Lechmere was Jack the Ripper

[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]

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, thatīs 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]

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

[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.

[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".

[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]

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?

[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 didnīt.
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]

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 doesnīt work on any level. It is not even close.

[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]

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, Iīm hoping to be fine anyway.

[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.

[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 Iīll 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 !!!!!!!!!!!

[Patrick S]

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 "name matter" isn't evidence. I echo that sentiment. However, taken on it's face, it is suspicious. It's clear the police either weren't aware of it, or they were and accepted it. As I've stated here dozens of times: There are many far more likely reasons the man would have given the name (Cross) aside from his having killed Nichols, remained with the body, wandered about in the night with Paul until he found a PC, told him about the woman lying in Buck's Row. I think it's important also to point out that we agree on this crucial aspect (unless your view has changed). NO ONE asked Cross/Lechmere his name on August 31, 1888. He didn't give it to Paul. Mizen didn't ask his name. Rather, he appeared voluntarily at Day 2 of the Nichols' inquest on September 3. Of course, you've explained that it's your view that he was "driven out" of hiding because of Paul's Lloyd's statement which appeared in print the previous day. Yet, when we look at Paul's statement we find nothing that would have compelled him to come forward. Here is the extend of Paul mentioning "the man" he met in Buck's Row:

"I saw a man standing where the woman was. He came a little towards me..."

"The man, however, came towards me and said, "Come and look at this woman."

"... so I went on and told the other man I would send the first policeman I saw."

That's it. Name? Hair color? Height? Clothing? No. No. No. And no. Paul even has the man staying behind in Buck's Row as he continues on in search of a PC:

"I saw one in Church-row, just at the top of Buck's-row, who was going round calling people up, and I told him what I had seen, and I asked him to come, but he did not say whether he should come or not. He continued calling the people up, which I thought was a great shame, after I had told him the woman was dead."

"I" told him. What "I" had seen. "I" asked him. Not "we". Lechmere, were he your killer, should have been dancing with joy. He'd managed to kill a woman, grab the first man who happened along and essentially FORCED him to view his victim ("I knew the dangerous character of the locality I tried to give him a wide berth"), enlisted him to set off in search of a cop, he'd found a cop, pulled his "scam" on him, and made it off into the dark without so much as having been asked his name. Now he reads the Lloyd's story which give no description of him at all and, in fact, reduces his role in the proceedings to next to nothing... and he's compelled to come forward? He's killed, escaped... and we're to believe he THEN shows at the inquest... after having escaped COMPLETELY? But, he takes a precaution: He gives the name Cross. Which isn't a false name per se. It's his step father's name. Yet, he gives his actual address and his actual place of employment. None of this bears any scrutiny at all, I'm afraid. And, it seems, most others agree.

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.

I'll just say this. Mizen is contradicted by Paul. Cross/Lechmere is not. Mizen was incriminated (for inaction once being told a woman was lying in Bucks Row) by Paul's Lloyd's statement. Cross/Lechmere was not.

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

I'm glad to see this has been modified to "working path passed through the killing fields". It used to be "the victims were all found along his route to work", which was never true. As well, the times of the killings do not coincide as you'd hope they would with the man's likely commute (if we use what we know of it from August 31 as a guide). Also, you must create an alternative explanation for the "Double Event" (he was visiting his mother, right?). So two of the five aren't covered by this "path through killing fields" bit.

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.

I'd suggest that any "case" against Lechmere is necessarily so contrived that it's anti-common sense. It defies logic. It requires dependencies and assumptions based upon nothing aside from a BELIEF that Lechmere was Jack the Ripper. BELIEVE this witness (because it serves the narrative). DON'T BELIEVE this one (because it doesn't). We must invent scams and motivations. That's the conclusion I've drawn relative to the theory. Others can draw their own. I just hope they do their homework before doing so.

It is not until we can PROVE that the scam was not an example of Lechmere lying his way past the police

Again. Why lie his way past the police? It was pitch black in Buck's Row. He could have just walked away... Toward Paul... away from Paul.. Cross waited for Paul to arrive at Nichols' body. Paul tried to avoid Cross but Cross touched him, asked him to come see. Cross went with Paul to find a PC. Cross didn't know if he would be searched, detained, asked to return to Buck's Row by Mizen (which would have required only two words: SHOW ME). He SOUGHT THE POLICE. And once doing so he "scammed" Mizen in an effort to "lie his way past him"? And once successfully "lying is way past Mizen he THEN show up at the inquest the following Monday... but gives the name Cross rather than Lechmere along with his actual address and place of employment.

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

Here we're asked to believe that Cross killed Nichols' mutilated her, covered it up so Paul won't see... then he approached Paul and when Paul tried to avoid him he touched his shoulder, asked him to come and see... then he tells Paul he thinks she's dead when Paul thinks he detects movement, goes of with Paul to find a PC and he tells Mizen "for my part I think she's dead". Again... WHY did he cover the wounds again? To obscure the fact that she was dead? Only to then tell both Paul and Mizen that he thought she WAS dead?

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 letīs 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, Iīd 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.

I won't deal with this recurring rudeness theme of yours. So, include that type of silly rhetoric as it suits you, just don't expect a response. I'm one name on a long list of those you've accused of not paying the proper respect to your theory, and to you personally. Let's not pretend otherwise. The boards are filled with your outrage directed at dozens of posters. So, I'll admit to any crime of ill-manners of which you accuse me and concede you are now and have always been a perfect gentlemen. It's of no consequence and a distraction. So, let's move on from it.

[Fisherman]

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 !!!!!!!!!!!

For the last time?

Gee, I have been waiting for THAT promise! Thank you ever so!