Another nail in the Lechmere coffin?

[Fisherman]

Henry Flower: Never mind 'such a street', I tried it at about 3.00am with a friend in the very street, which has not changed a great deal since the 88. What struck me was that even though I asked my friend to walk normally (in relatively hard-soled shoes) without attempting to be quiet, she was actually not obviously audible until quite close by. Now granted, I wasn't standing frozen still listening hard for her approach; I did shuffle about, went through my pockets, thought about things - because we know that Lechmere's attention, for one reason or another, was focused on something quite important, he was not stood listening for Paul's approach. Reconstructions can get us only so far. We can't know exactly what was audible that night, we don't know for sure what Paul wore on his feet, we don't know whether the act of cutting a throat, lying a body down, rifling through its clothes and ripping at its abdomen would've been sufficiently noisy to have masked the sound of either Lechmere's or (if Lech is our man) Paul's approach. Rest assured I have no intention of staging a more detailed reconstruction!

I have been to Bucks Row several times (or Durward Street, to be more exact). I have never, though, done any sound experiment in the street, mostly because it is never calm and quiet there - it is a street in a large metropolis, and the ambient soundlevel is always very apparent. The last years, there has been a lot of construction work going on too.

I donīt think it is possible to come anywhere close to the conditions of the murder night today - not in Durward Street.
But I live in the quaint town of Helsingborg, where there are a number of old accoustic tunnel streets, and I have tested them a good many times, in the dead of night when it is relatively silent. Not as silent as I imagine Bucks Row would have been, admittedly, but nevertheless relatively quiet.
I am normally quite amazed by how any sound seems to grow in such conditions - footfalls you would not notice in the busy daytime become very obvious at night.
This is my experience, but I bet that a thousand people may have a thousand views of it. The thing to do would be to simply record the soundlevels.



Nobody says the routes are conclusive, but I don't think we can dismiss this point (even though I nearly did earlier on this thread!). I find it impossible to believe that if a modern day police investigation into a series of murders found that a man who had discovered / been discovered with one of the just-killed victims had probable routes to and from work that coincided with other murders, that wouldn't be a huge red flag. Obviously it's not proof of anything, but it can't just be dismissed, surely. It is a link, and the fact that many others might share that same link doesn't negate the fact that it applies to Lechmere.

EXACTLY so, Henry. No matter who is found alone with a freshly killed body, that somebody WILL be checked out. The police will say that they need to clear the person, but it of course also applies that they are eager to find out if the person in question may be the killer. A high percentage of people found alone with freshly killed bodies will be killers, it is that simple and the police are quite aware of it.
So if there are a string of murders that seemingly have the same originator, then the person found with the body will be checked for this parameter; can he or she be shown to have been at the other murder sites at the relevant hours, or can it be shown that the person in question at least would have had a logical reason to be there?
There were thousands of streets in the East End. The odds that Lechmereīs logical work routes would have all of the sites corresponding timewise to his morning work trek pinned down must be very, very high. Why does not one single of these murders take place north, south, northeast, southwest, east or west of his logical working routes?
If it is a coincidence that they ALL match, then it is an almighty coincidence.

Likewise, if we work from the assumption that the killer was a Mr X about whom we know nothning, then the distribution of killing times for the six strikes could have been any way around.
But for some reason, the only two who do not die at a time that seems to be compatible with Lechmeres working trek, are the ones who were killed much earlier ON WHAT SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN HIS NIGHT OFF!

So in this way too, the killings fit what we know about the carman. The conclusion must be that either the six women were killed by Lechmere, or they were killed by somebody else who had a reason to walk these exact routes, or they were perpetrated by somebody who could just as well have killed in any other street at any other time, but who - for whatever reason - managed to do it in a way that seemingly fits exactly with the logical movements of the man who was found alone with one of the victims at a time that was very close to when she was cut.


If we apply that logic to the entire series then you are obliged to accept that at least one man seen with each victim was the killer.

Not really, no - it is a question of no matter who was seen alone with any victim at a time that corresponded roughly with the time of death, that person must be a better suggestion for the killerīs role than a phantom killer who was not seen or heard, and whose existence is a mere suggestion.

I think it is entirely possible that a man could very quickly cut a throat, lift some clothes, and rip away at the abdomen for 30 seconds or less and accomplish everything the killer accomplished before slipping away from the body onto Whitechapel High St entirely unseen.

So do I! I agree fully.

That doesn't make him a phantom or a phantasy, and neither does it mean that we must accept Lechmere as the only explanation grounded in facts.

Well, as long as we have no evidence at all of the existence of such a man, he remains a phantom in my eyes. We can call him an invention instead of course. Or conjectural. That is not to say that he cannot have existed, but instead to say that he is nothing but a phantasy with no underlying evidence at all. It is not until we can discard Lechmere as the killer, that this man becomes an apparent reality.

What Jason Payne-James has done is to provide the forensic backdrop. It tells us that if Payne-James is right, then another killer is on purely forensic grounds less likely than Lechmere. And the further we move him away timewise, the less likely he gets. So he will range from unlikely, over very unlikely to incredibly unlikely. Whereas Lechmere is a VERY likely killer, going on the timings and the bleeding only.

To apply your own favourite reasoning, Fish, if we assume Lechmere was innocent, then it is a fact that the killer was not seen.

Yes, that is completely true. Itīs either/or, no exceptions, no detractions, no addings.
But the way I see it, another killer can never be as good a suggestion, since there is not a trace of another killer around. And he would be slightly or massively at odds with the forensic evidence, if he ever existed.

It seems to be slightly disingenuous for you to be arguing that a serial murderer striking very quickly in a dimly-lit, likely empty street at 3.40am must have been seen, and that therefore Lech must be our man.

Thereīs that straw man argument again! I am not arguing such a thing at all. I am saying that even though it is at odds with what Payne-James says is the normal bleeding outcome, it still applies that Jason is a seasoned enough forensic specialist to know quite well that rules without exceptions are the rarest of things in the medical world. Which is why he says that Nichols MAY have bled for a longer time than five minutes. He also says that he has learnt from clever legal men that if he says that he finds seven minutes unexpected but possible, then they will ask if eight minutes is impossible. Or nine. Or ten. Or eleven. Or twelve.
And all the while, he can only say that it is very hard to write something off as totally impossible. All he can do is to offer what he THINKS is the reasonable time span. And in this case, he opts for three or five minutes sounding more plausibel than seven. Thatīs as far as he is willing to go, and I think that shows just how discerning he is.

So, Henry, in conclusion I think that a man may easily cut a woman quickly and lethally, and that he may then take off down a road that takes him out of dangers way.
Itīs just that Jason Payne-Jamesī estimation tells me that such a killer is less likely than Lechmere, going on the times and the bleeding only. Plus there are a lot of anomalies attaching to the carman, making him very worthy of a closer look - and that closer look tells us that his routes seems to be in perfect alignment with the killings. When we notice this, we should not ask ourselves how many other men may have walked these routes - we should ask ourselves how much of a chance there was for this alignment. Given the many streets there were to choose from, we may well be looking at a one in a hundred chance.

Accepting that, how can a suggested/phantom/phantasy/invented killer be as good a bid as Lechmere?

He cannot be ruled out, but in my universe he plays second fiddle until we can conclude that he ever existed.

[Elamarna]

The coffin everyone is looking for is not in Great Britain. And it was not in Great Britain then.

Regards, Pierre

Understood

Steve

[Elamarna]

You introduce the phrase "serially misleading". I never said that you accused me of that. I said that you DO accuse me of misleading at times.

Good,.

You ask what could be seen of Lechmere in the street. We donīt know the power of the light, we donīt know the frame of Lechmere, we dont know the grade of darkness, we donīt know the exact position of Paul and Lechmere or the exact distance between them. We know they said that they walked down the very narrow northern pavement, we have Lechmere fixing the distance between them to around 35 yards. So roughly speaking, Lechmere will arguably have been visible as a silhouette against the backdrop of light.

Asking for more exactitude is an exercise in futility.

I am not convinced that a reconstruction would be entirely futile.

There has been work done on the light levels given by gas lamps, we know the lay out of the roads and the height of the buildings, and the position of Nichols.

We could see to what extent light should reached the body and the degree of shadow produced.

While it would be very far from definitive, it may suggest just what could be discerned, if anything in that area.

The debate about me presenting things as facts when they cannot be. Your example:

Because Paul hurried down the street, and made no effort at all to be silent. The street was an accoustic tunnel. Paul should have been audible all the way.

I donīt know what exact part/s you ar referring to, but:
-Pauls WAS hurrying along the street - he said so himself.

Agreed.

-Since he hurried down the street, he did not make any effort to be silent.

Assumption. possible true, but an assumption.

-A street like Bucks Row, with rows of houses on both sides IS an accoustic tunnel. I engaged an expert in a debate about whether Hutchinson could have heard Kelly and Astrakhan man from the corner at the entrance to Dorset Street, and he said that a street like Bucks Row functions like an accoustic tunnel. I knew it before - anybody who has been in such a street knows this.

Again my point of just a single view, however for this purpose I will accept it this time. However that does not mean people will notice everyday noise.

-A number of people testified to how the night was a totally silent one.
-Accordingly, there is no way Paul could have emitted no sound as he hurried down the street. To anybody listening, and equipped with a normal sense of hearing, he should be audible. Which is what I say - I donīt say that he WAS audible.

You do not appear consider about how people actually hear, there is a difference between actively listening, and switched off listen (background)


You talk of experiments you have done, in what you term acoustic tunnels, the problem I see is that you are actively listening.

And thus while you experiments are of course accurate on the level of the sounds produced, they appear to not take human perception into account.


Sitting where I am now on a back road in Barbados, cars are passing within 10 meters of the house, I do not notice them most of the time, only those which apply heavy breaks register.

So there is a big assumption that he should be audible.

You do not agree, fine.

-We also know that Neil had no problems hearing Thain as the latter passed up at Brady Street.

Trained police officer, actively listing, performing his duty, not comparable to a person sitting in their home or a nightwatchman.


So I see that while much of that statement is probably true, it is not established fact.

And of course I did not go searching for example, that just happened to be in the post already and I did qualify it by saying apparent.

Next: You say that I argue that Lechmere can be linked to the other murder sites. He can, by way of the logical routes to his job. It is not a definitive or absolute link, but it is a link. Scobie uses, I believe, the exact same wording - he is linked.

Ok linked, but, not strongly, in my view, or exclusively.

You feel that is enough, fine.

You argue that the alternative killer you envisage would have been less than a minute away when Lechmere arrived. In that case, he will have been in the street as Lechmere entered it.

Not necessarily, but probably, or he literally may have just missed him, by seconds.

We have just been talking with regards to what could be seen on the Southern side of Buck row, it appears we cannot know if a person entering Bucks Row would have been able to see a person over or moving from the body until they were close.

Personally, I think it odd in the extreme to favour a killer nobody ever saw or heard, a phantom killer, when we KNOW that there was a suspect in place who was alone with the body for an unknown amount of time.


How can anybody FAVOUR a figment of phantasy over the proven existence of Lechmere? To me, it is impossible. Until any evidence of this elusive character can be produced, Lechmere remains the only bid anchored in the facts.

Why this continuing reference to phantoms and phantasy, it really is not helpful?

It is entirely possible for killer to have struck before Lechmere and to have gone, it cannot be excluded using the blood evidence, so it must remain a real possibility.

Lechmere is not anchored in facts, rather he is loosely tied by circumstantial evidence and no more.

That is why I say he is a viable candidate for the Nichols murder.

Last: Please try and produce a schedule in which Mizen arrives no later than five minutes after when Lechmere would have cut the neck of Nichols if he was the killer!

Looking at your question, I do not think, given all that took place, such a scenario is possible, Nor does it need to be!

However I can see it in 6-7 minutes.

If a killer cuts and leaves in the minute before Lechmere arrives I see the scenario as possible, and not unreasonable.

We have discussed the timings several times, and while Payne-James rightly preferred the shorter time, he was making an assumption based on the various factors involved being normal.

Given that we have no real way of checking those variables it is not unreasonable to allow a slightly longer time frame. as he indeed says, still possible but less likely.

Personally I would not like to go beyond 7-8 minutes as I have said already.

Of course if we were to go for the scenario favoured by Pierre, that Lechmere sees the killing, Paul arrives very soon afterwards then the timings are essentially the same as if Lechmere did the killing.



Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

Henry Flower: Never mind 'such a street', I tried it at about 3.00am with a friend in the very street, which has not changed a great deal since the 88. What struck me was that even though I asked my friend to walk normally (in relatively hard-soled shoes) without attempting to be quiet, she was actually not obviously audible until quite close by. Now granted, I wasn't standing frozen still listening hard for her approach; I did shuffle about, went through my pockets, thought about things - because we know that Lechmere's attention, for one reason or another, was focused on something quite important, he was not stood listening for Paul's approach. Reconstructions can get us only so far. We can't know exactly what was audible that night, we don't know for sure what Paul wore on his feet, we don't know whether the act of cutting a throat, lying a body down, rifling through its clothes and ripping at its abdomen would've been sufficiently noisy to have masked the sound of either Lechmere's or (if Lech is our man) Paul's approach. Rest assured I have no intention of staging a more detailed reconstruction!

I have been to Bucks Row several times (or Durward Street, to be more exact). I have never, though, done any sound experiment in the street, mostly because it is never calm and quiet there - it is a street in a large metropolis, and the ambient soundlevel is always very apparent. The last years, there has been a lot of construction work going on too.

I donīt think it is possible to come anywhere close to the conditions of the murder night today - not in Durward Street.
But I live in the quaint town of Helsingborg, where there are a number of old accoustic tunnel streets, and I have tested them a good many times, in the dead of night when it is relatively silent. Not as silent as I imagine Bucks Row would have been, admittedly, but nevertheless relatively quiet.
I am normally quite amazed by how any sound seems to grow in such conditions - footfalls you would not notice in the busy daytime become very obvious at night.
This is my experience, but I bet that a thousand people may have a thousand views of it. The thing to do would be to simply record the soundlevels.



Nobody says the routes are conclusive, but I don't think we can dismiss this point (even though I nearly did earlier on this thread!). I find it impossible to believe that if a modern day police investigation into a series of murders found that a man who had discovered / been discovered with one of the just-killed victims had probable routes to and from work that coincided with other murders, that wouldn't be a huge red flag. Obviously it's not proof of anything, but it can't just be dismissed, surely. It is a link, and the fact that many others might share that same link doesn't negate the fact that it applies to Lechmere.

EXACTLY so, Henry. No matter who is found alone with a freshly killed body, that somebody WILL be checked out. The police will say that they need to clear the person, but it of course also applies that they are eager to find out if the person in question may be the killer. A high percentage of people found alone with freshly killed bodies will be killers, it is that simple and the police are quite aware of it.
So if there are a string of murders that seemingly have the same originator, then the person found with the body will be checked for this parameter; can he or she be shown to have been at the other murder sites at the relevant hours, or can it be shown that the person in question at least would have had a logical reason to be there?
There were thousands of streets in the East End. The odds that Lechmereīs logical work routes would have all of the sites corresponding timewise to his morning work trek pinned down must be very, very high. Why does not one single of these murders take place north, south, northeast, southwest, east or west of his logical working routes?
If it is a coincidence that they ALL match, then it is an almighty coincidence.

Likewise, if we work from the assumption that the killer was a Mr X about whom we know nothning, then the distribution of killing times for the six strikes could have been any way around.
But for some reason, the only two who do not die at a time that seems to be compatible with Lechmeres working trek, are the ones who were killed much earlier ON WHAT SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN HIS NIGHT OFF!

So in this way too, the killings fit what we know about the carman. The conclusion must be that either the six women were killed by Lechmere, or they were killed by somebody else who had a reason to walk these exact routes, or they were perpetrated by somebody who could just as well have killed in any other street at any other time, but who - for whatever reason - managed to do it in a way that seemingly fits exactly with the logical movements of the man who was found alone with one of the victims at a time that was very close to when she was cut.


If we apply that logic to the entire series then you are obliged to accept that at least one man seen with each victim was the killer.

Not really, no - it is a question of no matter who was seen alone with any victim at a time that corresponded roughly with the time of death, that person must be a better suggestion for the killerīs role than a phantom killer who was not seen or heard, and whose existence is a mere suggestion.

I think it is entirely possible that a man could very quickly cut a throat, lift some clothes, and rip away at the abdomen for 30 seconds or less and accomplish everything the killer accomplished before slipping away from the body onto Whitechapel High St entirely unseen.

So do I! I agree fully.

That doesn't make him a phantom or a phantasy, and neither does it mean that we must accept Lechmere as the only explanation grounded in facts.

Well, as long as we have no evidence at all of the existence of such a man, he remains a phantom in my eyes. We can call him an invention instead of course. Or conjectural. That is not to say that he cannot have existed, but instead to say that he is nothing but a phantasy with no underlying evidence at all. It is not until we can discard Lechmere as the killer, that this man becomes an apparent reality.

What Jason Payne-James has done is to provide the forensic backdrop. It tells us that if Payne-James is right, then another killer is on purely forensic grounds less likely than Lechmere. And the further we move him away timewise, the less likely he gets. So he will range from unlikely, over very unlikely to incredibly unlikely. Whereas Lechmere is a VERY likely killer, going on the timings and the bleeding only.

To apply your own favourite reasoning, Fish, if we assume Lechmere was innocent, then it is a fact that the killer was not seen.

Yes, that is completely true. Itīs either/or, no exceptions, no detractions, no addings.
But the way I see it, another killer can never be as good a suggestion, since there is not a trace of another killer around. And he would be slightly or massively at odds with the forensic evidence, if he ever existed.

It seems to be slightly disingenuous for you to be arguing that a serial murderer striking very quickly in a dimly-lit, likely empty street at 3.40am must have been seen, and that therefore Lech must be our man.

Thereīs that straw man argument again! I am not arguing such a thing at all. I am saying that even though it is at odds with what Payne-James says is the normal bleeding outcome, it still applies that Jason is a seasoned enough forensic specialist to know quite well that rules without exceptions are the rarest of things in the medical world. Which is why he says that Nichols MAY have bled for a longer time than five minutes. He also says that he has learnt from clever legal men that if he says that he finds seven minutes unexpected but possible, then they will ask if eight minutes is impossible. Or nine. Or ten. Or eleven. Or twelve.
And all the while, he can only say that it is very hard to write something off as totally impossible. All he can do is to offer what he THINKS is the reasonable time span. And in this case, he opts for three or five minutes sounding more plausibel than seven. Thatīs as far as he is willing to go, and I think that shows just how discerning he is.

So, Henry, in conclusion I think that a man may easily cut a woman quickly and lethally, and that he may then take off down a road that takes him out of dangers way.
Itīs just that Jason Payne-Jamesī estimation tells me that such a killer is less likely than Lechmere, going on the times and the bleeding only. Plus there are a lot of anomalies attaching to the carman, making him very worthy of a closer look - and that closer look tells us that his routes seems to be in perfect alignment with the killings. When we notice this, we should not ask ourselves how many other men may have walked these routes - we should ask ourselves how much of a chance there was for this alignment. Given the many streets there were to choose from, we may well be looking at a one in a hundred chance.

Accepting that, how can a suggested/phantom/phantasy/invented killer be as good a bid as Lechmere?

He cannot be ruled out, but in my universe he plays second fiddle until we can conclude that he ever existed.

I just want to remind you again because you are again getting carried away with Jason Payne-James and his opinion. Firstly it is only an opinion. He was not at the crime scene, and did not see or examine the body in any way. So he cannot give an accurate opinion even on time of death and blood flows etc which you seek to heavily rely on, because without his opinion your theory is left floundering.

The only expert medical evidence from the crime scene came from Dr Llewellyn. First part "her hands and wrists were cold, but the lower extremities were quite warm,

Robert Paul says her face and hands were cold

So what can we perhaps deduce from these parts of the evidence. If she had been killed some time before then it might be assumed that was the reason for her cold hands, wrists and face. Had she been killed within a few minutes of her being found would she have been as cold as described?

But how does that explain the extremities were warm? Of course this part does prop up your theory that she had been recently killed. One simple explanation could be, that after being murdered she was left with her lower extremities exposed, and then along comes Lechmere and Paul and on finding the body they pull the clothes down, thus giving the lower extremities time to recover slightly from the cold in that 45 minute window, and an explanation for the difference in temperature between the hands, wrists, and face, and the extremities.

Then Dr Llewellyn says he believed she had been dead no more than 30 minutes, again that fits you theory give or take a few minutes does it not. As a medical expert he gives no evidence regarding blood flows, and only says there was an absence of blood. This is the same doctor who failed to notice the abdominal wounds at the crime scene, and had to be directed to the mortuary later on to observe them.

And as far as your theory is concerned trying to establish an accurate time of death is crucial is it not, and based on the above I would say that she was killed much earlier.

There is no accurate expert medical evidence from the crime scene to be able to safely estimate a time of death. I have given what I deem to be a plausible explanation for the difference between the temperature of the different body parts as described a theory in some part corroborated by what is set out below.

We must not forget good old Dr Biggs who you continually dispute what he says. This he what he says about trying to estimate a time of death in the case of Nichols and other relevant issues connected to this murder.

"There is nothing about blood flow from a wound that will help estimate the time of death"

"Being ‘cold to the touch’ really isn’t helpful as even live people can feel cold to the touch. Body temperature doesn’t start to drop straight away as soon as a person dies, but there is a plateau or ‘lag’ phase that can last a few hours. In other words, somebody could have been dead for a couple of hours but still have an essentially ‘normal’ body temperature, whereas a live person can feel stone cold"

"In the olden days, doctors used to state a confident and precise ‘time of death’ based on subjective observations, but this was little more than guesswork. Nowadays, we recognise that it is subjective and highly variable. In fact, the official guidance from the Forensic Science Regulator is that pathologists shouldn’t attempt to estimate the post mortem interval! Even with a measured temperature you couldn’t estimate a time since death to within less than a few hours. Suggesting that death happened 30 minutes previously based on subjective observations would be laughed out of court these days... but in 1888 people believed just about anything a doctor said"

"It is possible that death could have occurred even a few hours before the time of body discovery, and the observations made by the doctor would have been the same. Clothing state can affect the time of death calculations, but in reality, it would make very little difference in the scenario you describe. I think the doctor’s estimation of the time of death should be taken with a pinch of salt, and in fact, it could have been far earlier. This is not a criticism: back then that was the sort of thing that was said and done. We just know more now and therefore, can’t be so ‘certain’."

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Steve, once again, you seem to try and make your answer as long as possible. Please be as succinct and short as you can!

As for an experiment recreeating Bucks Row and the light and visibility there, it would be futile. The principle I suggest is easy enough to understand - and impossible to correctly recreate.

You say that I feel it is "enough" with a weak link connecting Lechmere and the sites. Enough for what? It strengthens my case very much, but is no conclusive proof.

Could a killer be impossible to see when turning into the street? Quite possibly, yes. But he would be audible. And if there was a light where the street opened up, then he would be visible too if he took that way.

Why do I say "phantom killer"? Because he is a figment of fantasy only. There is no proof whatsoever for his existence. He was never heard and never seen, as far as we know.
You say that Lechmere "is not anchored in facts". But he is. He was there, he was a real person, he has been proven to have been at the Nichols murder site at about the moment she was cut. He is therefore extremely well anchored in facts.
He has not been conclusively proven to be the killer, but that does not make him a figment of fantasy only - as is the alternative killer proposed.

And yes, Jason Payne-James based his suggestion on all things being normal and happening the way he supposed they would happen in a case where he was very well read up.
Nichols COULD have bled longer. And Nichols could have bled for two minutes only (theoretically, although we actually know she bled longer).
It still remains that if Payne-James is correct, then either Lechmere cut Nichols, or he was present as somebody else did.

No certainty can be involved, but for the certainty that if Payne-James is correct, then Lechmere is very, very probably, almost certainly, the killer.

[Fisherman]

I just want to remind you again because you are again getting carried away with Jason Payne-James and his opinion. Firstly it is only an opinion. He was not at the crime scene, and did not see or examine the body in any way. So he cannot give an accurate opinion even on time of death and blood flows etc which you seek to heavily rely on, because without his opinion your theory is left floundering.

The only expert medical evidence from the crime scene came from Dr Llewellyn. First part "her hands and wrists were cold, but the lower extremities were quite warm,

Robert Paul says her face and hands were cold

So what can we perhaps deduce from these parts of the evidence. If she had been killed some time before then it might be assumed that was the reason for her cold hands, wrists and face. Had she been killed within a few minutes of her being found would she have been as cold as described?

But how does that explain the extremities were warm? Of course this part does prop up your theory that she had been recently killed. One simple explanation could be, that after being murdered she was left with her lower extremities exposed, and then along comes Lechmere and Paul and on finding the body they pull the clothes down, thus giving the lower extremities time to recover slightly from the cold in that 45 minute window, and an explanation for the difference in temperature between the hands, wrists, and face, and the extremities.

Then Dr Llewellyn says he believed she had been dead no more than 30 minutes, again that fits you theory give or take a few minutes does it not. As a medical expert he gives no evidence regarding blood flows, and only says there was an absence of blood. This is the same doctor who failed to notice the abdominal wounds at the crime scene, and had to be directed to the mortuary later on to observe them.

And as far as your theory is concerned trying to establish an accurate time of death is crucial is it not, and based on the above I would say that she was killed much earlier.

There is no accurate expert medical evidence from the crime scene to be able to safely estimate a time of death. I have given what I deem to be a plausible explanation for the difference between the temperature of the different body parts as described a theory in some part corroborated by what is set out below.

We must not forget good old Dr Biggs who you continually dispute what he says. This he what he says about trying to estimate a time of death in the case of Nichols and other relevant issues connected to this murder.

"There is nothing about blood flow from a wound that will help estimate the time of death"

"Being ‘cold to the touch’ really isn’t helpful as even live people can feel cold to the touch. Body temperature doesn’t start to drop straight away as soon as a person dies, but there is a plateau or ‘lag’ phase that can last a few hours. In other words, somebody could have been dead for a couple of hours but still have an essentially ‘normal’ body temperature, whereas a live person can feel stone cold"

"In the olden days, doctors used to state a confident and precise ‘time of death’ based on subjective observations, but this was little more than guesswork. Nowadays, we recognise that it is subjective and highly variable. In fact, the official guidance from the Forensic Science Regulator is that pathologists shouldn’t attempt to estimate the post mortem interval! Even with a measured temperature you couldn’t estimate a time since death to within less than a few hours. Suggesting that death happened 30 minutes previously based on subjective observations would be laughed out of court these days... but in 1888 people believed just about anything a doctor said"

"It is possible that death could have occurred even a few hours before the time of body discovery, and the observations made by the doctor would have been the same. Clothing state can affect the time of death calculations, but in reality, it would make very little difference in the scenario you describe. I think the doctor’s estimation of the time of death should be taken with a pinch of salt, and in fact, it could have been far earlier. This is not a criticism: back then that was the sort of thing that was said and done. We just know more now and therefore, can’t be so ‘certain’."

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

A sad waste of space, as so often.

Letīs cherrypick one thing only - your effort to paint Llewellyn out as a bad and useless doctor on account of him not noticing the abdominal cuts at the scene.
Llewellyn was there to establish that the woman was dead, nothing more. There would be an ensuing examination and obduction later, and the wounds would be found then.
What Llewellyn did was exactly what he was called upon to do, and your effort to tarnish him remains a disgusting and unsavoury example of your reasoning.

And if you think that cold hands ar a sign of death, then I am dead right now.

[Elamarna]

Steve, once again, you seem to try and make your answer as long as possible. Please be as succinct and short as you can!

Please do not presume to tell me how much, I may or may not write.

As for an experiment recreeating Bucks Row and the light and visibility there, it would be futile. The principle I suggest is easy enough to understand - and impossible to correctly recreate.

It depends on what you are looking at.

Could a killer be impossible to see when turning into the street? Quite possibly, yes. But he would be audible. And if there was a light where the street opened up, then he would be visible too if he took that way.

He need not be audible, but you do not seem to want to listen, and he would only be seen if Lechmere is looking.

You say that Lechmere "is not anchored in facts". But he is. He was there, he was a real person, he has been proven to have been at the Nichols murder site at about the moment she was cut. He is therefore extremely well anchored in facts.

Anchored suggests firm held, that is not the case, he is loosely tied.

He is only "proven" to have been at the murder site at the right time, if we accept the view of Payne-James.

And of course, I have said it is probable that he is correct, however it is always possible that both of us are wrong. (given the severity of the neck wounds I doubt it).

While medicine is more objective than law, we are still dealing with a subjective opinion, or rather opinions as I have agreed.

No certainty can be involved, but for the certainty that if Payne-James is correct, then Lechmere is very, very probably, almost certainly, the killer.

No that is not the correct conclusion in my opinion.



Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

A sad waste of space, as so often.

Letīs cherrypick one thing only - your effort to paint Llewellyn out as a bad and useless doctor on account of him not noticing the abdominal cuts at the scene.
Llewellyn was there to establish that the woman was dead, nothing more. There would be an ensuing examination and obduction later, and the wounds would be found then.
What Llewellyn did was exactly what he was called upon to do, and your effort to tarnish him remains a disgusting and unsavoury example of your reasoning.

And if you think that cold hands ar a sign of death, then I am dead right now.

Any post that threatens your theory as ususl the poster is met with insults.

No attempt to tarnish Llewellyn just posted the facts !

and you clearly didn't read what Dr Biggs said

""Being ‘cold to the touch’ really isn’t helpful as even live people can feel cold to the touch. Body temperature doesn’t start to drop straight away as soon as a person dies, but there is a plateau or ‘lag’ phase that can last a few hours. In other words, somebody could have been dead for a couple of hours but still have an essentially ‘normal’ body temperature, whereas a live person can feel stone cold"

So you pays your money as to how you interpret that in relation to Nichols cold hands, wrists, and face against her warmer extremities. I think my explanation is very plausible dont you ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Karl]

Robert Paul says her face and hands were cold

So what can we perhaps deduce from these parts of the evidence. If she had been killed some time before then it might be assumed that was the reason for her cold hands, wrists and face. Had she been killed within a few minutes of her being found would she have been as cold as described?

Easily. Some people are naturally warm, others tend to freeze. Especially people with circulatory problems, they tend to have very cold hands. The hands and face are also the parts of the body which are the most exposed to the surroundings.

But how does that explain the extremities were warm? Of course this part does prop up your theory that she had been recently killed. One simple explanation could be, that after being murdered she was left with her lower extremities exposed, and then along comes Lechmere and Paul and on finding the body they pull the clothes down, thus giving the lower extremities time to recover slightly from the cold in that 45 minute window, and an explanation for the difference in temperature between the hands, wrists, and face, and the extremities.

How can she recover temperature anywhere if she is dead? We are warm-blooded animals, meaning we use nutrients to generate heat - but this process ceases upon death. Once dead, we will keep losing temperature until we are the same temperature as our surroundings - as per the laws of thermodynamics. Covering extremities will not heat them up, but will at best cause them to cool more slowly.

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: Please do not presume to tell me how much, I may or may not write.

I am not telling you - how could I? I am asking you kindly, since it would facilitate a lot for me and it would take some strain of the boards. Thatīs why I wrote "please". A famous writer once wrote: "I wanted to write shorter, but didnīt have the time" - it is a healthy exercise, apart from everything else.


It depends on what you are looking at.

No matter how we perform the experiment, there are important factors we have no knowledge about, and so we may get it all wrong. What we CAN do is to check if a person walking in darkness behind another person, who in turn is walking towards a lit lamp, will se that person before him as a silhouette, things like that. Nothing much more, though.


He need not be audible, but you do not seem to want to listen, and he would only be seen if Lechmere is looking.

How could he not be audible? How would he be able to move without a sound?
I think that we need to stretch the possibilities into ridicule to be able to present a scenario where such a man was neither seen nor heard. Going by what Lechmere said, he would have heard or seen anyone moving down at Browns, and I think that is a fair assumption.


Anchored suggests firm held, that is not the case, he is loosely tied.
He is only "proven" to have been at the murder site at the right time, if we accept the view of Payne-James.

And what is the phantom killer proven to be, Steve? Historically, an existence for the phantom has been established - it was always very clear that SOMEBODY killed the women, and must have been in place.
That all goes away if Lechmere was the killer. So itīs a dilemma - suddenly, it may very well be that the need to accept a phantom killer is no longer there. Like I say, itīs an either/or situation. So we either choose Lechmere because we know he was there, because we know he used an alias, because we know he disagreed with the police, because we know the clothing was pulled down, etcetera, or we choose the phantom killer, because... Because what?
Because we donīt want to accept Lechmere as the killer? Is that it?

And of course, I have said it is probable that he is correct, however it is always possible that both of us are wrong. (given the severity of the neck wounds I doubt it).

So do I - and I add my personal belief that she had been leaking a considerable amount of blood into the abdominal cavity even before the neck was cut.

While medicine is more objective than law, we are still dealing with a subjective opinion, or rather opinions as I have agreed.

Yes, agreed. Although I think it would be hard to find a better informed opinion than that of Payne-James. He has credentials enough to top just about anybody else.

No that is not the correct conclusion in my opinion.

It is where accepting Payne-James most likely will take us.

[Fisherman]

No attempt to tarnish Llewellyn just posted the facts !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

This is what you posted:
Then Dr Llewellyn says he believed she had been dead no more than 30 minutes, again that fits you theory give or take a few minutes does it not. As a medical expert he gives no evidence regarding blood flows, and only says there was an absence of blood. This is the same doctor who failed to notice the abdominal wounds at the crime scene, and had to be directed to the mortuary later on to observe them.

Are you going to tell me that you are NOT pointing to Llewellyn as being incompetent? "This is the doctor...who had to be directed to the mortuary..."

If you are going to tarnish people like that, could you please muster the guts to stand for it afterwards?

[Fisherman]

Easily. Some people are naturally warm, others tend to freeze. Especially people with circulatory problems, they tend to have very cold hands. The hands and face are also the parts of the body which are the most exposed to the surroundings.



How can she recover temperature anywhere if she is dead? We are warm-blooded animals, meaning we use nutrients to generate heat - but this process ceases upon death. Once dead, we will keep losing temperature until we are the same temperature as our surroundings - as per the laws of thermodynamics. Covering extremities will not heat them up, but will at best cause them to cool more slowly.

Ouch, Karl. You are arguing logically in a debate with Trevor.

Just donīt hope that he will appear and say "Of course - how silly of me".

[Patrick S]

Elamarna: Please do not presume to tell me how much, I may or may not write.

I am not telling you - how could I? I am asking you kindly, since it would facilitate a lot for me and it would take some strain of the boards. A famous writer once wrote: "I wanted to write shorter, but didnīt have the time" - it is a healthy exercise, apart from everything else.


It depends on what you are looking at.

No matter how we perform the experiment, there are important factors we have no knowledge about, and so we may get it all wrong. What we CAN do is to check if a person walking in darkness behind another person, who in turn is walking towards a lit lamp, will se that person before him as a silhouette, things like that. Nothing much more, though.


He need not be audible, but you do not seem to want to listen, and he would only be seen if Lechmere is looking.

How could he not be audible? How would he be able to move without a sound?
I think that we need to stretch the possibilities into ridicule to be able to present a scenario where such a man was neither seen nor heard. Going by what Lechmere said, he would have heard or seen anyone moving down at Browns, and I think that is a fair assumption.


Anchored suggests firm held, that is not the case, he is loosely tied.
He is only "proven" to have been at the murder site at the right time, if we accept the view of Payne-James.

And what is the phantom killer proven to be, Steve? Historically, an existence for the phantom has been established - it was always very clear that SOMEBODY killed the women, and must have been in place.
That all goes away of Lechmere was the killer. So itīs a dilemma - suddenly, it may very well be that the need to accept a phantom killer is no longer there. Like I say, itīs an either/or situation. So we either choose Lechmere because we know he was there, because we know he used an alias, because we know he disagreed with the police, because we know the clothing was pulled down, etcetera, or we choose the phantom killer, because... Because what? Because we donīt want to accept Lechmere as the killer?

And of course, I have said it is probable that he is correct, however it is always possible that both of us are wrong. (given the severity of the neck wounds I doubt it).

So do I - and I add my personal belief that she had been leaking a considerable amount of blood into the abdominal cavity even before the neck was cut.

While medicine is more objective than law, we are still dealing with a subjective opinion, or rather opinions as I have agreed.

Yes, agreed. Although I think it would be hard to find a better informed opinion than that of Payne-James. He has credentials enough to top just about anybody else.


No that is not the correct conclusion in my opinion.

It is where accepting Payne-James takes us.

I think it would be quite interesting to re-enact the scenes in Buck's Row and Baker's Row, respectively, exactly according to the theory presented by Fisherman. I'd pay to see that at a conference, provided the audience was polled afterward to judge how plausible they found it.

I've actually done it (as sad a commentary as that may be on my chosen forms of entertainment). It's was difficult for those viewing the re-enactment to get past the first few seconds: Lechmere murdering Nichols, engaging in a little mutilation, hearing Paul approach from some 40 yards off....only to stand up, take a few steps away from the body, wait for Paul, approach Paul as he tries to AVOID him, touch him on the shoulder and say, "Come see this woman!" That's a mountain of unnatural behavior to process when you see represented physically.

I'm interested to see how people would react to the rather new wrinkle of Lechmere pulling Mizen aside in Baker's Row and telling him that a.) a woman is lying in Buck's Row (not dead), and b.) he's wanted a policeman there. He manages to tell Mizen this without Paul hearing (even though it's before dawn on deserted streets) and without Mizen saying, "Why is that guy standing over there? Who is he? Why isn't he here too? This is pretty odd, you know?" And then having Lechmere return to Paul (as Mizen rushes to Buck's Row) and tell him that Mizen "didn't seem to care! He continued calling people up! I told him she was dead! And he didn't do much of anything!"

Now that civility is carrying the day, I say we do it! When and where?

[Fisherman]

Patrick S: I think it would be quite interesting to re-enact the scenes in Buck's Row and Baker's Row, respectively, exactly according to the theory presented by Fisherman. I'd pay to see that at a conference, provided the audience was polled afterward to judge how plausible they found it.

Actually, that has been done already, when the theory was originally presented in St Johns Church, Bethnal Green, before a crowd of some threehundred people, many of them ripperologists (Bill Beadle and Lindsay Siviter were present, to mention but two, as were many members of the Whitechapel Society). We received much acclaim, and the only critical voice that I heard came from a man who was very sure that Tumblety was the killer.

I've actually done it (as sad a commentary as that may be on my chosen forms of entertainment). It's was difficult for those viewing the re-enactment to get past the first few seconds: Lechmere murdering Nichols, engaging in a little mutilation, hearing Paul approach from some 40 yards off....only to stand up, take a few steps away from the body, wait for Paul, approach Paul as he tries to AVOID him, touch him on the shoulder and say, "Come see this woman!" That's a mountain of unnatural behavior to process when you see represented physically.

Hmmm. Then maybe the difference was coloured by the different audiences and the way the material was presented, Patrick.

I'm interested to see how people would react to the rather new wrinkle of Lechmere pulling Mizen aside in Baker's Row and telling him that a.) a woman is lying in Buck's Row (not dead), and b.) he's wanted a policeman there. He manages to tell Mizen this without Paul hearing (even though it's before dawn on deserted streets) and without Mizen saying, "Why is that guy standing over there? Who is he? Why isn't he here too? This is pretty odd, you know?" And then having Lechmere return to Paul (as Mizen rushes to Buck's Row) and tell him that Mizen "didn't seem to care! He continued calling people up! I told him she was dead! And he didn't do much of anything!"

I find it a completely credible scenario, so we may have more of the same here - different takes.

Now that civility is carrying the day, I say we do it! When and where?

Well, Patrick, who gets to invite the guests? Should they be ripperologists or randomly chosen people? There are a number of questions that will be tricky to answer in that context, and when the fog lifted, we would still have no more than the thoughts of a group we cannot assess when it comes to credibility. And that works both ways - if theyt said "That must be how it happened", you would find it odd, and if they said "That is completely unbelievable", I would find it odd.
It is what it is - and you will not find a more harsh questioning than the one that is provided on these boards anyway.


PS. Hereīs a link to the event, which also was a fundraiser for the Stairway to Heaven Memorial Fund:
http://www.stairwaytoheavenmemorial....ening2012.html

In the article, you will find the wording: "Cross was discovered standing over the body by the witness Robert Paul." Please donīt blame me or Edward for it, it was a piece of information given to the press by a person knit to the fund, who helped arrange the evening and who was (probably) incorrect. Donīt let that passage disturb you, it has been discussed a million times afterwards, and I would have preferred to spare that time.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;399676]

Itīs just that Jason Payne-Jamesī estimation tells me that such a killer is less likely than Lechmere, going on the times and the bleeding only.

The "estimation" is not built on all the available sources in the case. It is built on your selection of sources.

Plus there are a lot of anomalies attaching to the carman, making him very worthy of a closer look

You call using the name "Cross" and telling the court that he did not see a policeman "anomalies".

The EXTERNAL source criticism shows us that Lechmere WAS not in a "normal" situation. He was at a murder inquest. But he was not accused of murder. So what made him say what he said?

Try and give us the arguments for and against Lechmere 1) lying before the inquest, 2) at the inquest, or 3) both. Give us a list of your best arguments.