Lechmere was Jack the Ripper

[Trevor Marriott]

The only - classical - misunderstanding is the one you make yourself guilty of when you think that Phillips allowed for LESS than two hours. His speaking about the cold conditions was what made him say that it was - only just - possible with as little as two hours. He did NOT think it WAS that little, though, he thought it was more and he said so - but he was willing to allow for that little anyway.

What you are suggesting is that Phillips meant this:

"Your honour, I have examined the body of the dead woman, and my belief is that she was killed more than two hours agon, perhaps three or four - BUT, in all fairness, it was a cold morning, and therefore I stipulate that the absolutely shortest time that had elapsed since death was TWO hours. That is my verdict: At least two hours, probably more.
Eeeehrm - but it could have been just one hour too."

So he gave his professional opinion first, making sure to delive the absolut minimum he allowed for - and then he said he may well be wrong?

Yeah, right.

PS.
Not being a biologist, I am only guessing this, but I actually do believe that Phillips was aware that the skin can be cold although the inside may not be. I therefore suggest that Phillips may have felt the body where the large vessels are close to the skin.
It is bold guess on my behalf, and I am painfully aware that I have no medico degree. But as long as I have common sense, I think I´ll be fine anyway.

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 !!!!!!!!!!!

[Fisherman]

Now, now. Surely you must give a bit of a toss, Caz?

If Dr. P was wrong (before he started hedging his bets) and Liz Long was right (about the punter being over 40) then it isn't just Lechmere that goes spinning down the drain, it's also Kinky Kosminski, Bill Bury, Cohen, Hutchinson, Barnett, etc. etc. not to mention the 'profile' offered up by the F.B.I. and Scotland Yard.

Which shouldn't be too earth shaking considering that Kurten was in his 40s and Chikatilo was 57. But the myth of the 20-something is a strong one; far stronger than the Royal Conspiracy bilge, and far more dangerous because it parades as 'science.'

Meanwhile, for what it's worth, and it may not be worth very much, Dan Farson interviewed an old East End relic back in the 1960s who claimed that, as a small boy, he was among those standing in the hallway that morning, after Annie was discovered, but before Dr. Phillips had arrived, and there had been 'steam' rolling off the intestines. 'Smoking 'ot' is how he put it.

Of course, in our evil times, oral traditions are given about as much credence as old Romanian women reading tea leaves.

That said, here's an appalling story. Twenty-five years ago I was talked into a hunting trip with my ex-father-in-law, and, sure enough, he murdered an elk on the side of a hill. It was a cold morning and when he gutted the poor beast, the 'steam' rolled off the entrails for several minutes. How much 'remaining heat' was left twenty minutes later I cannot recall, but I still remember very clearly that steaming sack of innards rolling down the hill.

So, to me at least, Farson's tale always had a ring of truth to it, though I'm constantly reminded not to believe in such things. Cheers.

I bet that elk had been to the local pub and warmed up by the fireplace before he encountered your ex father-in-law. Plus he was wearing a fur that would have kept him warm for the longest.

[Fisherman]

I take it you didn't do biology O level, Fish?

Skin temperature changes according to whether the blood is nearer the surface to cool it down in hot conditions, or further from the surface to keep the core temperature stable in cold conditions.



What?? Where did I say Phillips 'must' have been wrong?

You are the one who seems desperate for him to have been right. I couldn't give a flying toss either way - I merely think you should admit that it's not cut and dried.



Am I? Am I really?? Where have I suggested another time of death?

I thought I was merely saying that Phillips may have been wrong to think she had been dead for 'at least two hours' when he examined her. And it seems he acknowledged this possibility too by reference to the coolness of the morning and the great extent of the blood loss being factors that could make a difference. You seem to be arguing that the outside temperature would make no difference.

So ironically, I would appear to have Phillips on my side, while you appear to be questioning his opinion!

Love,

Caz
X

The only - classical - misunderstanding is the one you make yourself guilty of when you think that Phillips allowed for LESS than two hours. His speaking about the cold conditions was what made him say that it was - only just - possible with as little as two hours. He did NOT think it WAS that little, though, he thought it was more and he said so - but he was willing to allow for that little anyway.

What you are suggesting is that Phillips meant this:

"Your honour, I have examined the body of the dead woman, and my belief is that she was killed more than two hours agon, perhaps three or four - BUT, in all fairness, it was a cold morning, and therefore I stipulate that the absolutely shortest time that had elapsed since death was TWO hours. That is my verdict: At least two hours, probably more.
Eeeehrm - but it could have been just one hour too."

So he gave his professional opinion first, making sure to delive the absolut minimum he allowed for - and then he said he may well be wrong?

Yeah, right.

PS.
Not being a biologist, I am only guessing this, but I actually do believe that Phillips was aware that the skin can be cold although the inside may not be. I therefore suggest that Phillips may have felt the body where the large vessels are close to the skin.
It is but a bold guess on my behalf, and I am painfully aware that I have no medico degree. But as long as I have common sense, I´m hoping to be fine anyway.

[Fisherman]

Exactly, Gareth, which I already pointed out to Fish.

Annie Chapman spent the early hours of September 8 outdoors and very unwell. She would have felt much colder to the touch by 6.30am than Eddowes did shortly after 2am. In such conditions, Chapman's blood - up until the attack, regardless of when that was - would have retreated from the surface of her skin to keep her core temperature as high as possible to prevent hyperthermia.

Had Chapman still felt warm to the touch at 6.30am, then Phillips would have had the problem of judging whether she had died a short time before, or had been indoors somewhere in front of a roaring fire!

Love,

Caz
X

Roaring fires do not give us fever, Caz. Roaring posters can give me headaches, though.

[Fisherman]

Hardly surprising if she'd only been out for a mere hour and a half, even if we tack on another 45 post mortem minutes. Eddowes also carried several layers of clothing about her person, don't forget, and was in life comparatively healthy and active.

You need to take a rest. Such things can perhaps account for a small difference, but we are talking quite warm versus quite cold here. It just doesn´t work on any level. It is not even close.

[Fisherman]

It turns out that body temperature fluctuates according to a circadian rhythm. If Chapman had indeed been killed just after 05:30, her temperature may have been at its lowest point for starters - leaving aside other factors like her having been outdoors for so long, the cold morning, her poor health and loss of blood:



Whether this depends on whether you're asleep or not I'm not sure, but it's an interesting phenomenon nonetheless, and goes to show that there are multiple factors to bear in mind when estimating body temperature and its relation to time of death.

I concluded that it depends on the sleep before I even read your note. There can be no other viable explanation. The body goes down into stand-by mode when we do. And Chapman didn´t.
She was completely cold, but for the little amount of wamth Phillips diligently felt under her intestines. Taken together with the rigor and the breaking down of her potato meal, we have a very clear-cut case of Phillips being on the money, as far as I can tell.

[Fisherman]

This shows the anti-intellectual foundation to your viewpoint which you constantly rely on and return to. It’s the ‘until we can prove that....’ argument. Or quite often the ‘it’s not impossible that....’ argument. It’s indeed weak if you keep feeling the need to use this.

Saying “well it’s not impossible” is close to meaningless. As I’ve said before it’s not physically impossible that Lewis Carroll was Jack The Ripper but the overwhelming majority don’t accept it. It’s not physically impossible that Robert Paul killed Nichols then doubled back to ‘discover’ Lechmere with the body but we don’t think it likely.

You are the one who is saying that Lechmere was Jack The Ripper therefore the burden of proof is with you. Have you met that burden? Not even close.

Have you proved that Lechmere must have killed Nichols - no.
Have you proven the ‘Mizen Scam - no, it’s an invention by you.
Have you shown that the name thing was sinister - no, the opposite is true.
Have you positively placed Lechmere at any of the murder sites - no, we can’t count “well his Auntie Barbara lived 4 streets away from Berner Street.”
Have you shown that Lechmere was in any way a violent man - no.
Have you shown a reason why the killings apparently stopped after MJK - no, you’ve tried to prove that Jack The Ripper and the Torso Killer for just that reason.

Just constantly repeating that ‘it’s not impossible’ does not constitute proof. Perhaps this is why so many believe Lechmere to be the killer

By the way, just for info as you might be privy to the knowledge “how long does it take to write a book on Lechmere as Jack if the case is sooo strong? What new info is waiting to be discovered?

And here you are, doing the exact same thing again that I warned against in my post to Patrick - saying that I must prove my point.

You sometimes have severe problems seeing the differences on the levels involved, as clearly demonstrated by the torso threads, where you think that dissimilarities are equally important as similarities.

Now you say that is it all very easy to say "what if?", but the real problem involved here is not ME saying "what if?" but instead YOU saying it.

I say "what if?" on account of how there are a number of matters that give Lechmere suspect status - the scam, the hidden wounds, his work trek, the name change etcetera, etcetera. These are all things that add to his suspect status, and it always applies that the more such things there are, the likelier it becomes that we are dealing with the culprit.

So I am in my full right to say "what if?", Herlock. It is what we MUST say when we find matters like these; if we did not, we would be skipping over a number of potentially crime-solving details.

When YOU say "what if?", all you produce is what I told Patrick: An alternative innocent explanation. And they can be applied in just about every case on Planet Earth. A man is found with a purse in his pocket. The woman beside him has lost that exact purse.
Implication: He stole it.
Alternative innocent explanation: Somebody else must have put it in his pocket, he must have banged into her and the purse may have slipped over into his pocket at that stage, he may have taken it by mistake, thinking it was his purse, the police may have planted it, thinking he is a bad character...

We can ALWAYS come up with those explanations. But the important matter is, and I want you to listen carefully now:

The implication that he stole the purse does not go away on account of the alternative explanations!

The same goes for Lechmere. There are many, many things that speak in favour of him being a very good suspect, and they do not go away because you say "what if?".

Instead they urge us to ask "what if?" - what if he was the killer?

And once more, the more such matters there is, the likelier it becomes that he was.

See how it works now?

[Sam Flynn]

When her temperature was felt for, she had been out of the nick for an hour and a half, and she had been dead and severly cut up for three quarets of an hour, give or take the odd minute. And she was nevertheless "quite warm".

Hardly surprising if she'd only been out for a mere hour and a half, even if we tack on another 45 post mortem minutes. Eddowes also carried several layers of clothing about her person, don't forget, and was in life comparatively healthy and active.

[Fisherman]

Eddowes had spent most of the night indoors at the nick, and had only been on the streets for a short time before she was killed.

When her temperature was felt for, she had been out of the nick for an hour and a half, and she had been dead and severly cut up for three quarets of an hour, give or take the odd minute. And she was nevertheless "quite warm".

[rjpalmer]

I couldn't give a flying toss either way.

Now, now. Surely you must give a bit of a toss, Caz?

If Dr. P was wrong (before he started hedging his bets) and Liz Long was right (about the punter being over 40) then it isn't just Lechmere that goes spinning down the drain, it's also Kinky Kosminski, Bill Bury, Cohen, Hutchinson, Barnett, etc. etc. not to mention the 'profile' offered up by the F.B.I. and Scotland Yard.

Which shouldn't be too earth shaking considering that Kurten was in his 40s and Chikatilo was 57. But the myth of the 20-something is a strong one; far stronger than the Royal Conspiracy bilge, and far more dangerous because it parades as 'science.'

Meanwhile, for what it's worth, and it may not be worth very much, Dan Farson interviewed an old East End relic back in the 1960s who claimed that, as a small boy, he was among those standing in the hallway that morning, after Annie was discovered, but before Dr. Phillips had arrived, and there had been 'steam' rolling off the intestines. 'Smoking 'ot' is how he put it.

Of course, in our evil times, oral traditions are given about as much credence as old Romanian women reading tea leaves.

That said, here's an appalling story. Twenty-five years ago I was talked into a hunting trip with my ex-father-in-law, and, sure enough, he murdered an elk on the side of a hill. It was a cold morning and when he gutted the poor beast, the 'steam' rolled off the entrails for several minutes. How much 'remaining heat' was left twenty minutes later I cannot recall, but I still remember very clearly that steaming sack of innards rolling down the hill.

So, to me at least, Farson's tale always had a ring of truth to it, though I'm constantly reminded not to believe in such things. Cheers.

[caz]

It turns out that body temperature fluctuates according to a circadian rhythm. If Chapman had indeed been killed just after 05:30, her temperature may have been at its lowest point for starters - leaving aside other factors like her having been outdoors for so long, the cold morning, her poor health and loss of blood:



Whether this depends on whether you're asleep or not I'm not sure, but it's an interesting phenomenon nonetheless, and goes to show that there are multiple factors to bear in mind when estimating body temperature and its relation to time of death.

Of course, we have no idea what Chapman was doing after about 1.30am, so she could have found somewhere, indoors or out, to get her head down at some point, which would have cooled her body down naturally, from lack of movement. Phillips wasn't psychic, so he could not have known any of this.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

We do not increase or decrease body temperature in hot or cold conditions, the only thing that alters is that we need more energy to keep the temperature up when it is cold. Dear me, Caz!

I take it you didn't do biology O level, Fish?

Skin temperature changes according to whether the blood is nearer the surface to cool it down in hot conditions, or further from the surface to keep the core temperature stable in cold conditions.

You ask why it is controversial to say that Phillips must have been wrong.

What?? Where did I say Phillips 'must' have been wrong?

You are the one who seems desperate for him to have been right. I couldn't give a flying toss either way - I merely think you should admit that it's not cut and dried.

Because the parameters checked, temperature and rigor and food digestion, were all in line with him being right, that´s why. And not least because you are not asking for Phillips to be slightly or moderately off, you are asking for him to be WAAAYYYYYY off the target.

Am I? Am I really?? Where have I suggested another time of death?

I thought I was merely saying that Phillips may have been wrong to think she had been dead for 'at least two hours' when he examined her. And it seems he acknowledged this possibility too by reference to the coolness of the morning and the great extent of the blood loss being factors that could make a difference. You seem to be arguing that the outside temperature would make no difference.

So ironically, I would appear to have Phillips on my side, while you appear to be questioning his opinion!

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Eddowes had spent most of the night indoors at the nick, and had only been on the streets for a short time before she was killed.

Exactly, Gareth, which I already pointed out to Fish.

Annie Chapman spent the early hours of September 8 outdoors and very unwell. She would have felt much colder to the touch by 6.30am than Eddowes did shortly after 2am. In such conditions, Chapman's blood - up until the attack, regardless of when that was - would have retreated from the surface of her skin to keep her core temperature as high as possible to prevent hyperthermia.

Had Chapman still felt warm to the touch at 6.30am, then Phillips would have had the problem of judging whether she had died a short time before, or had been indoors somewhere in front of a roaring fire!

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Are you one of the Undead Caz

I've often wondered, HS.

I prefer to think of it as 'cold hands, warm heart'.

Thousands would no doubt disagree.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

It turns out that body temperature fluctuates according to a circadian rhythm. If Chapman had indeed been killed just after 05:30, her temperature may have been at its lowest point for starters - leaving aside other factors like her having been outdoors for so long, the cold morning, her poor health and loss of blood:



Whether this depends on whether you're asleep or not I'm not sure, but it's an interesting phenomenon nonetheless, and goes to show that there are multiple factors to bear in mind when estimating body temperature and its relation to time of death.