What happened to Lechmere......

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott: Your expert gives nothing more than anopinion that is based on written descriptions of the position of the body, and not having been able to see the body, or examine any of the wounds or see any photos.

All totally true - but you seem to rely very heavily on Dr Biggs when that suits you? How much did HE see, how many photos did HE have?

It doesn't matter how famous he is, that cant change what is available to him to give that opinion. You, Jason Payne-James or aunt fanny cannot give an estimated time of death, but you need to come up with one that fits your Lechmere scenario dont you?

No, I don´t need to do anything at all. History has done it for me.

Just to remind you what Dr Biggs another forensic pathologist said with regards estimating time of death

"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"

Once more, Biggs is speaking generally here. There was never any question of a space of many hours in the Nichols case, so there was no way anybody could be "a few hours" off. This was a case where Nichols MUST have been killed within the half hour, and where the blood and coagulation implications put Lechmere right in the middle of the frame.
If it was not him, than there were deviations from the normal schedule of bleeding and coagulation. And there may have been! But the more credible thing is that there was not.
Sorry, Trevor, but that is the message of the Nichols murder site, put in an exact wording: It CAN have been somebody else, but it was PROBABLY Lechmere.

The more interesting thing is why you cannot for the life of you embrace this. Why MUST it have been somebody else? When the signs are all there, why not just say what I say: We have probably found our man, but we cannot prove it conclusively. Does that really hurt all that much? After all, there has never been a better suspect than Lechmere, so you may want to give credit where credit is due. Otherwise, you are simply looking desperate.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor Marriott: Your expert gives nothing more than anopinion that is based on written descriptions of the position of the body, and not having been able to see the body, or examine any of the wounds or see any photos.

All totally true - but you seem to rely very heavily on Dr Biggs when that suits you? How much did HE see, how many photos did HE have?

It doesn't matter how famous he is, that cant change what is available to him to give that opinion. You, Jason Payne-James or aunt fanny cannot give an estimated time of death, but you need to come up with one that fits your Lechmere scenario dont you?

No, I don´t need to do anything at all. History has done it for me.

Just to remind you what Dr Biggs another forensic pathologist said with regards estimating time of death

"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"

Once more, Biggs is speaking generally here. There was never any question of a space of many hours in the Nichols case, so there was no way anybody could be "a few hours" off. This was a case where Nichols MUST have been killed within the half hour, and where the blood and coagulation implications put Lechmere right in the middle of the frame.
If it was not him, than there were deviations from the normal schedule of bleeding and coagulation. And there may have been! But the more credible thing is that there was not.
Sorry, Trevor, but that is the message of the Nichols murder site, put in an exact wording: It CAN have been somebody else, but it was PROBABLY Lechmere.

The more interesting thing is why you cannot for the life of you embrace this. Why MUST it have been somebody else? When the signs are all there, why not just say what I say: We have probably found our man, but we cannot prove it conclusively. Does that really hurt all that much? After all, there has never been a better suspect than Lechmere, so you may want to give credit where credit is due. Otherwise, you are simply looking desperate.

No better suspect that Lechmere what a ridiculous statement !

You whole case is based on a slim 20 minute time window between the time he left home to the time Paul came along, with that short time window you cannot prove that she was killed within that time window. Yes you can suggest she was, but suggestions and personal beliefs do not solve crimes.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott: No better suspect that Lechmere what a ridiculous statement !

Yes, it is really a screwball statement, is it not! A man found alone with a freshly killed victim, a man whi fits the blood evidence, a man who gave the wrong name to the police, a man who had logical reasons to be at all of the murder sites at the relevant times, a man who disagreed with the police about what he said on the murder morning. Why would be the best suspect when there are so many who have much more pointing to them? How utterly ridiculous!!

You whole case is based on a slim 20 minute time window between the time he left home to the time Paul came along, with that short time window you cannot prove that she was killed within that time window. Yes you can suggest she was, but suggestions and personal beliefs do not solve crimes.

And indeed, the crime is not solved. However, we can make more or less clever suggestions. Like Lechmere. And Feigenbaum. For example. You are wrong about the time window, by the way. It is not twenty minutes, it is fifteen: 3.30 - 3.45.
And Lechmere would have been in Bucks Row at 3.37. So you may need to explain to me why he stopped for eight minutes there. Sightseeing?
Unless, of course, he lied and started out earlier.

Now, show me a man who is a better suspect - and substantiate your claim!

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor Marriott: No better suspect that Lechmere what a ridiculous statement !

Yes, it is really a screwball statement, is it not! A man found alone with a freshly killed victim, a man whi fits the blood evidence, a man who gave the wrong name to the police, a man who had logical reasons to be at all of the murder sites at the relevant times, a man who disagreed with the police about what he said on the murder morning. Why would be the best suspect when there are so many who have much more pointing to them? How utterly ridiculous!!

You whole case is based on a slim 20 minute time window between the time he left home to the time Paul came along, with that short time window you cannot prove that she was killed within that time window. Yes you can suggest she was, but suggestions and personal beliefs do not solve crimes.

And indeed, the crime is not solved. However, we can make more or less clever suggestions. Like Lechmere. And Feigenbaum. For example. You are wrong about the time window, by the way. It is not twenty minutes, it is fifteen: 3.30 - 3.45.
And Lechmere would have been in Bucks Row at 3.37. So you may need to explain to me why he stopped for eight minutes there. Sightseeing?
Unless, of course, he lied and started out earlier.

Now, show me a man who is a better suspect - and substantiate your clai

The substantial fact is that you cannot prove that Nicholls was killed between those times. so there is nothing more to say. This whole smokescreen you put up about being found with a freshly killed body doesn't stand up because you cant prove she was freshly killed, and the reality of all murders is that someone has to find a body.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;373323]Trevor Marriott: No better suspect that Lechmere what a ridiculous statement !

[B]Yes, it is really a screwball statement, is it not! A man found alone with a freshly killed victim, a man whi fits the blood evidence,

Diemshutz was alone with Stride and Davis was alone with Chapman. And these places weren´t streets where people were passing. So the probability of them being found as finders of the victims were low whereas the probability of Lechmere being found as finder of a victim is high.

a man who gave the wrong name to the police,

Yes, why did he do that? You have to did deeper into this.

a man who had logical reasons

Logic is a science. Society does not work by logic.

to be at all of the murder sites at the relevant times,

So did a majority of the inhabitants of Spitalfields.

a man who disagreed with the police about what he said on the murder morning.

Yes, why? Another question to dig deeper into. People often lie at inquests, by the way. Do you know why they do? Have you read any research about it?

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;373325]

The substantial fact is that you cannot prove that Nicholls was killed between those times.

I agree. That is a problem. So this means that the hypothesis that Lechmere killed even one victim is built on data with low reliability. That is the scientific reality.

so there is nothing more to say. This whole smokescreen you put up about being found with a freshly killed body doesn't stand up because you cant prove she was freshly killed, and the reality of all murders is that someone has to find a body.

I wouldn´t say it is a smokescreen. Fisherman has been doing a lot of work and has spent a lot of his time for the case. He is clearly serious about his interest in it.

The first problem is that he has not been scientific enough with his sources. The sources from the period dealt with are problematic in many ways.

The second problem is the ad hocs taken from modern psychiatry about "psychopathy" and from bad profiling methods; "a domineering mother".

The third problem is lack of research about witness statements. In this case, it is very problematic since the basis for the theory lies a great deal in interpreting inquest statements, which also are not in the original.

Fisherman should go back to school and then get back to his case.

Kind regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott;373325]The substantial fact is that you cannot prove that Nicholls was killed between those times. so there is nothing more to say. This whole smokescreen you put up about being found with a freshly killed body doesn't stand up because you cant prove she was freshly killed, and the reality of all murders is that someone has to find a body.

Oh, there is a LOT more to say, Trevor - and it will be said. Much as I can´t prove conclusively that Nichols was killed between 3.30 and 3.45, it would be odd if she was killed BEFORE that time, since she was still bleeding at around 3.50-3.55. That means that the overwhelming possibility is that she was cut around 3.45, and in all probability not many minutes earlier than so.
That in itself is a powerful argument for Lechmere´s guilt.

The fact that somebody has to find a body does not in any way preclude that the person claiming to have done the finding is the killer.

Now, you were going to tell me who is a better suspect than Lechmere, were you not? And you were going to substantiate it too!

This promises to be both revealing and interesting.

[Jon Guy]

Fisherman should go back to school and then get back to his case. [/B]

Funnily enough, I was wondering if it was already the Easter holidays, as you seem to be posting a lot.

[Fisherman]

Pierre:
Diemshutz was alone with Stride and Davis was alone with Chapman. And these places weren´t streets where people were passing. So the probability of them being found as finders of the victims were low whereas the probability of Lechmere being found as finder of a victim is high.

What a daft thing to say. It has nothing at all to do with any probability of the finder being the killer. Davis could not have killed Chapman in connection with his finding her. Diemschitz could have killed Stride, but since m<ortimer heard him arrive and the ensuing hullaballoo, it is very unlikely. So no, neither of these men can compete with Lechmere. And that´s even BEFORE we look at the parts outside the finding of the body.

a man who gave the wrong name to the police,

Yes, why did he do that? You have to did deeper into this.

Makes no difference at all. All we know is that it was an anomaly, and that is no advantage for Lechmere.

a man who had logical reasons

Logic is a science. Society does not work by logic.

The part of society called the police does. And they are always very keen to find out the pathways of their suspects. You are fooling nobody, thus, with your quasi/pseudo "science".

to be at all of the murder sites at the relevant times,

So did a majority of the inhabitants of Spitalfields.

No, they did not. Don´t be a complete idiot. What reason would the majority of the Spitalfields inhabitants have to be in Bucks Row at 3.45 on a Friday morning? Oh, wait, I will aswer for you: None.

a man who disagreed with the police about what he said on the murder morning.

Yes, why? Another question to dig deeper into. People often lie at inquests, by the way. Do you know why they do? Have you read any research about it?

I have probably forgotten more about it than you have ever learned. And once again, as long as the anomaly is there, it does Lechmere no good whatsoever.

[Fisherman]

Funnily enough, I was wondering if it was already the Easter holidays, as you seem to be posting a lot.

Seconded. Our Pierre´s high esteem of his own scholarly bravado seems to fit right into a bunch of yellow feathers. And why not att a bit of tar while we are at it...?

[Patrick S]

[QUOTE=Pierre;373327]

I agree. That is a problem. So this means that the hypothesis that Lechmere killed even one victim is built on data with low reliability. That is the scientific reality.



I wouldn´t say it is a smokescreen. Fisherman has been doing a lot of work and has spent a lot of his time for the case. He is clearly serious about his interest in it.

The first problem is that he has not been scientific enough with his sources. The sources from the period dealt with are problematic in many ways.

The second problem is the ad hocs taken from modern psychiatry about "psychopathy" and from bad profiling methods; "a domineering mother".

The third problem is lack of research about witness statements. In this case, it is very problematic since the basis for the theory lies a great deal in interpreting inquest statements, which also are not in the original.

Fisherman should go back to school and then get back to his case.

Kind regards, Pierre

Pierre,

With all do respect, it's apparent that you are molding your arguments against Lechmere to fit with your unnamed, unknown, "Mystery Ripper". And while we are all impressed with your unverified credentials, skill, and ability, I'd refrain from suggesting that others - and Christer in particular - have been derelict or incompetent in their research. I may disagree with his conclusions, but any thinking person must have tremendous respect for the fact that he's done his homework one hundred times over and for that fact that - and this is the part where your ears should prick up - he has presented his suspect here, held nothing back, and stood resolutely by his conclusions, answering every question and every attack. When you do that, then you may garner some small measure of the respect most on this board have for Christer's work.

[John G]

[QUOTE=Patrick S;373335]

Pierre,

With all do respect, it's apparent that you are molding your arguments against Lechmere to fit with your unnamed, unknown, "Mystery Ripper". And while we are all impressed with your unverified credentials, skill, and ability, I'd refrain from suggesting that others - and Christer in particular - have been derelict or incompetent in their research. I may disagree with his conclusions, but any thinking person must have tremendous respect for the fact that he's done his homework one hundred times over and for that fact that - and this is the part where your ears should prick up - he has presented his suspect here, held nothing back, and stood resolutely by his conclusions, answering every question and every attack. When you do that, then you may garner some small measure of the respect most on this board have for Christer's work.

Well said, Patrick. As I've indicated on the other thread, hitherto I've been prepared to humour Pierre and his pseudo-scientific methods, and use of faux academic jargon -largely, I must confess, for my own amusement-but now my patience is starting to wear a little thin!

[Trevor Marriott]

Will you ever listen ?

Oh, there is a LOT more to say, Trevor - and it will be said. Much as I can´t prove conclusively that Nichols was killed between 3.30 and 3.45, it would be odd if she was killed BEFORE that time, since she was still bleeding at around 3.50-3.55. That means that the overwhelming possibility is that she was cut around 3.45, and in all probability not many minutes earlier than so.
That in itself is a powerful argument for Lechmere´s guilt.

It may be a powerful argument bit it lacks proof.

Do you not accept there is every possibilty she was murdered outside your time window, because Jason Payne now states that either scenario cannot be dismissed. Therefore you cannot go saying the evidence is overwleming to say Lechmere was the killer. As I have said before time of death cannot be established and Jason Payne now agrees with that.

Now, you were going to tell me who is a better suspect than Lechmere, were you not? And you were going to substantiate it too!

Everyone is a better suspect that Lechmere !

[Harry D]

If a woman had been killed at Buck's Row around 3.30am, is it likely that Lechmere would've been one of the first people to find the body on his way to work?

[GUT]

[QUOTE=Patrick S;373335]

Pierre,

With all do respect, it's apparent that you are molding your arguments against Lechmere to fit with your unnamed, unknown, "Mystery Ripper". And while we are all impressed with your unverified credentials, skill, and ability, I'd refrain from suggesting that others - and Christer in particular - have been derelict or incompetent in their research. I may disagree with his conclusions, but any thinking person must have tremendous respect for the fact that he's done his homework one hundred times over and for that fact that - and this is the part where your ears should prick up - he has presented his suspect here, held nothing back, and stood resolutely by his conclusions, answering every question and every attack. When you do that, then you may garner some small measure of the respect most on this board have for Christer's work.

I'll second that.

Fish and I have also ha our little set too's. Now for all I know he may classify me as a blithering idiot, but I can only respect he work he's done on the carman and the wha he has gone about defending his man (there are orhers who ave dine likewise) but that's More than I can say for some.