Lechmere was Jack the Ripper

[caz]

I don´t know much about biology. True.

Phillips knew a heck of a lot about it. True. So I lean against him. And wisely so, since it transpired in Mitre Square that extensive blood loss would not make the temperature lower dramatically. Eddowes corroborates Phillips´take on things in retrospect.
And it is not only about body temperature, it is also about rigor and food digestion. All parameters are in sync with Phillips being on the money.

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

[Fisherman]

Talk about taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut!

A very minor point. One that proves nothing on its own. Just one to mention.

I’ll extend it a little.

It’s often mentioned when discussing Tumblety as a suspect that he had a violent hatred of women. Kosminski attacked his sister with a knife. I’ve already mentioned Bury. So we can say that as far as Lechmere is concerned:

We have no evidence that he consorted with prostitutes like Bury.
We have no evidence that he had an issue with them.
We have no evidence that he was ever violent towards women in general or prostitutes specifically.

Now before you begin another rant, these points prove nothing. Lechmere was an unknown; we cannot know what type of person he was. He might have been a near saint, he might have been a violent bully.

It’s just a point to mention as it would be if we discovered that he was a wife-beater.

So expanding on a subject is a "rant". I see.

Well, the good thing is that you have now understood and admitted that the point of us not having it on record that Lechmere was violent is a point that proves nothing on it´s own.

Welcome to the real world. And now I will stop before I rant again.

[Fisherman]

My point was that Richardson didn't report finding the door OPEN when he arrived.

As to the Ripper's hunting hours, I should point out that he was only definitely known to have killed during those times in ONE instance only. The other definitely known times are between 1 and 2 in the morning.

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

[Fisherman]

'It is curious, however, that as late as 1921, Vaughan (16) recommends the sense of touch as a means of determining "the approximate time of death with a fair degree of accuracy". This he estimates by gauging with the hand the temperature differences of ten imaginary segments into which he divides the lower extremities of the body.'

I found this in a 1956 journal on Post-Mortem Temperature and the Time of Death, which immediately shows what a complex issue this can be:

https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.bing.com/&httpsredir=1&article=4412&context=jclc

Happy reading, Fish!

Love,

Caz
X

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.

[Sam Flynn]

Mmm. And the latter is consistent with the Ripper having left it open as he left the premises in the dark somewhere around 3.30, 3.45 - his ordinary hunting hours, justabout.

My point was that Richardson didn't report finding the door OPEN when he arrived.

As to the Ripper's hunting hours, I should point out that he was only definitely known to have killed during those times in ONE instance only. The other definitely known times are between 1 and 2 in the morning.

[Herlock Sholmes]

If I find out that Lechmere was known as a very violent man, then yes, I would certainly add that to the list of suspicions against him.

It is not as if I am saying that the Ripper murders were non-violent, is it? Although this is a less simple subject than it may seem!

The problem with your stating that he is not known to have been violent is that it equally applies that he is not known to be non-violent either. So basically, what you do is to elevate our ignorance on the matter to evidence that he was probably not the Ripper. And that´s where it goes very awry.

If we want to take things a little further - it is somethimes healthy to do so - we should ask ourselves what violence is. How do we define it? And in what context is it applicable in the Ripper case?

I would say that violence is not a simple phenomenon. Somebody who is run over by a car has met with a violent death. And so, it can be said that any infliction of physical damage is - on a ground level - violence.

Then there are those who are violence addicts, people who enjoy inflicting damage on others. And there are those who have a short fuse and will readily beat others up, but perhaps with no real sense of enjoyment. They simply dislike somebody for some reason, they can have been taunted and so they retaliate.

Look at the Ripper. What was he about? Did he enjoy inflicting pain and damage? Was he a sadist?

No, he apparently was not. But his victims nevertheless met with violent death. It would seem, however, that he killed as a means to procure bodies to cut up and eviscerate.

Would such a man be somebody who displayed violence in his everyday life? Was, for example, Jeffrey Dahmer a man who was very violent? Did he end up in street fights, did he attack people in the streets and beat them up, did he kick his parent´s teeth out as they visited him, did he engage in violent sex with his lovers? Apparently not.
He simply panicked when he realized that his lovers were about to leave him, and so he strangled them in order to be able to keep them with himself.

So he was able to use violence to reach that goal. But on the surfaace of things, he would absolutely not be known as a violent man.

I would submit that the Ripper may well have been somebody who had no outward tendencies to use violence at all, and that he only killed as a means to reach a goal - just like Dahmer.

And if this is true, then the parameter of violence becomes totally worthless.

Talk about taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut!

A very minor point. One that proves nothing on its own. Just one to mention.

I’ll extend it a little.

It’s often mentioned when discussing Tumblety as a suspect that he had a violent hatred of women. Kosminski attacked his sister with a knife. I’ve already mentioned Bury. So we can say that as far as Lechmere is concerned:

We have no evidence that he consorted with prostitutes like Bury.
We have no evidence that he had an issue with them.
We have no evidence that he was ever violent towards women in general or prostitutes specifically.

Now before you begin another rant, these points prove nothing. Lechmere was an unknown; we cannot know what type of person he was. He might have been a near saint, he might have been a violent bully.

It’s just a point to mention as it would be if we discovered that he was a wife-beater.

[Fisherman]

Blimey, I never expected to agree with you, Trev! But that was Fish told.

Don't suppose he will have listened though, despite his admission that he doesn't know much about biology. [There's a song lyric there somewhere].

Checking one of my posts from yesterday, I note a schoolgirl mistake I made. I meant to write that when [baby] it's cold outside, the skin surface feels colder because blood vessels contract to keep the core temperature stable and prevent hypothermia - not hyperthermia - which is the opposite! Sorry about that.

Anyway, Dr Phillips did think Chapman had been dead for at least two hours, probably more, but - he expressed uncertainty regarding how much more rapidly the body may have cooled due to the outside temperature and the great quantity of blood lost. Blood regulates body temperature, so if Chapman was already freezing her whatsits off by the time she was attacked, with eight pints of the red stuff working away inside her, how cold would she feel when the flow stopped and so much had left her body? Phillips didn't appear to know, did he?

Love,

Caz
X

I don´t know much about biology. True.

Phillips knew a heck of a lot about it. True. So I lean against him. And wisely so, since it transpired in Mitre Square that extensive blood loss would not make the temperature lower dramatically. Eddowes corroborates Phillips´take on things in retrospect.
And it is not only about body temperature, it is also about rigor and food digestion. All parameters are in sync with Phillips being on the money.

[Fisherman]

I am Ann Elk and this was MY theory, Gareth. Hands off.

https://www.bing.com/search?FORM=SLBRDF&pc=SL11&q=ann%20elk

Love,

Caz
X

My hands are WAY off.

[caz]

Not very, no - if body heat was the term that was used as a starting point. Not otherwise either. The body was cold, end of story. I don´t think he could fry eggs on the "heatpoint" in Chapman.

Phillips would have been acutely aware - as I have pointed out umpteen times by now - that cold skin is not he same as a cold body, Gareth.

'It is curious, however, that as late as 1921, Vaughan (16) recommends the sense of touch as a means of determining "the approximate time of death with a fair degree of accuracy". This he estimates by gauging with the hand the temperature differences of ten imaginary segments into which he divides the lower extremities of the body.'

I found this in a 1956 journal on Post-Mortem Temperature and the Time of Death, which immediately shows what a complex issue this can be:

https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.bing.com/&httpsredir=1&article=4412&context=jclc

Happy reading, Fish!

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Richardson left the door shut closed, but it was found open - WIDE open - at the time the body was discovered forty-odd minutes later. Also, I don't recall Richardson mentioning that he found the door open before he entered the premises to check the back yard and scrape his boot.

Mmm. And the latter is consistent with the Ripper having left it open as he left the premises in the dark somewhere around 3.30, 3.45 - his ordinary hunting hours, justabout.

[caz]

Not unlike Eddowes, then.

Read all about it in my forthcoming Ripper book, "From Elk".

I am Ann Elk and this was MY theory, Gareth. Hands off.

https://www.bing.com/search?FORM=SLBRDF&pc=SL11&q=ann%20elk

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

For the last time, It is not possible to estimate, or state accurately a time of death,not then, not now, so be told, and accept it, and stop trying to suggest anything to the contrary to fit your misguided theory on Lechmere. Listen to what experts tell you !!!!!!!!!!!

Blimey, I never expected to agree with you, Trev! But that was Fish told.

Don't suppose he will have listened though, despite his admission that he doesn't know much about biology. [There's a song lyric there somewhere].

Checking one of my posts from yesterday, I note a schoolgirl mistake I made. I meant to write that when [baby] it's cold outside, the skin surface feels colder because blood vessels contract to keep the core temperature stable and prevent hypothermia - not hyperthermia - which is the opposite! Sorry about that.

Anyway, Dr Phillips did think Chapman had been dead for at least two hours, probably more, but - he expressed uncertainty regarding how much more rapidly the body may have cooled due to the outside temperature and the great quantity of blood lost. Blood regulates body temperature, so if Chapman was already freezing her whatsits off by the time she was attacked, with eight pints of the red stuff working away inside her, how cold would she feel when the flow stopped and so much had left her body? Phillips didn't appear to know, did he?

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

Richardson left the door shut closed, but it was found open - WIDE open - at the time the body was discovered forty-odd minutes later. Also, I don't recall Richardson mentioning that he found the door open before he entered the premises to check the back yard and scrape his boot.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman:

The Times coverage of the inquest, 11 Sept.

John Davis --(who went downstairs around 5:45)

"The front door was wide open, and he was not surprised at finding it so, as it was frequently left open at night..."

HOWEVER--we know it hadn't been left open, because:

John Richardson: (Daily Telegraph 13 Sept) describing leaving the building at roughly 4:55 or 5 a.m.:

"I shut the front door."


Ergo, between roughly 5 a.m. and 5:45 a.m. a person or persons unknown left the front door standing wide open. We can assume they either entered the building, left the building, or both.

What happened in that time frame that might explain it?

Hint: Long/Cadoche. You're up against 4 independent witnesses with no axe to grind, painting a pretty complete circumstantial picture of what must have happened. All the best.

It would seem from what Davis said that the front door could always be expected to be open. It was not an unexpected thing. It was frequently left open all night, he said.

We have a (circa) 45 minute gap, during which many people can have been responsible for the door being open. That is a significant amount of time.

The pretty complete circumstantial picture you speak of starts to come apart when we look at these witnesses and what they said. Cadosch and Long were both dead certain of the time they were in place, and corroborated it by naming the clocks they had seen and the exact time it had been. And they have it backwards - the Cadosch events are prior to the Long ones, and that makes no sense whatsoever.
Richardson told Chandler that he did not go out on the steps and he said nothing at all about the shoe business. Then, all of a sudden, he mentions it at the inquest, and serves up a very odd story.

So we are left with Davies, who said that the front door was open, and added it frequently was throughout the night. And we have Richardson, a witness who changed his story, who claims to have been there and shut the front door three quarters of an hour before Davies arrived.

So we must accept that nobody else touched the door in that period of time, and I personally find that hard to do. Moreover, we must also accept that Phillips was totally and utterly wrong about the TOD, and that he was either mistaken when he said that Chapman was cold at 6.30 (and his words about the remaining heat under the intestines tell us that he was able to feel subtle temperature variations), or Chapman had beaten the world record in the cooling off discipline. Plus she had managed to bring on rigor in less than half the normally expected time - and in cold conditions too, that should SLOW DOWN rigor.

There are two sides to this coin, R J - and I for one find a lot of inflation on your side. In my world, the Ripper left 29 Hanbury Street before 4 AM that morning.

[Fisherman]

You’ve been wearying me for longer than that. The ‘violent’ point is not one that i labour because it’s a very, very minor one. I only raise it when listing points. When we are basically box-ticking it’s a point that it’s reasonable to mention. I’m not saying for example that Bury was Jack the Ripper but we know that he was violent so it’s a slight plus point.

Let’s put it this way Fish. If tomorrow you found out that there was evidence of Lechmere being violent I’m sure that you’d never mention it

If I find out that Lechmere was known as a very violent man, then yes, I would certainly add that to the list of suspicions against him.

It is not as if I am saying that the Ripper murders were non-violent, is it? Although this is a less simple subject than it may seem!

The problem with your stating that he is not known to have been violent is that it equally applies that he is not known to be non-violent either. So basically, what you do is to elevate our ignorance on the matter to evidence that he was probably not the Ripper. And that´s where it goes very awry.

If we want to take things a little further - it is somethimes healthy to do so - we should ask ourselves what violence is. How do we define it? And in what context is it applicable in the Ripper case?

I would say that violence is not a simple phenomenon. Somebody who is run over by a car has met with a violent death. And so, it can be said that any infliction of physical damage is - on a ground level - violence.

Then there are those who are violence addicts, people who enjoy inflicting damage on others. And there are those who have a short fuse and will readily beat others up, but perhaps with no real sense of enjoyment. They simply dislike somebody for some reason, they can have been taunted and so they retaliate.

Look at the Ripper. What was he about? Did he enjoy inflicting pain and damage? Was he a sadist?

No, he apparently was not. But his victims nevertheless met with violent death. It would seem, however, that he killed as a means to procure bodies to cut up and eviscerate.

Would such a man be somebody who displayed violence in his everyday life? Was, for example, Jeffrey Dahmer a man who was very violent? Did he end up in street fights, did he attack people in the streets and beat them up, did he kick his parent´s teeth out as they visited him, did he engage in violent sex with his lovers? Apparently not.
He simply panicked when he realized that his lovers were about to leave him, and so he strangled them in order to be able to keep them with himself.

So he was able to use violence to reach that goal. But on the surfaace of things, he would absolutely not be known as a violent man.

I would submit that the Ripper may well have been somebody who had no outward tendencies to use violence at all, and that he only killed as a means to reach a goal - just like Dahmer.

And if this is true, then the parameter of violence becomes totally worthless.