Lets get Lechmere off the hook!

[Fisherman]

They missed them because they were wrapped up in a silk shawl.

Yawn.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ah! Got me there.

Well, maybe the kangaroo did the knocking up while Mizen went to Buck's Row. I'd always assumed that Mizen used a pole or, failing that, a trampoline. But a giant kangaroo seems just the ticket.

Double yawn.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Gosh I hate it when people make me spit on the computer screen.

Personally, I don´t dislike it THAT much. But yes, it is tedious.

Fisherman

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor Marriott:

There is nothing amiss, Dr Llewellyns estimated time of death is questionable and this has to be so, having regards to how he arrived at that approximate time of death given the state of her clothing. So you don't have such a watertight case as you keep telling everyone.

Show me where I say that I have a watertight case, then! Or are you just raving on with no substance again?

The rest of the smokescreen you have created, conversations,movements, false names etc then becomes irrelevant and can be thrown in the bin.

Then? If I am wrong? Yes, Trevor, if I am wrong, the case belongs in the bin. But as it stands, all the information suggests that I am NOT wrong. So your debate technique is every bit as weird as it was in your last post. And every bit as unneccessarily space-consuming.

You still owe me an explanation as to whom it is you suggest is dishonest. I won´t let you off on that score, so please present it, or retract what you suggested.

The best,
Fisherman

You cannot prove conclusively all the facts you seek to rely on to prove your case and I say again in particular the estimated time of death via the doctor. he says "her hands and wrists were quite cold but the lower extremities were quite warm" The lower extremities would have been warmer because her open abdomen was covered up by Paul when he pulled her clothes down.

If he was judging the time of death by how warm the lower extremities were then it would have been a false estimation would it not, whereas the cold wrists and hands would have been a much more realistic yardstick to use.

But of course we must take into account that he would not have known that the clothes had been pulled down because the abdominal wounds were not discovered until the body reached the mortuary.

Which did he use to gauge time of death the hands or the lower extremities, if the latter then his estimated time of death could have been out by up to 15 mins or more, that would have been the time difference between when Paul pulled the clothes back down and the doctor arriving at the scene.

As to the honesty you keep referring to that statement was made in relation to the police officers and their statements about where there were, or where they should have been, at the time they said they were there.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

And Mizen does not - contrary to Paul - say that it was exactly 3.45.

Well, Fisherman, that's where you are factually wrong. The report in the Times states that Paul said: "He left home about a quarter to 4 on the Friday morning" (alternatively, in other reports, "just before"). It is an assumption on your part to say that he arrived at Buck's Row at "exactly" 3.45 (because he never said that in his evidence at the inquest). You seem to be relying on his newspaper interview here. Everyone used "about" because no-one could say the exact time something happened. But you need the exact time for everything because you need Cross to have left his home at exactly 3.30am and for Paul to have appeared in Buck's Row at exactly 3.45am for you to have your "major" 9 minute gap.

The irony is that even if what you say in your post is all true - which is questionable, not only in respect of the cape business but also because Dr Llewellyn said it was "about 4 o'clock" when Thain arrived - you still undermine the credibility of your star witness, PC Mizen, for no good reason. You don't need it to have been 3.50 when he met Cross and Paul because Cross could simply have lied about the time he left his home. He might have left at 3.25. He might have left at 3.20. You don't even need a nine minute gap considering your expert said the murder could be done in two minutes! In saying that PC Mizen might have been wrong in remembering that the time he was calling people up was at or about 3.45 then he might have been wrong in remembering that Cross mentioned a policeman. And then end of case! For no good reason!!

[harry]

Harriette Lilley Is as likely as anyone else to be speaking the truth.The time might be difficult to determine accurately,but 3.30, as has been credited,appears to rule out Cross,who of course needs to be the last person proven to have been with Nichols while she was alive.

[Richard Patterson]

Fisherman:

And you have established that Lechmere had no schooling? IS that it? Or are you guessing away?

Yes I’m guessing on a probable. Compulsory elementary education did not happen until 1880. When Lechmere was of school age, most children did not go to school. This is truer in the East End. There is no need for me to ask you if your suspect attended school because you know so little about him. If you are to claim that your suspect was not semi-literate in an area known for high rates of illiteracy, you should be able to establish that he was and not ask for others to establish that he was not.

It´s actually conjecture that he killed Nichols too. It has to be, otherwise we would have a solved case. All in all, you can do a lot worse than this chain:

Nobody could do worse than your chain because there is none. One link (Lechmere found next to 1 victim) is not a chain. You say that Lechmere pulling down Nichol’s clothing suggests that he was the killer. It suggests what it is. A passerby who thought she was a sleeping drunk and was trying to make here descent –nothing more.

You have your idea about Thompson being a better bid, but it´s something that does not pan out. It rests very much on your conviction that the killer was medically trained,

I have never said that who the Ripper was rests on my conviction that the killer was medically trained. I have only said that the killer needed the ability to cut into corpses. A butcher could have done that, so could have a solider, a midwife and many other professions.

To what extent would what we have on our suspects stand up in a court of law?

Since nobody, no barrister or police officer in 1888 thought to bring Lechmere to court, when all throughout the case people knew him and that he was found next one of the ripper victims. This tells me that there is no extent that he would stand up in a court of law. Nobody at the time, apart from perhaps a handful of people knew Thompson was even in the area, let alone that he had a scalpel, was seeking out prostitutes and had trained surgeon, so I’m pretty positive that nobody would have even considered that he should stand up in a court of law. Of course today experts can say what they please and for every expert who agrees that a particular suspect could stand up in court there is another expert to say he couldn’t

If writers and poets were that prone to become serialists, then where is the list of them...?

I’m not about to show you a list of serial killers who wrote poetry, (which there are many and are detailed in my book) because I know that that line of questioning is as pointless and endless as bringing up one expert to argue against another.

Scobie looked at the practical evidence, Richard.

Of which there is practically none. I wrote in post #715 if I said something about my suspect and you showed me I was wrong and I said it again then I would be a liar because I am wondering why, although with your suspect almost everything you say can be disputed, nothing I have said about Thompson has been. Apart from him being the perfect suspect.

No, Richard, you are not speaking about facts - you are speaking about a dreamworld.

So what sort of world do your facts come from if to convince others you have to instruct them to mentally slaughter woman? Like you do in post Post #654,

‘Imagine that you are the killer. You are stabbing and cutting into Nichols´ belly’.’

I’m afraid to ask where are you going with this and explain its necessity for this, something that for my suspect I would never have asked anyone to do.

The best,
Richard Patterson.

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott: You cannot prove conclusively all the facts you seek to rely on to prove your case and I say again in particular the estimated time of death via the doctor. he says "her hands and wrists were quite cold but the lower extremities were quite warm" The lower extremities would have been warmer because her open abdomen was covered up by Paul when he pulled her clothes down.

Cold hands, Trevor, are not necessarily a trait of death. My hands (and feet) are always cold in cold weather, due to insufficient blood circulation problems. Many tall people have the same. Nichols´ hands may well have been very cold before she met her killer.

At any rate, body temperature is a very unreliable measuring tool when it comes to the TOD. Blood flowing from a cut off neck is a much better indicator of proximity in time, since once a body is emptied of blood to the point of the lowermost opening in the body, it will seize bleeding.

If he was judging the time of death by how warm the lower extremities were then it would have been a false estimation would it not, whereas the cold wrists and hands would have been a much more realistic yardstick to use.

No, it would not. See the above.

As to the honesty you keep referring to that statement was made in relation to the police officers and their statements about where there were, or where they should have been, at the time they said they were there.

Do please expand on it, Trevor. Who of the policemen were dishonest and why?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: Well, Fisherman, that's where you are factually wrong. The report in the Times states that Paul said: "He left home about a quarter to 4 on the Friday morning" (alternatively, in other reports, "just before"). It is an assumption on your part to say that he arrived at Buck's Row at "exactly" 3.45 (because he never said that in his evidence at the inquest). You seem to be relying on his newspaper interview here. Everyone used "about" because no-one could say the exact time something happened. But you need the exact time for everything because you need Cross to have left his home at exactly 3.30am and for Paul to have appeared in Buck's Row at exactly 3.45am for you to have your "major" 9 minute gap.

How on earth can you say that I am factually wrong??? I can accept that I CAN be wrong, but how would you know that I am, David?

Have a look at Pauls paper interview. In it, he says that he came into Bucks Row at EXACTLY 3.45. Why would he lie about it? Why would he offer it, if it was not true? Why would the reporter make it up?

Then look at the (always) ad verbatim Morning Advertiser, quoting from the inquest:

I am a carman, and on the morning of the murder I left home just before a quarter to four.

How does he know that it was not EXACTLY 3.45 as he left home? Or one minute past? Because, I would propose, he knew that he came into Bucks Row at EXACTLY 3.45. Therefore, he must have left "just before" 3.45.

So it all pans out. And I am not "factually wrong", far from it.

The irony is that even if what you say in your post is all true - which is questionable, not only in respect of the cape business but also because Dr Llewellyn said it was "about 4 o'clock" when Thain arrived - you still undermine the credibility of your star witness, PC Mizen, for no good reason. You don't need it to have been 3.50 when he met Cross and Paul because Cross could simply have lied about the time he left his home. He might have left at 3.25. He might have left at 3.20. You don't even need a nine minute gap considering your expert said the murder could be done in two minutes! In saying that PC Mizen might have been wrong in remembering that the time he was calling people up was at or about 3.45 then he might have been wrong in remembering that Cross mentioned a policeman. And then end of case! For no good reason!!

But I am not trying to wring the times to fit my theory. I am trying to check which scenario makes for the most credible solution to the anomalies. And things point to the time given by Neil, Thain and Mizen needing to be corrected by adding some little time.

It is a very odd suggestion that if Mizen was not spot on with the time, then he would likely have gotten the extra PC business wrong. That´s not a way of thinking I would recommend. It all hinges on how Mizen got his timing. In the Daily News, it says "Police constable Mizen said that about a quarter to four o'clock...", so we have an approximation and not a fixed time in Mizens case - as opposed to Paul.
If he had gotten his time from a nearby clock, striking the quarter hours, then all it takes is that he heard the clock, thought "ah, so it´s 3.45 now", knocked on a door or two, and then the carmen appeared.
In such a case, the quarter hour strike would have been the last timing he wsas aware of, and he could easily have said that it was about that time that the carmen came along.

Let´s not try and convert that into some sort of reason to believe that he was more cuckoo than a clock himself! There is also the chance that whatever clock he and the other PC:s relied on, was out of time to some extent.

And the fact remains that if we go with 3.40, then Thain must have taken nigh on a quarter of an hour to get Llewellyn, and that is simply a ridiculous suggestion.

So I am not factually wrong, but we know that somebody must have been at the inquest.Therefore we should look for the most credible explanation, and since we have one man saying that he had the exact time, thereafter corroborating this time by witnessing at the inquest about how he left home "just before" that time, we have something to work from that offers a very good explanation to the perceived discrepancy in John Thains very long trek. It was not that long at all; Paul had the time right.

As for the carmen and Mizen, Paul says that the whole thing, him being stopped by Browns Stable Yard, the carmen inspecting Nichols, deciding to go on, and their finding Mizen and Lechmere speaking to Mizen, took "no more than four minutes".

Paul comes into the street at 3.45. Finds Lechmere with the body at 3.46, or even at 3.45. The wording in the interview goes "It was exactly a quarter to four when I passed up Buck's-row to my work as a carman for Covent-garden market. It was dark, and I was hurrying along, when I saw a man standing where the woman was.", so he must not be speaking of turning the corner at 3.45, as I understand things.

Anyhow, it´s 3.46, and then we add four minutes, and we have the time 3.50. If we work from an initial timing of 3.45, we get 3.49. None of these timings can be said not to dovetail with Mizen saying that it was "around 3.45".

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Harriette Lilley Is as likely as anyone else to be speaking the truth.The time might be difficult to determine accurately,but 3.30, as has been credited,appears to rule out Cross,who of course needs to be the last person proven to have been with Nichols while she was alive.

Harriet is also as likley as anyboy else to NOT be telling the truth.

She was also awakened, so she is as likley as anybody else to have been drowsy and gotten things wrong.

She may well have gotten things right too - but that does not mean that she heard a murder - she may just as well have heard a prostitution affair involving other people.

If she heard the murder, then Nichols had her head almost decapitated at 3.30, all her vessels in the neck were severed, her abdomen was cut open - and she still bled from the neck around twenty, twentyfive minutes later.

So it´s a question of picking the realistic alternative/s here.

The best
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Fisherman:

And you have established that Lechmere had no schooling? IS that it? Or are you guessing away?

Yes I’m guessing on a probable. Compulsory elementary education did not happen until 1880. When Lechmere was of school age, most children did not go to school. This is truer in the East End. There is no need for me to ask you if your suspect attended school because you know so little about him. If you are to claim that your suspect was not semi-literate in an area known for high rates of illiteracy, you should be able to establish that he was and not ask for others to establish that he was not.

It´s actually conjecture that he killed Nichols too. It has to be, otherwise we would have a solved case. All in all, you can do a lot worse than this chain:

Nobody could do worse than your chain because there is none. One link (Lechmere found next to 1 victim) is not a chain. You say that Lechmere pulling down Nichol’s clothing suggests that he was the killer. It suggests what it is. A passerby who thought she was a sleeping drunk and was trying to make here descent –nothing more.

You have your idea about Thompson being a better bid, but it´s something that does not pan out. It rests very much on your conviction that the killer was medically trained,

I have never said that who the Ripper was rests on my conviction that the killer was medically trained. I have only said that the killer needed the ability to cut into corpses. A butcher could have done that, so could have a solider, a midwife and many other professions.

To what extent would what we have on our suspects stand up in a court of law?

Since nobody, no barrister or police officer in 1888 thought to bring Lechmere to court, when all throughout the case people knew him and that he was found next one of the ripper victims. This tells me that there is no extent that he would stand up in a court of law. Nobody at the time, apart from perhaps a handful of people knew Thompson was even in the area, let alone that he had a scalpel, was seeking out prostitutes and had trained surgeon, so I’m pretty positive that nobody would have even considered that he should stand up in a court of law. Of course today experts can say what they please and for every expert who agrees that a particular suspect could stand up in court there is another expert to say he couldn’t

If writers and poets were that prone to become serialists, then where is the list of them...?

I’m not about to show you a list of serial killers who wrote poetry, (which there are many and are detailed in my book) because I know that that line of questioning is as pointless and endless as bringing up one expert to argue against another.

Scobie looked at the practical evidence, Richard.

Of which there is practically none. I wrote in post #715 if I said something about my suspect and you showed me I was wrong and I said it again then I would be a liar because I am wondering why, although with your suspect almost everything you say can be disputed, nothing I have said about Thompson has been. Apart from him being the perfect suspect.

No, Richard, you are not speaking about facts - you are speaking about a dreamworld.

So what sort of world do your facts come from if to convince others you have to instruct them to mentally slaughter woman? Like you do in post Post #654,

‘Imagine that you are the killer. You are stabbing and cutting into Nichols´ belly’.’

I’m afraid to ask where are you going with this and explain its necessity for this, something that for my suspect I would never have asked anyone to do.

The best,
Richard Patterson.

Sorry, Richard, but you either make no sense or you misrepresent things rather badly. One small pointer:

"I have only said that the killer needed the ability to cut into corpses."

Guess how many suspects that leaves us with...

All the best,
Fisherman

[Trevor Marriott]

Fisherman
Please read and digest properly !

Trevor Marriott: You cannot prove conclusively all the facts you seek to rely on to prove your case and I say again in particular the estimated time of death via the doctor. he says "her hands and wrists were quite cold but the lower extremities were quite warm" The lower extremities would have been warmer because her open abdomen was covered up by Paul when he pulled her clothes down.

Cold hands, Trevor, are not necessarily a trait of death. My hands (and feet) are always cold in cold weather, due to insufficient blood circulation problems. Many tall people have the same. Nichols´ hands may well have been very cold before she met her killer.

But he could not have been able to give an accurate time of death based on the temperature of the body for the reasons I have shown


At any rate, body temperature is a very unreliable measuring tool when it comes to the TOD. Blood flowing from a cut off neck is a much better indicator of proximity in time, since once a body is emptied of blood to the point of the lowermost opening in the body, it will seize bleeding.

To this point you talk utter rubbish ! You show me anywhere in any case where time of death has been solely determined by blood loss from a wound

If he was judging the time of death by how warm the lower extremities were then it would have been a false estimation would it not, whereas the cold wrists and hands would have been a much more realistic yardstick to use.

No, it would not. See the above.

You are ducking and diving because you know i am right !

As to the honesty you keep referring to that statement was made in relation to the police officers and their statements about where there were, or where they should have been, at the time they said they were there.

Do please expand on it, Trevor. Who of the policemen were dishonest and why?

From a previous post of mine which you chose to ignore and go off on a tangent

"If the police officers were not where they said they were, or their timings were wrong, they had ample time to make their statements fit before the inquest to cover up their wrongdoings, because by then they would have known the estimated time of death given by the doctor. That`s why we now have these anomalies with regards to the statements and press reports"

The best,
Fisherman

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[martin wilson]

Harriet Lilley may be corroborated by her statement that she heard 'a luggage' at the same time, by which I take it she means the 3.7 goods train from Newcross which according to The Echo 6th September had been ascertained to be passing about half past three.
The documentary time from Doveton st to Bucks row was 7 minutes which corresponds closely to Micheal Conners 6 minutes. it's fair then to think that his time of 40 minutes to Broad street was also accurate.
This would suggest however that to be on time, Cross would have had to leave around 3.20, not 3.30?
All the best.

[Fisherman]

Harriet Lilley may be corroborated by her statement that she heard 'a luggage' at the same time, by which I take it she means the 3.7 goods train from Newcross which according to The Echo 6th September had been ascertained to be passing about half past three.
The documentary time from Doveton st to Bucks row was 7 minutes which corresponds closely to Micheal Conners 6 minutes. it's fair then to think that his time of 40 minutes to Broad street was also accurate.
This would suggest however that to be on time, Cross would have had to leave around 3.20, not 3.30?
All the best.

Yes, it would implicate him having left at 3.23. And then he should be in Buck´s Row at 3.30.

But he was there at 3.45 too.

One has to wonder why.

The best,
Fisherman

[Richard Patterson]

Sorry, Richard, but you either make no sense or you misrepresent things rather badly. One small pointer:

"I have only said that the killer needed the ability to cut into corpses."

Guess how many suspects that leaves us with...

All the best,
Fisherman

Sir. I guess 1 suspect, but not yours, mine. Let me tell you of the specialized ability of Francis Thompson, my 29-year-old, eccentric, solitary homeless vagrant. The suspect, who had recently come to a small some of money to buy himself a long dark overcoat. The suspect that everybody knows, because he told people, carried a sharp dissecting scalpel concealed under it. I’ve stated before that Dr Frederick Gordon Brown, the doctor who gave evidence at the inquest for Ripper victim, Catherine Eddowes, replied when asked if the killer possessed great anatomical skill,

‘A good deal of knowledge as to the positions of the organs in the abdominal cavity and the way of removing them.’

Dr. Bond concluded that the ripper was not a medical man for what he thought were very good reasons. He said,

‘In each case the mutilation was inflicted by a person who had no scientific nor anatomical knowledge. In my opinion he does not even possess the technical knowledge of a butcher or horse slaughterer or any person accustomed to cut up dead animals…The instrument must have been … a butcher's knife or a surgeon's knife… [the murderer would] probably be solitary and eccentric in his habits, also he is most likely to be a man without regular occupation, but with some small income or pension…all five murders no doubt were committed by the same hand,’

Dr. Bond came to these conclusions based on his observation of how the victims were taken down, also their wounds, mutilations and the removal of their organs. None of it suggested any method. Things such as the way the killer had cut out Kelly’s heart straight from the pericardium showed to him less skill than cat meat butcher.

This was probably because 47-year-old Doctor Bond had not been introduced to the Virchow method. This was a method of dissection from Germany. It required the removal of the heart via the pericardium. This was the then completely new technique that was taught exclusively in Thompson’s student college and medical infirmary. From 1878 to 1883 Thompson studied to be a surgeon at Manchester’s Owens Medical College. Thompson also trained at Manchester’s Royal Infirmary. Francis Thompson’s lecturer of pathology and his infirmary director was Doctor Julius Dreschfeld. He had just returned from Germany where he was a pupil Rudolf Virchow. Having learned the Virchow method, Dreschfeld taught in Thompson’s classes and on the field. Dreschfeld was seen as an authority on the method and was instrumental in introducing it to England.

So that’s how my suspect might have cut out Mary Kelly’s heart. Could you be as kind as to explain how might Lechmere, have known how to do it?

With Respect.
Richard Patterson