open air as was the case with Chapman and, unlike Chapman, the bodies in this experiment had not been out in the open for five or so hours before death.

It should also be noted that, since the experimental subjects had not been exsanguinated, their internal temperature would have been retained for longer owing to the initial presence of still-warm blood. The experimenters' finding that the time at which internal (rectal) cooling definitely commences can be set at 45 minutes can thus arguably be adjusted downwards for bodies where significant blood-loss has been experienced.

They also report that "it is necessary for the surface of the body to first drop in temperature and establish a temperature gradient before cooling can effect [sic] the internal body temperature". Therefore, internal cooling should commence sooner in bodies whose surface temperature is already cold (e.g. by having been out in the open for several hours before death). It follows that internal cooling will take place sooner where the establishment of a temperature gradient has been accelerated by the opening-up of one or more body cavities and the exposure of their contents to the open air.

This is borne out by the fact that the authors report that "the rate of temperature fall is dependent on the magnitude of the body surface exposed to cooling" and "the vapour pressure of moisture in the atmosphere" due to evaporation. Given that they're talking about internal (rectal) temperature, I daresay that an eviscerated body with its ripped-up abdomen exposed to the dry air of early morning would experience an even more rapid cooling of the outer layer of the body (that which Phillips, unsurprisingly, found to be "cold").

Finally, they also note that "rectal temperature will, however, over-estimate skin temperature", from which it follows that the skin cools at a different rate, and more rapidly, than the innards. The "remaining heat" Phillips found under the intestines may not therefore be at odds with a "cold" outer skin.

All of these matters will play small but important roles.

They will however not add up to a leading role or come even close.

The body heat will not go lost in an hour or less. Ambient temperature in Chapmans case was way below ordinary body temperature, and her being cold implicates a lengthy cooling off period.

The myth about the woman who dropped many, many degrees in the blink of an eye and developed rigor in that same period is just that - a myth. It cannot be allowed to obscure the facts, just as no myth can.

[Fisherman]

Food digestion is known today as being another tricky area when trying to establish TOD. And it's not as if we know precisely what and how much Chapman had eaten [and ingested, rather than thrown up again due to being so unwell] in her final hours.

Once again, Phillips may have been 'on the money', but in 1888 that would have been more by luck than good judgement, not being based on extensive personal experience with mutilated corpses found outdoors at the crack of dawn, nor any clues about the victim's movements and activities during the several hours leading up to that point.

Love,

Caz
X

No, we don´t 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.

That´s 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, I´d say.

[Fisherman]

Let's focus on the open door, then. The fact remains that we know that the door was flung wide open by someone in a time-frame that fits precisely with the testimonies of Richardson, Long and Cadosch.

Yes, that is so. However, the timeframes of Long and Cadosch are not compatible with each other, and Richardson gave varying stories of what he had done, so that may not be worth very much.

And the timeframe we are speaking of is three quaters of an hour long. I can pen and close a door a good many times in that period of time.

Languagewise, it is interesting how you say that the door had been "flung wide open".

The way serial killers do?

The killer attacked and left before 4 am, Gareth, as Phillips shows us, and true to form. He concistently acted under the cover of night.

[Fisherman]

It was written back in 1956, Fish. They know now that it's even more complex than the experts thought back then, and what was then considered a 'reasonably accurate' method seems to have changed considerably over the subsequent six decades.

Love,

Caz
X

The temperature drops, however, have not.

it is interesting, by the way, how a poster who alerts me to my status as a non-biologist, now furnishes biological material in spades.

But you may perhaps have that insight, knowledge and experience?

[Sam Flynn]

Unless we can prove that serial killers cannot shut doors, it really doesn´t make much difference, Gareth.

Let's focus on the open door, then. The fact remains that we know that the door was flung wide open by someone in a time-frame that fits precisely with the testimonies of Richardson, Long and Cadosch.

[Sam Flynn]

In the summary, I found this...

5. The thick cotton overalls in which some of the bodies were clothed do not appear to have significantly influenced the cooling rate.


...and this:

8. The time of death can be assessed by means of this formula with reasonable accuracy if the first observation is made within eight hours after death. Thereafter the accuracy of the estimation of the time of death diminishes.


Which is exactly what I said - and you doubted... Phillips was very close in time to death, and so we can rule out that he could have been monumentally wrong.

The experimenters also understood the importance of taking rectal temperature, which is the method they used, but which Phillips didn't. Their method also entailed allowing the bodies to cool at room temperature, not in the open air as was the case with Chapman and, unlike Chapman, the bodies in this experiment had not been out in the open for five or so hours before death.

It should also be noted that, since the experimental subjects had not been exsanguinated, their internal temperature would have been retained for longer owing to the initial presence of still-warm blood. The experimenters' finding that the time at which internal (rectal) cooling definitely commences can be set at 45 minutes can thus arguably be adjusted downwards for bodies where significant blood-loss has been experienced.

They also report that "it is necessary for the surface of the body to first drop in temperature and establish a temperature gradient before cooling can effect [sic] the internal body temperature". Therefore, internal cooling should commence sooner in bodies whose surface temperature is already cold (e.g. by having been out in the open for several hours before death). It follows that internal cooling will take place sooner where the establishment of a temperature gradient has been accelerated by the opening-up of one or more body cavities and the exposure of their contents to the open air.

This is borne out by the fact that the authors report that "the rate of temperature fall is dependent on the magnitude of the body surface exposed to cooling" and "the vapour pressure of moisture in the atmosphere" due to evaporation. Given that they're talking about internal (rectal) temperature, I daresay that an eviscerated body with its ripped-up abdomen exposed to the dry air of early morning would experience an even more rapid cooling of the outer layer of the body (that which Phillips, unsurprisingly, found to be "cold").

Finally, they also note that "rectal temperature will, however, over-estimate skin temperature", from which it follows that the skin cools at a different rate, and more rapidly, than the innards. The "remaining heat" Phillips found under the intestines may not therefore be at odds with a "cold" outer skin.

[caz]

Thank you, Caz!

In the summary, I found this...

5. The thick cotton overalls in which some of the bodies were clothed do not appear to have significantly influenced the cooling rate.


So much for the elk fur.

...and this:

8. The time of death can be assessed by means of this formula with reasonable accuracy if the first observation is made within eight hours after death. Thereafter the accuracy of the estimation of the time of death diminishes.


Which is exactly what I said - and you doubted. The time frame is of the utmost importance, and the closer in time to death we check the temperature, the more accurate we are likely to be. And Phillis was very close in time to death, and so we can rule out that he could have been monumentally wrong.

Interesting reading. Thank you. It´s always good to get the views of those who DO understand biology.

It was written back in 1956, Fish. They know now that it's even more complex than the experts thought back then, and what was then considered a 'reasonably accurate' method seems to have changed considerably over the subsequent six decades.

Love,

Caz
X