Lechmere was Jack the Ripper

[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.

[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 that´s wrong anyway" isn´t exactly very well underbuilt criticism of it, is it?

[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 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.

[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 Phillips´estimate 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 Phillips´ 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...

[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.