Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lechmere was Jack the Ripper

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Jon Guy View Post
    Doc Brown made his call for TOD whilst with the body in Mitre Sq.

    When did the police find out about Eddowes being in the Bishopsgate cell ?
    It doesn`t matter what time she was found !!
    The body could have been dumped there already dead.
    I was assuming that while Brown was in the square he may have been told that the body was not there at 1.30 and taken that into account.

    I had not assumed the police or Doctor would have been aware of her recent release, for some considerable time.

    There really was little medical evidence which would have allowed the Doctor to establish a seemingly pricise TOD on its own.


    Steve

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
      However, one is left to wonder if those estimates were entirely based on medical evidence, or if input from witnesses played any part, in Mitre Square
      the evidence of Watkins may well have influenced him, here the time of discovery may have influenced Philips
      But Phillips would be aware that a dead body could have been dumped there at 5.15. So, witness statements must be ignored.


      Yes I agree, but had he ever had to attend anything like the murder of Chapman?
      Good question. I don`t know, probably not like Chapman but he would have dealt with industrial accidents, railway accidents (lots of suicides jumping under trains).
      In fact, at his age, Phillips probably spent most of his student days chopping up cadavers and all that weird stuff they were doing in the mid 19th c.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
        exactly El. Although I would add he had a discrepancy with Mizen and he used a different name. both of course probably have an innocent explanation, but flags to me that even need to be explained away.

        Im also probably a bit sympathetic to the "witness" suspects, as I favor hutch and also think these types need more looking into-like Richardson, bowyer, and possibly Barnett.
        Hi Abby,

        yes the issues need to be addressed, and i beleive explanations for both of those you cite are not only availble, but in the case of the discrepancy equally if not more likely than those we have already presented.

        Steve

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
          I was assuming that while Brown was in the square he may have been told that the body was not there at 1.30 and taken that into account.
          No, because the body may have been dumped there already dead.
          The police surgeon (I`m guessing) needs to know (as best they can) was the person killed there or dumped there and mutilated.

          There really was little medical evidence which would have allowed the Doctor to establish a seemingly precise TOD on its own.
          But from experience they must have seen enough dead bodies to know approx how long they have been dead.
          At least enough to know she had not been killed within the hour, which is the point I`m trying to make.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Jon Guy View Post
            But Phillips would be aware that a dead body could have been dumped there at 5.15. So, witness statements must be ignored.
            Disagree I am afraid Jon, I cannot discount witness statements purely on the guess work of Philips, even if those statements taken individual are open to question. togeather with Richardson, they suggest a TOD of after 4.45, and before 5.30.

            Originally posted by Jon Guy View Post
            Good question. I don`t know, probably not like Chapman but he would have dealt with industrial accidents, railway accidents (lots of suicides jumping under trains).
            In fact, at his age, Phillips probably spent most of his student days chopping up cadavers and all that weird stuff they were doing in the mid 19th c.
            Its total different, cutting up a cadavers to fresh butchered bodies. The former would norma be embalmed first before students were let loose on them.

            Steve

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Jon Guy View Post
              No, because the body may have been dumped there already dead.
              The police surgeon (I`m guessing) needs to know (as best they can) was the person killed there or dumped there and mutilated.
              Not sure i follow your thinking Jon, Brown obviously decided the body was not dumped,, she was killed where she was found, and the body was not there when watkins went round the square at about 1.30.

              Originally posted by Jon Guy View Post
              But from experience they must have seen enough dead bodies to know approx how long they have been dead.
              At least enough to know she had not been killed within the hour, which is the point I`m trying to make.
              That the whole point Jon, its pure guess work, it was not based on science but on opinion, which is highly subjective.

              I remain unconvinced.

              Steve

              Comment


              • Hi Herlock - I am going to respond to a point you & Bridewell made over on the 'Annie Chapman Time-of-Death" thread. Cheers.
                Last edited by rjpalmer; 09-11-2018, 10:19 AM.

                Comment


                • From what medical experts tell us TOD estimation could be wildly wrong due to a variety of factors, even much later than the LVP. This is nothing to do with impugning a doctors reputation or knowledge, itís an accepted fact.

                  And so, for me, itís much easier to accept witnesses. Yes timings have to be viewed according to the era; accepting that a few minutes here or there are not wildly problematical.

                  In my suggested timeline the only thing that we have to Ďchangeí is Longís timing from 5.30 to 5.15 - surely not an impossibility. And if you do just that then Richardson, Long and Cadosch all tie in. We donít need to say Ďwell someone must have liedí because we have to accept that Phillips was spot on with his TOD because itís very reasonable to suggest that he might not have been.

                  Even if we decide that Long lied, Richardson and Cadosch still tie in with Chapman being killed at around 5.20. I have to say that itís very convenient for some to say that someone like Cadosch lied. We have no reason to believe that. We are not, however, calling Dr Phillips a liar. Just that he made an understandable error. Far more likely in my view that Richardson missing a mutilated corpse then failing to understand that a door might have blocked his view of it.
                  Regards

                  Herlock






                  "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
                    Hi Herlock - I am going to respond to a point you & Bridewell made over on the 'Annie Chapman Time-of-Death" thread. Cheers.
                    Ok RJ,

                    Iím assuming this means that Iíve messed up in some way.

                    Iím not worried though, Fish accuses me of that with every post that I make.
                    Regards

                    Herlock






                    "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
                      I was assuming that while Brown was in the square he may have been told that the body was not there at 1.30 and taken that into account.

                      I had not assumed the police or Doctor would have been aware of her recent release, for some considerable time.

                      There really was little medical evidence which would have allowed the Doctor to establish a seemingly pricise TOD on its own.


                      Steve
                      But even if Brown was not aware of the time of her release, he got the Tod almost spot on based on what we now know

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                        But even if Brown was not aware of the time of her release, he got the Tod almost spot on based on what we now know

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                        Agreed Trevor,

                        The question remains however was his estimate based on purely medical evidence? and if so what?

                        or was it based on a mixture of medical and physical evidence?(like Watkins says she was not there on his previous beat).

                        If Brown was convinced that the murder took place on site, and he is made aware of Watkins's report, he would of course arrive at what we now consider to be a very close fit, even without ANY medical evidence at all.


                        Steve

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
                          I was assuming that while Brown was in the square he may have been told that the body was not there at 1.30 and taken that into account.

                          I had not assumed the police or Doctor would have been aware of her recent release, for some considerable time.

                          There really was little medical evidence which would have allowed the Doctor to establish a seemingly pricise TOD on its own.


                          Steve
                          Hi El and Jon Guy
                          while I agree with this for the most part I think the doctors (and the police) would have enough experience with the dead and dying and wounds that they could make pretty good guesses just based on experience. Not technically precise of course or things you really cant quantify.

                          Take Mary Kelly for example-most thought by the way the body was that she was killed in the middle of the night but Maxwells testimony jacked that all up. but maybe something how the bloodstains looked, how dry they were, what the wounds looked like (or what they smelled like?)-that they knew she was killed much earlier than a daylight morning murder.

                          Like I said, something based on maybe an accumulation of small details, a hunch, just experience etc. Not enough to technichally precise or to quantify but close enough.

                          That being said when you have other witness testimony-here three witnesses that dispute the drs TOD I think on the balance you go with the thre witnesses probably being correct in this case.
                          Last edited by Abby Normal; 09-11-2018, 12:40 PM.
                          "Is all that we see or seem
                          but a dream within a dream?"

                          -Edgar Allan Poe


                          "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                          quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                          -Frederick G. Abberline

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Bridewell View Post
                            Cadosch's time of 5.32 records when he passed the Spitalfields Church (Christchurch) which is about a two minute walk from 27 Hanbury Street; presumably, if correct, that means he left home about 5.30am - but as ever the timings can only be seen as approximate.
                            Thanks for pointing that out Bridewell
                            Regards

                            Herlock






                            "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                              ... Although I would add he had a discrepancy with Mizen and he used a different name.

                              Both Paul and Xmere had discrepancies with Mizen, that's why Mizen's account is questioned.

                              Cross used a different name from what?

                              If the Charles Cross, Pickford's driver, involved in the traffic accident, is the same Charles Cross (something that can't be confirmed yet) then he used the same name when dealing with police and possibly Pickford's. The fact that he also used the name Lechmere on bureaucratic forms is nothing odd for the Victorian period, indeed, it was not even necessarily illegal to use the name Cross at the inquest.

                              Criminals usually use aliases to avoid detection, this was not what happened in this case. Anybody who read the newspaper could go and knock on his door.

                              If Charles Lechmere was jtr then everything he did was dodgey, if he wasn't, nothing raised so far is actually out of keeping for an innocent man.
                              dustymiller
                              aka drstrange


                              "Whenever an expert says something that bolsters the Lechmere theory, it is not my task to disprove him ..."
                              Fisherman

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
                                Agreed Trevor,

                                The question remains however was his estimate based on purely medical evidence? and if so what?

                                or was it based on a mixture of medical and physical evidence?(like Watkins says she was not there on his previous beat).

                                If Brown was convinced that the murder took place on site, and he is made aware of Watkins's report, he would of course arrive at what we now consider to be a very close fit, even without ANY medical evidence at all.


                                Steve
                                I personally dont subscribe to the theories that any of the victims were killed elsewhere, and then the bodies dumped afterwards. For me there are to many practical, and logistical reasons to rule these suggestions out.

                                Eddowes murder is the one murder that an accurate, but not precise time of death can be identified.

                                Dr Sequeira arrived at 1.55am he stated that life had been extinct no more than 15 mins, which puts the time at approx 1.40am which is dead in line with my belief that the killer was disturbed by Harvey coming down Church passage towards the square giving him time to escape before Watkins came back into the square.

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                                Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 09-11-2018, 11:31 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X