Lechmere was Jack the Ripper

[Herlock Sholmes]

I´ll just do what I normally do when you have these fits, Herlock - I isolate one detail and scrutinize it:

"And we have the murders ceasing after Kelly. Oh, I forgot, that’s why you are so desperate to tie the Ripper Murders together with the Torso Killings."

I am not desperate to tie the series together. Nor do I have to. They do it by themselves. It takes sticking your head in the sand like an ostridge to miss out on that, and my have you stuck your head DEEEP in!

Burying my head in the sand like the majority who appear to disagree with you as well.

Oh, but I forgot, you have alternative explanations for this too: they both took out uteri, they both took out hearts, they both cut necks, they both abstained from physical torture and they both had a penchant for cutting away the abdominal wall in flaps - but they did so for wildly varying reasons (!), yes Sir!

It is okay not to have the capacity to see the implications of all this. It is okey to be ignorant. Totally (in both respects). Many people are, and as they say: it takes all kinds.
What is not okay is to produce the kind of crap you do and proudly flaunt it on public boards. It is even less okay to lack sorely in historical insights and try to hide that by accusing others of being the stupid ones.

A cynical twisting of the facts as ever.

You are talking out of your behind, Herlock, and the result is accordingly very meagre in terms of usefulness for the readers of these boards. I can only advice you not to overinvest in your capacity - but such advice is normally not appreciated for it´s good sense, and I don´t expect it to happen this time either

Stop with the whimpering victimhood. I disagree with you on many points. It’s allowed. Everyone is ignorant when they disagree with you. The only crap on here is your blatantly biased viewpoints where you will go to any length to shoehorn Lechmere in. If you don’t like being disagreed with then stick to fishing.

It´s a shame. The boards could - and should - be a source of insights and knowledge and not a stage for a vociferous concoction of misinformation, rude accusations and a seemingly bottomless pit of ignorance.

And the boards shouldn’t be a constant stream of insulting arrogance where only you can be correct. You keep mentioning things like accusations when, as I’ve said before and anyone can read, they come from you in the first place.

It’s time that you learned that everything that you say isn’t the pinnacle of truth and learning.

It nevertheless is just that at times.

Deja-vu. Every thread. Polite debate until Fish gets tired of being disagreed with then it descends with Fish blaming everyone (usually me) but himself.

You made a series of points. I made a post commenting on each. Because you don’t like those points you resort to the usual.

[Herlock Sholmes]

"I don´t think that he must have had necessarily much or indeed any blood visible on his person".
(Jason Payne-James)

... but we of course payed him to say that, and he is just a simple liar anyway, misled by us and the devious film crew. And you are of course a MUCH better judge of this than him!!!

That is another alternative explanation.

Now I really don´t have any more time to spare for you. You have made the exact same statement before, and you have had the exact same answer before. You can lead a donkey to water...

Not exactly categorical is it?

So Lechmere, who might possible have had some blood on him(unknown in quantity or location on his person) and he would have no way of knowing himself whether he had or not, hung around to meet someone who might even have been a police officer not caring at all if that person had noticed that blood.

An added point. How could JJP give such an opinion (however cagey) when he couldn’t be certain of Lechmere’sposition in regard to the body at the time of death?

[rjpalmer]

Hi Fisherman. You seem to have a pack of hounds at your heels, but in the two or three times we've exchanged messages you've struck me as a reasonable fellow, and I appreciated your research into 'Toppy,' so I do wish to treat you in a fair-minded way, and with respect.

If nothing else, I enjoy 'hand's on' Ripperology, and, as it so happens, I am currently visiting a house that has back steps and a spring door that automatically shuts, so I'll run a few experiments tomorrow morning and test your theory in a fair manner. Dawn was at 4:51 a.m., sunrise at 5.25 a.m., on Sept 8th, so I'll try to recreate the same conditions that Richardson experienced and see if I notice anything untoward in your suggestion. I'm at around 45 degrees latitude, and London is roughly 51.5, but it's the same time of year, so the conditions should be similar. I don't have a rabbit or a dull knife, so maybe I'll trim my toenails.

That said, all the talk is about the back door, what about the front door? Perhaps you may have addressed this earlier (I haven't read all of the thread) but doesn't the front door pose a bit of an issue? Richardson states quite clearly that he shut the front door on leaving the building, yet 30 or 40 minutes later the old codger John Davis came downstairs and found it swinging wide open. Clearly someone must have decamped from the building at around the same time that Mr. Cadoche heard strange noises in the neighboring yard? And surely that someone must have been the murderer? If not, who was it? What rascal opened this door and left it wide open to the street on a busy market morning if it was not our old friend Saucy Jack? Enjoy your evening.

[Fisherman]

You made a series of points. I made a post commenting on each. Because you don’t like those points you resort to the usual.

If the usual is feeling very depressed about how you reason, then you are right. You come back with the same arguments over and over again, and that is your prerogative. But it also applies that it must be my prerogative to simply avoid answering the same old, same old - or to point out why I find it useless.

One example, since you persist: You say that we do not know that Lechmere was violent. Again. For the umpteenth time.

So here goes again. For the umpteenth time:

We don´t know that he was NOT violent. We have no information either way. We know that many men who have been serialists have amazed their environment on account of how nobody had any idea that they were violent, not the neighbours, not the wifes, nobody.

But you still pursue this line! "We don´t know that he was violent". We don´t know IF he was violent, that is what we don´t know. And, most importantly, no matter that we don´t know this, the points of suspicion will not go away because of that!

We don´t have to have information speaking of a violent disposition to accept that many things point in his direction. Entertaining suspicion against somebody is not dependent of whether we can verify that he is violent or not.

Having to explain these things wears me down. If that is your ultimate goal, you should be delighted to hear that the process is underway.

[Fisherman]

Not exactly categorical is it?

So Lechmere, who might possible have had some blood on him(unknown in quantity or location on his person) and he would have no way of knowing himself whether he had or not, hung around to meet someone who might even have been a police officer not caring at all if that person had noticed that blood.

An added point. How could JJP give such an opinion (however cagey) when he couldn’t be certain of Lechmere’sposition in regard to the body at the time of death?

How can you be certain that he would have blood on his person when you don´t know his position either?

Of course Jason Payne-James could not be certain of the positions - what he was certain of is that the deed could have been performed with little or no blood at all discernible on Lechmere. I´m sure that you can think up alternative explanations where he got bloodied, though.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman. You seem to have a pack of hounds at your heels, but in the two or three times we've exchanged messages you've struck me as a reasonable fellow, and I appreciated your research into 'Toppy,' so I do wish to treat you in a fair-minded way, and with respect.

If nothing else, I enjoy 'hand's on' Ripperology, and, as it so happens, I am currently visiting a house that has back steps and a spring door that automatically shuts, so I'll run a few experiments tomorrow morning and test your theory in a fair manner. Dawn was at 4:51 a.m., sunrise at 5.25 a.m., on Sept 8th, so I'll try to recreate the same conditions that Richardson experienced and see if I notice anything untoward in your suggestion. I'm at around 45 degrees latitude, and London is roughly 51.5, but it's the same time of year, so the conditions should be similar. I don't have a rabbit or a dull knife, so maybe I'll trim my toenails.

That said, all the talk is about the back door, what about the front door? Perhaps you may have addressed this earlier (I haven't read all of the thread) but doesn't the front door pose a bit of an issue? Richardson states quite clearly that he shut the front door on leaving the building, yet 30 or 40 minutes later the old codger John Davis came downstairs and found it swinging wide open. Clearly someone must have decamped from the building at around the same time that Mr. Cadoche heard strange noises in the neighboring yard? And surely that someone must have been the murderer? If not, who was it? What rascal opened this door and left it wide open to the street on a busy market morning if it was not our old friend Saucy Jack? Enjoy your evening.

Of course it could have been somebody else than the killer that left the door open. I don´t remember that detail, but I´m sure you have it correct.

How about the person who exclaimed "No!" was the one leaving it open? Or another unfortunate who tried the door but changed her mind for some reason.

Again, I don´t think that Richardson must be regarded as having told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Again, I feel convinced that the killer left the premises well before Richardson did - IF Richardson did.

I welcome your little experiment, and I would be interested to hear the outcome. If nothing else, it should be able to produce an immaculate set of toenails.

On a side note, I do wish you had not said that you want to treat me with respect - it sounds as if you are rather nervously trying to pacify a completely unpredictable maniac.
Then again, maybe you are instead trying to set an example...?

[Varqm]

No, I do not agree at all. I don´t think there is any realistic chance that Chapman died at around 5.30. And accordingly, it is not in any way the simpler explanation - it is the distorted one.

It is the simplest explanation.Of course it's possible Chapman was killed at 5;25-5;30,it's the most realistic.I believe in Cadosch's time because he was working and had a reason to check,not to be late.
Why is it the distorted one?

---

[Herlock Sholmes]

If the usual is feeling very depressed about how you reason, then you are right. You come back with the same arguments over and over again, and that is your prerogative. But it also applies that it must be my prerogative to simply avoid answering the same old, same old - or to point out why I find it useless.

One example, since you persist: You say that we do not know that Lechmere was violent. Again. For the umpteenth time.

So here goes again. For the umpteenth time:

We don´t know that he was NOT violent. We have no information either way. We know that many men who have been serialists have amazed their environment on account of how nobody had any idea that they were violent, not the neighbours, not the wifes, nobody.

But you still pursue this line! "We don´t know that he was violent". We don´t know IF he was violent, that is what we don´t know. And, most importantly, no matter that we don´t know this, the points of suspicion will not go away because of that!

We don´t have to have information speaking of a violent disposition to accept that many things point in his direction. Entertaining suspicion against somebody is not dependent of whether we can verify that he is violent or not.

Having to explain these things wears me down. If that is your ultimate goal, you should be delighted to hear that the process is underway.

You’ve been wearying me for longer than that. The ‘violent’ point is not one that i labour because it’s a very, very minor one. I only raise it when listing points. When we are basically box-ticking it’s a point that it’s reasonable to mention. I’m not saying for example that Bury was Jack the Ripper but we know that he was violent so it’s a slight plus point.

Let’s put it this way Fish. If tomorrow you found out that there was evidence of Lechmere being violent I’m sure that you’d never mention it

[Herlock Sholmes]

How can you be certain that he would have blood on his person when you don´t know his position either?

Of course Jason Payne-James could not be certain of the positions - what he was certain of is that the deed could have been performed with little or no blood at all discernible on Lechmere. I´m sure that you can think up alternative explanations where he got bloodied, though.

Again, now who is misinterpreting.

I’m not saying that Lechmere would or wouldn’t have gotten blood on him. What I’m saying is that Lechmere couldn’t have been anything like certain that he hadn’t gotten blood on him whilst killing in the dark. That’s the point I make that you seem to think strange. It’s not unreasonable therefore to think that a killer under those circumstances might want to check himself over for blood before he had to speak to anyone.

How can this point be construed as unreasonable?

[rjpalmer]

Fisherman:

The Times coverage of the inquest, 11 Sept.

John Davis --(who went downstairs around 5:45)

"The front door was wide open, and he was not surprised at finding it so, as it was frequently left open at night..."

HOWEVER--we know it hadn't been left open, because:

John Richardson: (Daily Telegraph 13 Sept) describing leaving the building at roughly 4:55 or 5 a.m.:

"I shut the front door."


Ergo, between roughly 5 a.m. and 5:45 a.m. a person or persons unknown left the front door standing wide open. We can assume they either entered the building, left the building, or both.

What happened in that time frame that might explain it?

Hint: Long/Cadoche. You're up against 4 independent witnesses with no axe to grind, painting a pretty complete circumstantial picture of what must have happened. All the best.

[Abby Normal]

Fisherman:

The Times coverage of the inquest, 11 Sept.

John Davis --(who went downstairs around 5:45)

"The front door was wide open, and he was not surprised at finding it so, as it was frequently left open at night..."

HOWEVER--we know it hadn't been left open, because:

John Richardson: (Daily Telegraph 13 Sept) describing leaving the building at roughly 4:55 or 5 a.m.:

"I shut the front door."


Ergo, between roughly 5 a.m. and 5:45 a.m. a person or persons unknown left the front door standing wide open. We can assume they either entered the building, left the building, or both.

What happened in that time frame that might explain it?

Hint: Long/Cadoche. You're up against 4 independent witnesses with no axe to grind, painting a pretty complete circumstantial picture of what must have happened. All the best.

Well done Rj

I dont beleive ive ever seen anyone bring this up before. Add to that..that anyone living there who left inbetween that time more than likely would have shut the door. Who dosnt shut the door to their house?

Also, a killer trying to skidaddle quickly and quietly probably would leave the door open IMHO.

Good post.

[harry]

The boards could and should be a source of insights and knowledge and not a stage for a vocifrrous concuction of misrepresention,rude accusation and a seemingly bottomless pit of ignorance.
Well said Fisherman,you have described yourself completely,as recent posts have shown,only criticism I can make is, you left out honesty and truthfullness.

I believe there is ample evidence,as given by Long,Cadosche and Richardson,to suggest a time of death of Chapman as being around 5.30 AM.

[Fisherman]

The boards could and should be a source of insights and knowledge and not a stage for a vocifrrous concuction of misrepresention,rude accusation and a seemingly bottomless pit of ignorance.
Well said Fisherman,you have described yourself completely,as recent posts have shown,only criticism I can make is, you left out honesty and truthfullness.

I believe there is ample evidence,as given by Long,Cadosche and Richardson,to suggest a time of death of Chapman as being around 5.30 AM.

You are welcome to present any single case you can find where I have not been truthful. Once it becomes obvious that it is an impossibility for you, nothing more needs to be said about your approach.

Now that has been said, I am not going to waste any more time on you.

[Fisherman]

You’ve been wearying me for longer than that. The ‘violent’ point is not one that i labour because it’s a very, very minor one. I only raise it when listing points. When we are basically box-ticking it’s a point that it’s reasonable to mention. I’m not saying for example that Bury was Jack the Ripper but we know that he was violent so it’s a slight plus point.

Let’s put it this way Fish. If tomorrow you found out that there was evidence of Lechmere being violent I’m sure that you’d never mention it

If I find out that Lechmere was known as a very violent man, then yes, I would certainly add that to the list of suspicions against him.

It is not as if I am saying that the Ripper murders were non-violent, is it? Although this is a less simple subject than it may seem!

The problem with your stating that he is not known to have been violent is that it equally applies that he is not known to be non-violent either. So basically, what you do is to elevate our ignorance on the matter to evidence that he was probably not the Ripper. And that´s where it goes very awry.

If we want to take things a little further - it is somethimes healthy to do so - we should ask ourselves what violence is. How do we define it? And in what context is it applicable in the Ripper case?

I would say that violence is not a simple phenomenon. Somebody who is run over by a car has met with a violent death. And so, it can be said that any infliction of physical damage is - on a ground level - violence.

Then there are those who are violence addicts, people who enjoy inflicting damage on others. And there are those who have a short fuse and will readily beat others up, but perhaps with no real sense of enjoyment. They simply dislike somebody for some reason, they can have been taunted and so they retaliate.

Look at the Ripper. What was he about? Did he enjoy inflicting pain and damage? Was he a sadist?

No, he apparently was not. But his victims nevertheless met with violent death. It would seem, however, that he killed as a means to procure bodies to cut up and eviscerate.

Would such a man be somebody who displayed violence in his everyday life? Was, for example, Jeffrey Dahmer a man who was very violent? Did he end up in street fights, did he attack people in the streets and beat them up, did he kick his parent´s teeth out as they visited him, did he engage in violent sex with his lovers? Apparently not.
He simply panicked when he realized that his lovers were about to leave him, and so he strangled them in order to be able to keep them with himself.

So he was able to use violence to reach that goal. But on the surfaace of things, he would absolutely not be known as a violent man.

I would submit that the Ripper may well have been somebody who had no outward tendencies to use violence at all, and that he only killed as a means to reach a goal - just like Dahmer.

And if this is true, then the parameter of violence becomes totally worthless.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman:

The Times coverage of the inquest, 11 Sept.

John Davis --(who went downstairs around 5:45)

"The front door was wide open, and he was not surprised at finding it so, as it was frequently left open at night..."

HOWEVER--we know it hadn't been left open, because:

John Richardson: (Daily Telegraph 13 Sept) describing leaving the building at roughly 4:55 or 5 a.m.:

"I shut the front door."


Ergo, between roughly 5 a.m. and 5:45 a.m. a person or persons unknown left the front door standing wide open. We can assume they either entered the building, left the building, or both.

What happened in that time frame that might explain it?

Hint: Long/Cadoche. You're up against 4 independent witnesses with no axe to grind, painting a pretty complete circumstantial picture of what must have happened. All the best.

It would seem from what Davis said that the front door could always be expected to be open. It was not an unexpected thing. It was frequently left open all night, he said.

We have a (circa) 45 minute gap, during which many people can have been responsible for the door being open. That is a significant amount of time.

The pretty complete circumstantial picture you speak of starts to come apart when we look at these witnesses and what they said. Cadosch and Long were both dead certain of the time they were in place, and corroborated it by naming the clocks they had seen and the exact time it had been. And they have it backwards - the Cadosch events are prior to the Long ones, and that makes no sense whatsoever.
Richardson told Chandler that he did not go out on the steps and he said nothing at all about the shoe business. Then, all of a sudden, he mentions it at the inquest, and serves up a very odd story.

So we are left with Davies, who said that the front door was open, and added it frequently was throughout the night. And we have Richardson, a witness who changed his story, who claims to have been there and shut the front door three quarters of an hour before Davies arrived.

So we must accept that nobody else touched the door in that period of time, and I personally find that hard to do. Moreover, we must also accept that Phillips was totally and utterly wrong about the TOD, and that he was either mistaken when he said that Chapman was cold at 6.30 (and his words about the remaining heat under the intestines tell us that he was able to feel subtle temperature variations), or Chapman had beaten the world record in the cooling off discipline. Plus she had managed to bring on rigor in less than half the normally expected time - and in cold conditions too, that should SLOW DOWN rigor.

There are two sides to this coin, R J - and I for one find a lot of inflation on your side. In my world, the Ripper left 29 Hanbury Street before 4 AM that morning.