Lechmere was Jack the Ripper

[Fisherman]

Hi Fishy,

I promise that once you prove me wrong I will feel disappointed.

Regards,

Simon

Well, if you think that bowing gently forward equals being an Amazing Bending Man, then I can not prove you wrong on that point.

I can and would disagree very much, though.

[Fisherman]

The simple fact is that most witnesses tend to tell the truth.

Yes, they do. And another simple fact is that some of them nevertheless lie.

Simple facts can deceive - thereīs another simple fact for you.

A third simple fact is of course that my post to Simon was not about lying witnesses, but thatīs another matter.

[harry]

In English law,it is generally accepted that evidence given under oath be accepted as factuall,unless there is evidence to prove otherwise.
There has been no information forthcoming that Richrdson lied,by anyone.Fact.
His evidence,while not neccessarily stating directly of exanining the space where the body lay,is implying that he did so.If she had been there I would have seen her,meaning that space was,at some time,within his range of vision.

[Fisherman]

In English law,it is generally accepted that evidence given under oath be accepted as factuall,unless there is evidence to prove otherwise.
There has been no information forthcoming that Richrdson lied,by anyone.Fact.
His evidence,while not neccessarily stating directly of exanining the space where the body lay,is implying that he did so.If she had been there I would have seen her,meaning that space was,at some time,within his range of vision.

How cute! You want us to believe that all witnesses are truthful!

We all know, Harry, that a witness will be regarded as truthful until proven false. We also all know that many a witness have lied and gotten away with.

Call it a nuanced picture of reality, if you will - the opposite of a naive one.

Not that I think you are naive - you are just parroting how the legal system looks upon witnesses because you think it will do your own case good.

The fact that you reiterate the old "he must have been aware of all parameters involved and the exact position of the body" really says all that can be said about the value of your post: it takes the wording of Richardson and elevates it into steel-armoured truth.

You are welcome to these ideas of yours, but I really canīt be bothered to go on forever telling you that there is no real ground to stand on for them. Itīs enough now.

[harry]

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.

[Fisherman]

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.

My word, how worthless a figure I am in your eyes. How, oh how, shall I cope with that?

Repentance? Running from the boards? Suicide?

And you now lesson me on how I should not distort facts or conjure up situations that you somehow know never existed. Oh, the shame!

Being the considering and discerning person you are, I donīt really know why you point out that you stand on a much firmer ground than I do - that should of course go without saying.

I sometimes wonder why not more admiration and recognition comes your way out here. It really is an enigma, given your stature and integrity. I am truly humbled by having my theory shredded by somebody so fair and enlighted.

I stand in awe.

[caz]

I agree that it's difficult to be certain of anything when dealing with contradicting evidence. We look for likelihood’s. Of all the factors involved in Chapman’s murder the one that I feel the greatest level of confidence in is that no one could have sat on that second step and missed seeing a mutilated corpse. I’d say that it would have taken an effort not to have seen her. To me it appears close to impossible. I would go so far as to say that it would be easier for me to accept that he saw the corpse but lied about it.
I have no medical knowledge, but considering the knowledge available in 1888, with the ‘unusual’ state of the corpse, is it really impossible that Phillips could have been out in his assessment? If it is categorically impossible then Richardson has to have lied or been mistake. If it’s not impossible however then I favour Richardson being correct in saying that Annie wasn’t there at 4.45.

I agree with this HS [she says, very slowly trying to catch up with this thread].

Exact time of death is now known to be notoriously hard to pin down, even today, without reliable supporting circumstantial evidence. Yet we still see posters clinging to a doctor's attempted estimate from 130 years ago, when they were out of their depth but didn't fully appreciate the fact.

Going by the last reliable sighting of Annie Chapman alive, and the time her dead body was discovered, we won't get far. She'd suffered bruising to the chest and a black eye from her recent fight; she was very poorly - possibly dying - and had apparently been outdoors since around 1.30am. Her mutilated body would have been pretty cold by 6am anyway, regardless of when she drew her last breath. While Dr Phillips thought she had been dead for at least two hours by 6.30, "it was right to mention that it was a fairly cool morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost a great quantity of blood".

The point is, even if Phillips was right about her being dead for "at least two hours", despite the caveat, it would have been more of a lucky guess than anything else, unless it can be demonstrated that he had experience of other murder victims, in similarly poor health, who had lost the same amount of blood after spending much of an early autumn night outdoors.

Without that experience, any doctor would have been working in the dark, so we dismiss the surrounding circumstantial evidence at our peril, merely because it doesn't sit well with Phillips's fuzzy estimate.

Love,

Caz
X

[Harry D]

Without that experience, any doctor would have been working in the dark, so we dismiss the surrounding circumstantial evidence at our peril, merely because it doesn't sit well with Phillips's fuzzy estimate.

Only if it harms our particular suspect.

[Patrick S]

How cute! You want us to believe that all witnesses are truthful!

We all know, Harry, that a witness will be regarded as truthful until proven false. We also all know that many a witness have lied and gotten away with.

After some time away, I return to these boards, only to find the "same old same old". Of course this was all somewhat interesting once, before it was closely examined, before we learned the intellectual gymnastics required to maintain some shred of belief.

In reading Fisherman's recent posts here we see why this Lechmere business cannot gain traction among those with more than just cursory knowledge of the crimes (conceding, of course, that it does quite well with bored teenagers and retirees stumbling across "internationally sent" documentaries on Youtube). Here we have Fisherman telling us how "cute" it is to believe that "all witnesses are truthful", while we have pages upon pages, mountains of words piled upon mountains of words stating his outrage and disgust for any suggestion that one particular witness - PC Jonas Mizen - was anything less than perfectly truthful and accurate in his testimony. Some of us were even scolded for suggesting that a man of such impeccable record and iron-clad Christian faith would dare utter an untruth in private conversation, much less under oath. Thus, ANY inconsistencies in his statements must be attributed to a SCAM... the MIZEN SCAM. And so it goes with all of it, of course. We must believe this one, but not that one. Then we must believe contrived explanations telling us why this one would have lied but that would never have dreamed of such a thing.

So now we've moved onto Hutchinson, it seems. We're told he ran a scam of his own, he wanted is fifteen minutes of fame (?). Of course this reminds of Robert Paul. He was ascribed motivations from 130 years on, as well. He hated the police, had an ax to grind... but was also an unwitting dupe, easily falling under Lechmere's spell and becoming his puppet, mere minutes after having met him. Of course, this goes on and on... and on. Yet, here we are, years down the road, with nothing new, nothing interesting, nothing credible. Just more of same.

[Fisherman]

Caz:

"Her mutilated body would have been pretty cold by 6am anyway, regardless of when she drew her last breath."

And this is stated by a poster who claims to know that Phillpis would have been out of his depth, esablishing Chapmans TOD! Caz asserts us that REGARDLESS OF when she drew her last breath, Chapman would be pretty cold at 6am.

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.

This is of course either sheer ignorance or an effort to pull the wool over the readers eyes.

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.

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.
It is nevertheless suggested that Chapman could! She would grow cold immediately after death REGARDLESS of when it occurred!

And cold she was! But for a little warmth under the intestines (felt by the sensitive hands of Phillips!), she was totally cold. And as I said, an hour after death, NOBODY is unless thrown in a deep-freezer.

Equally, the rigor was perfectly in line with what Phillips would have expected to see. It had set in, but only just - and rigor normally starts setting in after around two hours, althoug cold conditions will delay it. So Phillipsīestimate of two hours AT LEAST, but probably more is a very sound an in all probability correct one, based as it was on the evidence.

I submit that the only ones out of their depth are the ones who try to nullify Phillipsī bid on extremely shaky grounds. Like, for example, Caz.

You may rest assured, by the way, that research will have been conducted by the victorian era on decapitated people and on war casualties with very far-reaching damage and blood loss, as to how long they take to cool off, so Phillips did not need to have had such patients himself, he could rely on the findings of colleagues and researchers, and I think it is utterly reasonable to believe he did. The victorian doctors were not totally in the dark, just like today they were in all probability curious and willing to learn. Not that it fits your suggestions, but nevertheless...

[Fisherman]

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 hasnīt 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.

[Fisherman]

Only if it harms our particular suspect.

A/ I thoroughly dislike the suggestion that I would dislike any forthcoming information that does not agree with my theory.

B/ The suggestion that Phillips may have been a useless crackpot and the worst establisher of TOD in the history of mankind actually does not hurt my theory anyway - since the FACTS are that Chapman was cold to the touch and that rigor had just set in, and regardless of how much we feel we want to tarnish Phillips, these facts are in total agreement with my theory.
"Maybe thatīs wrong anyway" isnīt exactly very well underbuilt criticism of it, is it?

[Busy Beaver]

Yet, here we are, years down the road, with nothing new, nothing interesting, nothing credible. Just more of same.

It would probably have been much easier if there were only one murder, but here we have five and all have presented with much the same headaches:

Witnesses who have changed their stories
The Press making their own stories up or printing half stories
Doctors disagreeing on time of death
People believing they knew the deceased. but somehow they were wrong
Witnesses getting days mixed up
Police being shifty/ telling half truths to cover up being off their beats
The whole of London being somehow deserted when the murders took place, but busy again, once one was committed
Two to three hour gaps from when the deceased was last seen alive to the time they were found
Those at the top becoming seemingly desperate to crack the case and coming up with the most dubious of suspects
Witnesses telling porkies

And my list could go on.

[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.

[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 hasnīt 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.