Charles Allen Lechmere - new suspect?

[Fisherman]

John Wheat: Well others have stated there was much more than half a minute between the assailant leaving and Lechmere finding the body.

Yes, Trevor Marriott has said that she could have been dead for half an hour. With such advisors, you can take the case anywhere you want.

I don't put much trust in your supposed experts.

Then you are at odds with the rest of the medical world.

And certainly not that you are reporting what they said truthfully. Others have suggested that you have been economical with the truth as regards supposed expert testimonies in the past and I'm inclined to agree with them considering how you bend and mishape truths all the time where Lechmere is concerned.

Then why do you over and over again argue against me? There is no such need if I am a habitual liar, is there.

My own stance is that you have nowhere else to go but to call me a liar - for if what I say is true, then Lechmere was the killer.

You have shown your own shortcomings very clearly. Bellsmith the torso man - ha! And when you are shown that he was not in London in 1887, you say that he may have been even if it is not on record...!

That is how you do your homework. And from that pedestal of utter shame, you call ME economic with the truth! Amazing!
And before you laid out a trap for yourself on Bellsmith, you told me to do proper research - and then you are caught, pants down, with NOT having done that proper research yourself!
I could say more. Lots more. But in all honesty: Why would I?

Faretheewell, John Wheat. Say hello to Pierre from me - you are in the same boat now when it comes to me. He may well ask you if you have any data for Bellsmith being in London in 1887, but I´m sure you can dodge that. Bye now!

[Pierre]

John Wheat: Well others have stated there was much more than half a minute between the assailant leaving and Lechmere finding the body.

Yes, Trevor Marriott has said that she could have been dead for half an hour. With such advisors, you can take the case anywhere you want.

I don't put much trust in your supposed experts.

Then you are at oods with the rest of the medical world.

And certainly not that you are reporting what they said truthfully. Others have suggested that you have been economical with the truth as regards supposed expert testimonies in the past and I'm inclined to agree with them considering how you bend and mishape truths all the time where Lechmere is concerned.

Then why do you over and over again argue against me? There is no such need if I am a habitual liar, is there.

My own stance is that you have nowhere else to go but to call me a liar - for if what I say is true, then Lechmere was the killer.

You have shown your own shortcomings very clearly. Bellsmith the torso man - ha! And when you are shown that he was not in London in 1887, you say that he may have been even if it is not on record...!

That is how you do your homework. You twist and wring and try to swing the facts into something they can never be. And from that pedestal of shame, you call ME economic with the truth! Amazing!
And before you laid out a trap for yourself on Bellsmith, you told me to do proper research - and then you are caught, pants down, with NOT having done that proper research yourself!
I caould say more. Lots more. But in all honesty: Why would I?

Faretheewell, John Wheat. Say hello to Pierre from me - you are in the same boat now when it comes to me. He may well ask you if you have any data for Bellsmith being in London in 1887, but I´m sure you can dodge that. Bye now!

I do understand why you can not cope with me, Fisherman. You try to protect your "suspect". That is OK. You have invested so many years in him. That is a sad thing.

[Trevor Marriott]

he was 14 in 1873. young but not impossible. age is a little sketchy too as they were not as tight on those things back then, and hutch was nothing if not a good lier. and of course there is always the possibility he wasn't involved in the earlier torso murders.

Aussie George was English, local, proven to be in London, a laborer/ able seaman (peaked cap), fits the witness descriptions to a tee. arrested for a sex crime and his departure fits in extremely well for the cessation of not only the ripper murders, but the torso murders.

The ripper was IMHO a strong man. Look at his picture and note the size of his head neck shoulders upper arms and chest-hes a powerfully built man.
"stout, not tall". He even has the weak eybrows/eyes and full face!!

This guy ticks all the boxes for me and definitely deserves a closer look.

I am sure someone on here will lend you a pair of rose tinted spectacles for a closer look, there are several on here who possess them

[John Wheat]

John Wheat: Well others have stated there was much more than half a minute between the assailant leaving and Lechmere finding the body.

Yes, Trevor Marriott has said that she could have been dead for half an hour. With such advisors, you can take the case anywhere you want.

I don't put much trust in your supposed experts.

Then you are at odds with the rest of the medical world.

And certainly not that you are reporting what they said truthfully. Others have suggested that you have been economical with the truth as regards supposed expert testimonies in the past and I'm inclined to agree with them considering how you bend and mishape truths all the time where Lechmere is concerned.

Then why do you over and over again argue against me? There is no such need if I am a habitual liar, is there.

My own stance is that you have nowhere else to go but to call me a liar - for if what I say is true, then Lechmere was the killer.

You have shown your own shortcomings very clearly. Bellsmith the torso man - ha! And when you are shown that he was not in London in 1887, you say that he may have been even if it is not on record...!

That is how you do your homework. And from that pedestal of utter shame, you call ME economic with the truth! Amazing!
And before you laid out a trap for yourself on Bellsmith, you told me to do proper research - and then you are caught, pants down, with NOT having done that proper research yourself!
I could say more. Lots more. But in all honesty: Why would I?

Faretheewell, John Wheat. Say hello to Pierre from me - you are in the same boat now when it comes to me. He may well ask you if you have any data for Bellsmith being in London in 1887, but I´m sure you can dodge that. Bye now!

Do you mock Pierre because he exposed you as a liar the other week? Pierre may have not revealed his suspect but he did expose you as a liar. But what do I expect the case against Lechmere is non existent so you come up with pure speculation, lies and bullshit? As for Bellsmith there is more chance he was a multiple murderer than Lechmere not that I really care. And although Trevor is possibly overdoing it with his dead for half an hour there is clearly a sizeable gap between the assailant leaving the scene and Lechmere finding the body.

[John Wheat]

I am sure someone on here will lend you a pair of rose tinted spectacles for a closer look, there are several on here who possess them

I wonder who Trevor's talking about. It's not Fisherman is it?

[John Wheat]

Anyone who prefers Lechmere as a suspect to Bury. Should think again.

[John Wheat]

You have invested so many years in him. That is a sad thing.

Yes Pierre, Fisherman has wasted years attempting to fabricate a case against a clearly innocent man.

Cheers John

[Elamarna]

No, you are incorrect. "Just copying" is a consequence of your reading. Reading is interpretation.

When "just copying" (that is no comments added ) the interpretation is subconscious response, it is not a conscious decision one actually makes, which is the point I was making yesterday.

The aim was just giving the historical data and very few comments if any, a conscious attempt.

Of course as I said yesterday I did not succeed fully in that.

No need to make a debate about how the human mind works.

Firstly I do not believe you are qualified in that field - medicine/natural science, secondly I really do not see that there is any need for any such debate.

It is not about dictation. The operationalization of the word has many possible definitions. That is the problem.

One should not then make sweeping statements based on only one view point of a definition.

You posted:

"First he has got to become a suspect. He was not a suspect for the police in 1888 or later and now he is not a suspect. He is just an historical person who found a victim."


That is you dictating to the forum that others may not call someone a suspect, because YOU say they may not.

We must analyze the sources from other hypothetical perspectives. The statements of PC Mizen should be analyzed, not turned into fiction.

Yes that is part of the checking I am talking about, however your final comment gives cause for concern, in that it suggests that any view on this but yours is fiction

And what gives you the right to tell me what I believe? I find this very disturbing. When I tell you what I believe and what I think, I expect you to respect it.

You had said in your previous post that the data suggests that a particular hypothesis was correct, you prefaced that statement however by saying you did not believe it.

In view of the claims a few weeks back PLEASE note I am not quoting you above.

You actually posted:

"Steve! No, I do not "believe" it. I force myself to hypothesize it. That is one way to take historical problems forward."


I find that statement unclear and indecisive to say the very least

So lets try and clear this up with a few easy questions:
.


1. Are you saying that you had to force yourself to construct the initial hypothesis regarding Lechmere and a possible policeman in Bucks Row?


If so, please explain why one would need to force oneself to suggest a possible idea for testing?



2. Have you reach a conclusion with that hypothesis?



3. If the answer is no, why are you using the hypothesis over and over as if it is proven. If that is the case, the debate stops here, no need for the next comments.




4. If the answer however is yes, does the data indicate that Lechmerre saw a police man? simple answer please.



If the answers to 2 and 4 are YES, we are left with only one reasonable conclusion:

(You may argue that you do not want to believe it, that is an entirely different proposition.)



It is YOUR hypothesis.

YOU control and input the variables and data.

YOU carry out the analysis.

And YOU reach a conclusion.



Are you telling me that you do not believe your own conclusion?



If you say you do not, that raises very serious issues about your research and how we should view any claims you make.


If however you believe the conclusion to the hypothesis: in this case that Lechmere saw a police officer in Bucks Row; you cannot then with any integrity make the claim you did.


Of course I am sure your indignity in the post is just another example of the tactics you use when avoiding awkward questions




Steve

[harry]

Fisherman,
Or anyone else that is interested,type in Google search box,FORENSICS OF DEATH. That is where I found the 3-15 minute blood flow time.
I can be more specific if need be.
Some interesting sites.

[Elamarna]

It is not about dictation. The operationalization of the word has many possible definitions. That is the problem.

Pierre

Is that the correct use for "operationalization", you have used it several times over the last few days.


When you used it when talking about "flaps,"

"I know. It is poorely operationalized, to use scientific language."

it made perfect sense to me, the trem flap being very poorly defined and very fuzzy.

its just the specific example above I am interested in.



my understanding is that it applied to the definition of variables that may not be easily measured.

One easy to understand definition form the web is:

"Operationalization is the process of strictly defining variables into measurable factors. The process defines fuzzy concepts and allows them to be measured, empirically and quantitatively."

Of course one could find far more complicated definitions, but this will do for now.

I only ask, because some here may not even have heard of the term before.


And while I fully understand what you meant, I honestly have not seen it used in this way before, usually it is used to specification define a term such as growth for instance and give specific definitions in an hypothesis, at least that is the way I have seen and used it.

However I am happy to accept that coming from Natural Sciences we may use it in a different way to other disciplines.




steve

[Columbo]

So for some reason in two murders a murderer mutilated the abdomen and in both cases the intestines shot out of the abdomen and landed around the right shoulder?

And in both cases, but not in the Nichols case even though she to was mutilated, a person who was not a mortuary attendant walked into the morgue and just happened to take out the uterus professionally in one case and basically tore out part of the uterus and a kidney from the other? that's your explanation?

Columbo

Trevor,where did you go? No reply?


Columbo

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
Or anyone else that is interested,type in Google search box,FORENSICS OF DEATH. That is where I found the 3-15 minute blood flow time.
I can be more specific if need be.
Some interesting sites.

Yes, be more specific, please. I did not find the material you speak about, and I want to see it in extenso. A link would be appreciated.
Given that there seems to be a lower estimate of three minutes, I suspect that you have found a text speaking about the bleeding time with just the one cut artery. It is a well established fact that decapitated people can bleed out in under a minute.

So you - or your source - have in all probability gotten it wrong. But I am curious to see just how that happened. It is imperative that we use appropriate sources and material in a discussion like this, as you will understand.

[Fisherman]

Since a poster has taken it upon himself to say that he does not trust Jason Payne-James, I thought I´d post his credentials out here, so that anybody with an interest can see for him- or herself what Payne-James is about:

Jason Payne-James is a Specialist in Forensic & Legal Medicine (one of the first to be recognised by the UK General Medical Council). He is a forensic physician in active clinical practice as a Forensic Medical Examiner. He is an independent researcher, an author and an editor and initiates, leads or has collaborated in research projects with a number of organisations including the Independent Police Complaints Commission, the Metropolitan Police Service, the Home Office Centre for Applied Science & Technology and the National Injuries Database (part of the National Crime Agency). He is an advisor to governmental and other agencies in the UK and abroad. He is co-author of Faculty of Forensic & Legal Medicine documents related to medication management in custody, management after exposure to Taser® and irritant spray, head injury and choking. He is frequently asked to act as an expert witness in a range of settings. He has been involved in many high profile and sensitive cases. He has provided pro-bono support in a number of cases.

He qualified in medicine in 1980 at the London Hospital Medical College and undertook additional postgraduate education to higher degree level at Cardiff Law School, the Department of Forensic Medicine & Science at the University of Glasgow and with the University of Ulster, Northern Ireland. He is an Accredited Mediator and is a member of the Forensic Healthcare Services Mediation Panel.

He is Honorary Clinical Senior Lecturer at Cameron Forensic Medical Sciences, Barts & the London School of Medicine & Dentistry, University of London, UK. He is Honorary Consultant at the Department of Emergency Medicine at St George’s Hospital, London. He is Director of Forensic Healthcare Services Ltd and Payne-James Ltd, and is Editor-in-Chief of the peer-reviewed Journal of Forensic & Legal Medicine. He is President of the Faculty of Forensic & Legal Medicine.

His forensic and legal medicine interests have included healthcare of detainees (prisoners), deaths, harm and near misses in custody, torture, drugs and alcohol, wound and injury interpretation, asphyxia, sexual assault, neglect, non-accidental injury, restraint and use of force injury (including Taser and irritant spray), excited delirium syndrome, police complaints, age estimation and photographic imaging of injury. Some examples of his research publications and his research background can be found at www.researchgate.net.

He provides expert opinion and advice for defence solicitors, the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, Service Prosecuting Authority, HM Coroners and other agencies in the UK and overseas. He has developed new scales (the ForensiGraph®) for use in forensic imaging – www.forensigraph.com and with Cathy Cooke the ForensiBag® and OOHBag® . He advises on, contributes to and has broadcast in a number of media settings, including a documentary on Jack the Ripper . He has contributed to a number of episodes of the Channel 5 series, Autopsy.

Jason has developed, co-edited, co-authored and contributed to a number of books including the Encyclopedia of Forensic & Legal Medicine (the 2nd Edition has just been published, co-edited with Roger Byard); Forensic Medicine: Clinical & Pathological Aspects; Symptoms and Signs of Substance Misuse (1st & 2nd and 3rd editions – the most recent jointly with Margaret Stark and Mike Scott-Ham); Artificial Nutrition Support in Clinical Practice (the 3rd edition is being developed); Symptoms and Early Warning Signs; Medicolegal Essentials of Healthcare (1st and 2nd editions); Colour Atlas of Forensic Medicine. He is co-author of Simpson’s Forensic Medicine (13th Edition – work on the 14th edition has started – an Irish edition co-authored with Cliona McGovern has been published orientated in the context of law in Eire); he co-authored the Oxford Handbook of Forensic Medicine and co-edited both Age Estimation in the Living with Sue Black and Anil Aggrawal and Current Practice in Forensic Medicine (a second volume co-edited with John Gall will be published later in 2016).

[harry]

Well I didn't say I didnt trust Jason Payne-James,and Nichols wasn't decapitated.So for a poster that doesn't trust me,here is the address

angelfire,com/sc3/cjrp/forensicsofdeath.html

Doesn't take much finding.

[harry]

Should have been a dot after angelfire.