Lechmere was Jack the Ripper

[Herlock Sholmes]

I´m sure Phillips would have her wheeled away to the morgue in no time at all.

And probably have gotten her TOD wrong.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
It is not until we can PROVE that the scam was not an example of Lechmere lying his way past the police, it is not until we can PROVE that it was a coincidence that his routes took him through the killing fields, it is not until we can PROVE that the hidden wounds were the result of something different than Lechmere doing the hiding, it is not until we can PROVE that his using the name Cross was not something sinister, it is not until we can PROVE that it was a coincidence only that he was with the body as it was still freshly kiled and still bleeding and so on and so on - that we can say that his suspect status is unwarranted.

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?

[Sam Flynn]

Then why did not Eddowes "FEEL" cold to the touch? How is it that Brown was able to feel that she was instead "quit warm"?

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.

[Fisherman]

Are you one of the Undead Caz

I´m sure Phillips would have her wheeled away to the morgue in no time at all.

[Fisherman]

Abby,
I expect most witnesses to be a little shakey when involved in ripper like crimes.Richardson's evidence is totally unsupported by any other person,so it's a question of belief or disbelief.The disbelief seems to be centred around his ability to have seen a body if it was there.Most posters, accept that he would have I,like others,accept that Richardson was telling the truth .Chapman's body was not lying there,she was killed sometime after Richardson left.

Now Fisherman has resulted to childlike scribblings because no one will side with him,Typical.

Childlike? Oh dear, now Harry is even more displeased with me!

Harry, I swear that I am 100 per cent convinced that every poster out here can benefit from looking at your posts. We have A LOT to learn, each and every one of us, from you in that respect.

Surely, that must make you happy?

[Fisherman]

But that's not what I argued, and not what I meant, Fish.

Chapman would have felt cold in her final hours. Her skin would have felt cold to the touch, having been outdoors in the early hours, even if she hadn't been attacked and killed. My hands almost always feel deathly cold to anyone touching them, regardless of the weather conditions, whether they feel cold to me or not.



I'm not sure that's right, Fish. I understand that it's really not that simple - especially in a case where the body has lost as much blood as Chapman's had. Reference was made to the coolness of the morning and the substantial blood loss, so Phillips knew enough to realise that both factors could make a difference.



Firstly, Eddowes was found not long after she'd been sleeping in a relatively warm police cell, and a lot earlier into the night. And secondly, as Chapman was - unsurprisingly - not warm to the touch, it would have been very difficult to say for certain if she had been killed shortly before being found.

Didn't Robert Paul complain to the newspaper that Nichols had felt cold? According to you, she should have felt even warmer to the touch than Eddowes, if Lechmere had only just done the deed when Paul examined her.

All I'm really saying here is that Phillips was not necessarily any more or less proficient than his peers at determining when death occurred in a murder victim such as Chapman, but no way was it an exact science then, nor is it one today, so I don't know what you think you are achieving by pretending it was - or could have been - in her case. Phillips could have been spot on with his opinion [opinion - not established fact], but equally he could have got it quite wrong. We just don't know either way.

Why is that so controversial?

Love,

Caz
X

Then why did not Eddowes "FEEL" cold to the touch? How is it that Brown was able to feel that she was instead "quit warm"? Don´t you think the medicos were totally aware of how the skin can feel cooler in cold conditions? Do you think that they would mistake that for a person having been dead for a long time...?

Amazing!

And you are "not sure" that it is harder to miss out on tOD close to the ime of death than a long time after...? So you argue that it does not matter how long somebody has been dead, and the fact that when you can feel that a body is quite warm, that does not help you decide that life is not long extinct? Still uncoagulated blood is not an indication of life not having passed very long ago...?

If you are not sure, Caz, I think you must realize that most people are, and for a damn good reason!

You argue that the warmth in Eddowes´ body could be spill-over heat from the police cell. That too is amazing! The temperature was checked around an hour and a half afterwards! This borders on desperation - she would have been around 37 degrees ceslius as she was taken to the cell, she would have been the same IN the cell, and she would have been the same as she ran into the Ripper. We do not increaseor 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!

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

[Fisherman]

Ah. I've not contributed a single useful piece of evidence going against Lechmere as a good bid. As with all things, if Fisherman says a thing he - for one - believes it's true. These pages are filled with virtual treatises I've written.... from Thain's cape to Paul's statement to Lechmere's voluntary appearance at the inquest (and how there was nothing in Paul's 'bombshell' that would have driven him 'out of the shadows' when he was unnamed, not described beyond being called "a man", and nearly excluded entirely from Paul's telling of events), to the evidence suggesting that it was Mizen who'd not been truthful in order to protect his job after essentially ignoring what the carmen had told him in Baker's Row (as described by both Cross and Paul). Of course none of this was USEFUL to you, to your "theory".

The simple fact of the matter is that you've not presented any credible "evidence" casting suspicion on your "good bid" Lechmere. And I've no issue whatever with you not debating me on these pages. Once it became apparent that you're fingers are pegged firmly in your ears when it comes to any dissent uttered against a theory that requires one to unreasonably suspend belief... my posts ceased to be about debating you. Rather, they're about ensuring that you don't go unchallenged in your inventions and contrived scenarios, thus recruiting some gullible neophyte to this silly Lechmere business.

You should not be put off by the fact that I say that you have not contributed any useful evidence against Lechmere being the killer. You are in rich company, since nobody has, although it has often enough been suggested that this has happened.

The problem with how the Lechmere theory is being treated out here is that the criticism of it works from the idea that Lechmere would never be convicted on the existing evidence; "the scam does not prove him guilty", "the name matter is not any evidence that he did it", "the fact that his paths coincided with the murder district is not conclusive in any way".

The criticism is thus aimed at clearing Lechmere from accusations of having been the killer. And maybe that is not so strange, since I am consistently saying that I think he was.

On the other hand, I am quite aware that he cannot be convicted on the evidence existing. It also applies that I have said as much on different occasions - I suspect that if there was a trial against somebody today on the evidence amassed, there would not be a conviction. And I am fine with that, since a conviction in a case like the one against the carman needs to be conclusively underbuilt in a larger degree than what is the case.

It is therefore sound to point to the altenative innocent explanations in this context. No qualms there.

But what happens if we instead look at whether he is a viable suspect or not? Well, in that case, I would say that the alternative innocent explanations are useless.

Yes, it may be that Mizen was the one lying, and Lechmere the one telling the truth.

Yes, it may be that it is a coincidence only that Lechmeres working path passed through the killing fields.

The crux is that the fact that alternative innocent explanations can ALWAYS be presented, but as long as they do not change the reason for why they needed to be invented, they remain part of an anti-intellectual critique only.

After we have stated that it is perhaps a coincidence that Lechmeres routes took him through the killing fields, nothing at all takes away from the fact that we have a matter that is consistent with him being a very good suspect.

Robert Hansen was the killer of a number of women that he abducted and flew to remote places in Alaska, where he hunted them down and shot them.

Before he was proven to be their killer, it would be pure genius to say that he was a hunter, and so the fact that he was logged as having taken off from the airfield where he had his private plane on times that were consistent with the disappearances of women could well have an explanation in his interest for hunting - he could have taken off in search of wildlife prey, as he so often did.

The defence would be stupid not to use that argument.

Likewise, the defence would be stupid not to acknowledge that Gary Ridgway was a frequent user of prostitutes, and that it is no crime to make use of their services. Therefore, his consorting with them and picking them up could not convict him in a court of law.

That is where innocent alternative explanations have their place - in rightfully hindering a conviction on grounds that may be suspicious but are not proof of foul play.

In the Lechmere case, however, the fact that alternative innocent explanations have been thought up has mistakenly been used to claim that there is no case against Lechmere. And that is, as I say, anti-intellectual.

It is not until we can PROVE that the scam was not an example of Lechmere lying his way past the police, it is not until we can PROVE that it was a coincidence that his routes took him through the killing fields, it is not until we can PROVE that the hidden wounds were the result of something different than Lechmere doing the hiding, it is not until we can PROVE that his using the name Cross was not something sinister, it is not until we can PROVE that it was a coincidence only that he was with the body as it was still freshly kiled and still bleeding and so on and so on - that we can say that his suspect status is unwarranted.

Until that happens, he remains the one suspect that has by far the most potentially incriminating facts against his person, and no thought-out alternative innocent explanation in the world will change that.

This is why I say that you have contributed nothing at all in the way of clearing Lechmere from suspicion, Patrick. And it is also why saying, as you do, that Lechmere is a "silly" bid, is an anti-intellectual approcah to the whole matter. It is like saying that once we realize that Sirhan Sirhan may not have been the only shot when Robert Kennedy died, he is no longer a suspect. That kind of approach to what makes for a suspect status is what is silly here.

What you have done is the exact same thing as very many other posters have - you have realized that it is possible to come up with alternative explanations to the points of accusation against Lechmere. And let´s face it, if it was NOT, then we would have our killer!
If there has been any difference at all between you and the others who have realized that alternative innocent explanations can be offered, then it has been that you have given the impression - consciously or not - that your contributions in this field have been somewhat brighter or better than the rest, which is wrong - you do not differ from the rest in a quality perspective. You have at times been extremely pushy and rude, and in that regard, you have a position thad differs to a signifcant degree from the rest of the inventors of alternative innocent explanations. As regards the value of your criticism, though, nothing at all tells you apart from your peers in the fine art of conjuring up alternative innocent explanations. The examples you posted bear witness to that.

Now, you can of course produce an answer that shoots for things like how I say that you have been rude in the past, and you can counter that by saying that I have been ruder.

But you cannot change the fact that all of the points made against by Lechmere still stnad, and you cannot change the fact that they make him a very viable suspect.

If I can ask for something, I´d ask for a discussion of THAT parameter, but I do not harbour much hope that it will happen. To you, and to many other posters out here, the fact that other people also walked through the killing fields in the early morning is something you believe - or at least claim and/or infer - takes away from Lechmeres suspect status.

A-n-t-i-i-n-t-e-l-l-e-c-t-u-a-l!

If there was NOT potentially any other passers-by, then Lechmere MUST have been the killer.

His suspect status is what is very much elevated by the fact, nothing else.

[harry]

Abby,
I expect most witnesses to be a little shakey when involved in ripper like crimes.Richardson's evidence is totally unsupported by any other person,so it's a question of belief or disbelief.The disbelief seems to be centred around his ability to have seen a body if it was there.Most posters, accept that he would have I,like others,accept that Richardson was telling the truth .Chapman's body was not lying there,she was killed sometime after Richardson left.

Now Fisherman has resulted to childlike scribblings because no one will side with him,Typical.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. My hands almost always feel deathly cold to anyone touching them,

Are you one of the Undead Caz

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ah. I've not contributed a single useful piece of evidence going against Lechmere as a good bid. As with all things, if Fisherman says a thing he - for one - believes it's true. These pages are filled with virtual treatises I've written.... from Thain's cape to Paul's statement to Lechmere's voluntary appearance at the inquest (and how there was nothing in Paul's 'bombshell' that would have driven him 'out of the shadows' when he was unnamed, not described beyond being called "a man", and nearly excluded entirely from Paul's telling of events), to the evidence suggesting that it was Mizen who'd not been truthful in order to protect his job after essentially ignoring what the carmen had told him in Baker's Row (as described by both Cross and Paul). Of course none of this was USEFUL to you, to your "theory".

The simple fact of the matter is that you've not presented any credible "evidence" casting suspicion on your "good bid" Lechmere. And I've no issue whatever with you not debating me on these pages. Once it became apparent that you're fingers are pegged firmly in your ears when it comes to any dissent uttered against a theory that requires one to unreasonably suspend belief... my posts ceased to be about debating you. Rather, they're about ensuring that you don't go unchallenged in your inventions and contrived scenarios, thus recruiting some gullible neophyte to this silly Lechmere business.

Good to see you back Patrick

[Sam Flynn]

Chapman would have felt cold in her final hours. Her skin would have felt cold to the touch, having been outdoors in the early hours, even if she hadn't been attacked and killed.

Quite so, Caz.

[Patrick S]

And Patrick S, who has so far not contributed a single useful piece of evidence going against Lechmere as a good bid - but who in a very blustering manner claims he has - now says "more of then same".

Here are a few non-contributions I made that may make interesting reading for those entertaining Christer’s “theory”, or for those simply wishing to see what I mean when I say “same old same old”...perhaps we may even revive a few of these old discussions? I'm sure Christer wouldn't like to see that. Respectfully, we've seen this thing of his cannot withstand scrutiny.

https://forum.casebook.org/archive/index.php/t-9405.html

https://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=9194

https://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=8137

https://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=9968

https://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=9952

https://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=10018

[caz]

3am. 4am. 5am. 5.30am. It does notmatter, because Chaomans body had the peculiarity of turning stone cold the moment she died. There was no cooling off period, she was cold before she hit the ground.

But that's not what I argued, and not what I meant, Fish.

Chapman would have felt cold in her final hours. Her skin would have felt cold to the touch, having been outdoors in the early hours, even if she hadn't been attacked and killed. My hands almost always feel deathly cold to anyone touching them, regardless of the weather conditions, whether they feel cold to me or not.

Doctors can get the TOD very wrong. There is a famous case where an authority in the 1970:s said that a victim had died around half a year before he was found, but in fact the true estimate should have been 113 years.

I know about these things. And it is deplorable how they are used to cast doubt over Phillips verdict, because the closer to death a body is found, the less likely is it that the estimate will be wrong.

I'm not sure that's right, Fish. I understand that it's really not that simple - especially in a case where the body has lost as much blood as Chapman's had. Reference was made to the coolness of the morning and the substantial blood loss, so Phillips knew enough to realise that both factors could make a difference.

Kate Eddowes was "quite warm" to the touch three quarters of an hour after her death, and that is nothing strange at all - the body temperature drops only very slowly after death, and thus we simply cannot grow totally cold in such a period of time.

Firstly, Eddowes was found not long after she'd been sleeping in a relatively warm police cell, and a lot earlier into the night. And secondly, as Chapman was - unsurprisingly - not warm to the touch, it would have been very difficult to say for certain if she had been killed shortly before being found.

Didn't Robert Paul complain to the newspaper that Nichols had felt cold? According to you, she should have felt even warmer to the touch than Eddowes, if Lechmere had only just done the deed when Paul examined her.

All I'm really saying here is that Phillips was not necessarily any more or less proficient than his peers at determining when death occurred in a murder victim such as Chapman, but no way was it an exact science then, nor is it one today, so I don't know what you think you are achieving by pretending it was - or could have been - in her case. Phillips could have been spot on with his opinion [opinion - not established fact], but equally he could have got it quite wrong. We just don't know either way.

Why is that so controversial?

Love,

Caz
X

[Patrick S]

And Patrick S, who has so far not contributed a single useful piece of evidence going against Lechmere as a good bid - but who in a very blustering manner claims he has - now says "more of then same".

Yes, Patrick, it is more of the same criticism from you. It goes along the faulty line "How silly to think a copper cannot lie!", and it hasn´t gained in quality since the first time you expressed it. Most likely, we will return to our old roles: you have no qualms about throwing manure, and I abstain from debating with you.

That too is more of the same.

Ah. I've not contributed a single useful piece of evidence going against Lechmere as a good bid. As with all things, if Fisherman says a thing he - for one - believes it's true. These pages are filled with virtual treatises I've written.... from Thain's cape to Paul's statement to Lechmere's voluntary appearance at the inquest (and how there was nothing in Paul's 'bombshell' that would have driven him 'out of the shadows' when he was unnamed, not described beyond being called "a man", and nearly excluded entirely from Paul's telling of events), to the evidence suggesting that it was Mizen who'd not been truthful in order to protect his job after essentially ignoring what the carmen had told him in Baker's Row (as described by both Cross and Paul). Of course none of this was USEFUL to you, to your "theory".

The simple fact of the matter is that you've not presented any credible "evidence" casting suspicion on your "good bid" Lechmere. And I've no issue whatever with you not debating me on these pages. Once it became apparent that you're fingers are pegged firmly in your ears when it comes to any dissent uttered against a theory that requires one to unreasonably suspend belief... my posts ceased to be about debating you. Rather, they're about ensuring that you don't go unchallenged in your inventions and contrived scenarios, thus recruiting some gullible neophyte to this silly Lechmere business.

[Abby Normal]

It is not your beliefs that are needed Fisherman,and where truths are essential,
you are the last person in whose direction I would look.

It is not anyone we are discussing,it is Richardson whose testimony cannot be shaken.A person who stated under oath to certain matters,none of which have been proven to have been false.I have no stated case,unlike you,therefor no inclination to distort facts,or conjure up situations that didn't exist.

Mine are not ideas,but considerations based on information over which I have no control,and no desire to alter,so the ground I stand on is much firmer than the morass into which the Lechmere theory has sunk.A strange theory by any standad.

Hi Harry (and all)
While I beleive Richardson would have seen the body had it been there and more than likely it wasnt, his testimoney WAS a little shaky---re the knife and the coroner called him out on it.

Richardson is the type of "witness" (along with lech and hutch) thats is exactly the type of person that needs to be looked into. These are men who were there at the time, very close to victims when they met there demise, who all have some red flags in there stories.