What happened to Lechmere......

[Billiou]

The report on Thain is incorrect - his beat never involved Bucks Row. It was John Neil who passed down Bucks Row at around 3.15.

My personal belief is that Neil found Nichols´ body at around 3.48-3.50. Robert Paul said that he went down Bucks Row at 3.45 precisely.

Given the damage to Nichols´neck (it was cut to the bone, severing all blood vessels, and left gapingly open), there is not any real possibility that she was cut before 3.15. That would mean that she bled from the neck wound for at least 35 minutes, and the mere suggestion is more or less ridiculous.

It also applies that Paul said that he felt a slight movement as he touched the chest of Polly Nichols - it would be odd if she produced that movement half an hour after she was killed. She was also completely warm apart from the hands as she was examined by Dr Llewellyn, who fixed the TOD to at most half an hour before he arrived. And he seemingly arrived at approximately 4.10, putting tthe doctors extreme limit to 3.40. It should be added that determining TOD is not any exact science (indeed, you are about to find out that Mr Marriott thinks that no time gap at all can be suggested in any case), but these are the particulars of the case nevertheless.

Re: Polly still breathing?

I'd like to point out the newspaper reports of Cross' statement:
The Morning Advertiser: The other man, after he had felt her heart, said, “Yes, she is.”
The Times: The other man, having put his hand over her heart, said “I think she is breathing.”
The Star: The other man put his hand on the breast outside the clothes – over the heart – and said, “I think she's breathing, but a very little.”
The Daily Telegraph: The other man, placing his hand on her heart, said, “I think she is breathing, but very little if she is.”
The Daily News: The other man placed his hand on her heart, saying, "I think she's breathing, but it's very little if she is."
The Evening Post: The other man put his hand over her heard, and said he fancied she was breathing a little.
Possible Conclusion: The report of the Morning Advertiser must be interpreted as: Yes, she is ie [still breathing a little], not: Yes, she is [dead]”.
Which then makes sense if Paul then says, "Let's prop her up". There would be no point doing this if you thought she was dead.

[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?

Just in case you missed it the first time.

[Fisherman]

for the sake of devils advocate,would be interesting to know whether Cross worked saturdays(for the chapman slaying)

Do we know if carmen/cross worked saturdays regularly?as it looks as though he started work normally around 4am

not being lazy i have tried to find out about the working hours,ie factory acts etc but couldn't find anything about pickfords working hours/days per week

All the victims save Stride and Eddowes died on his working mornings, Chapman included.

[Fisherman]

Re: Polly still breathing?

I'd like to point out the newspaper reports of Cross' statement:
The Morning Advertiser: The other man, after he had felt her heart, said, “Yes, she is.”
The Times: The other man, having put his hand over her heart, said “I think she is breathing.”
The Star: The other man put his hand on the breast outside the clothes – over the heart – and said, “I think she's breathing, but a very little.”
The Daily Telegraph: The other man, placing his hand on her heart, said, “I think she is breathing, but very little if she is.”
The Daily News: The other man placed his hand on her heart, saying, "I think she's breathing, but it's very little if she is."
The Evening Post: The other man put his hand over her heard, and said he fancied she was breathing a little.
Possible Conclusion: The report of the Morning Advertiser must be interpreted as: Yes, she is ie [still breathing a little], not: Yes, she is [dead]”.
Which then makes sense if Paul then says, "Let's prop her up". There would be no point doing this if you thought she was dead.

Exactly so!

[dixon9]

if he worked the morning of the chapman murder, would he not have been very late for work?because he said he was going to be late the morning of the nicholls murder

[Fisherman]

if he worked the morning of the chapman murder, would he not have been very late for work?because he said he was going to be late the morning of the nicholls murder

If you believe the witness Long, then yes. If you believe George Bagster Phillips - which the police apparently did - then no.
I think the Ripper killed Chapman ar around 3.30, which is in line with Phillips assessment.

If Long was correct, however, then he could not have killed Chapman en route to work, but he was a carman who delivered goods, and so he may have killed her when on an errand. But that would deviate from all his other deeds where he worked during the dark hours.

[MrBarnett]

for the sake of devils advocate,would be interesting to know whether Cross worked saturdays(for the chapman slaying)

Do we know if carmen/cross worked saturdays regularly?as it looks as though he started work normally around 4am

not being lazy i have tried to find out about the working hours,ie factory acts etc but couldn't find anything about pickfords working hours/days per week

Hi Dixon,

You may find this interesting, it's from Reynolds Newspaper of 19th June, 1881. Both Saturday and Sunday working are mentioned.

Gary

[Sam Flynn]

If you believe the witness Long, then yes.

Long... and Cadoche... and Richardson, don't forget. The collective evidence of three witnesses, against the opinion of a thermometer-less doctor.

[Sam Flynn]

All the victims save Stride and Eddowes died on his working mornings, Chapman included.

We don't know that, and neither do you, Fish, so it shouldn't be asserted as if it were true.

If we have Lechmere's work roster for the period in question, we can make statements like that. If we do not have his roster then we are speculating - no more - and our words should reflect this. We should not present speculations as if they were facts.

I've pointed this out umpteen times, but you keep doing it.

[MrBarnett]

We don't know that, and neither do you, Fish, so it shouldn't be asserted as if it were true.

If we have Lechmere's work roster for the period in question, we can make statements like that. If we do not have his roster then we are speculating - no more - and our words should reflect this. We should not present speculations as if they were facts.

I've pointed this out umpteen times, but you keep doing it.

Perhaps the assumption was that the goods yard was open Mon-Sat and Lech. worked a six day week. That's not unreasonable.

But when you throw Sunday into the mix, it's possible that his day off varied from week to week and by a stroke of luck might have coincided with all the murders other than Nichols.

[Sam Flynn]

Perhaps the assumption was that the goods yard was open Mon-Sat and Lech. worked a six day week. That's not unreasonable.

It's an assumption nonetheless, MrB, and shouldn't be used to present further assumptions as if they were also facts.

In the absence of concrete evidence, sentences like "All the victims save Stride and Eddowes died on his working mornings, Chapman included" are exercises in heaping speculation upon speculation, and should be acknowledged as such.

Despite all appearances to the contrary, such assertions are not factual - but the unwary may mistakenly believe them to be. We would do well not to create such traps for them... or us, for that matter.

[MrBarnett]

Gareth,

I would have no problem with the assumptions if they were reasonable and clearly labelled as such. For instance, if we knew or believed that the goods yards were open 6 days a week and that a typical working week was also 6 days, saying some like 'The victims died on his probable working mornings' would be fine.

But if the yards were also open on a Sunday (and I can't see any other way to read the Reynolds report) then probable would be misleading. Unless Lechmere was a workaholic he would probably have had one day a week off. That day could have been any one of the seven and could have varied from week to week.


Gary.

[Fisherman]

Long... and Cadoche... and Richardson, don't forget. The collective evidence of three witnesses, against the opinion of a thermometer-less doctor.

Long said she saw Chapman. None of the others did. Richardson was all over the place testimonywise to boot.
I forget nothing, Gareth.

[Fisherman]

We don't know that, and neither do you, Fish, so it shouldn't be asserted as if it were true.

If we have Lechmere's work roster for the period in question, we can make statements like that. If we do not have his roster then we are speculating - no more - and our words should reflect this. We should not present speculations as if they were facts.

I've pointed this out umpteen times, but you keep doing it.

Some speculate that Cadoshe must have heard Chapman and nobody else. That´s a lot worse.

I´ve pointed this out now. Don´t make me do it again.

I pointed out your mistake on Halse´s testimony numerous times. All I got for that was your very odd suggestion that you did not need to get ir right since he meant what you said he meant.

So let´s be a bit more modest, shall we?

[Sam Flynn]

So let´s be a bit more modest, shall we?

I'm just keen that we avoid presenting speculations as if they were facts. What's immodest about that?

Some speculate that Cadoshe must have heard Chapman and nobody else.

Earlier, I said that the evidence of three witnesses need to be evaluated against the opinion of one doctor, in connection with Annie Chapman's time of death. That was a perfectly true statement - one must evaluate all relevant aspects of the evidence in a case as challenging as this.

On the basis of such considered evaluation it is perfectly legit to opine that the person whom Cadoche heard was probably Annie Chapman, but it is quite another to boldly assert that "Cadoche heard Chapman fall against the fence". That would be wrong. That would be to present an opinion as if it were an established fact, just like the assertion that "all the victims save Stride and Eddowes died on Lechmere's working mornings". We know no such thing, because we don't know what Lechmere's working mornings really were.

We shouldn't present speculations as if they were statements of fact, because they can so easily mislead the reader, and even the writer ends up believing it in the end!

It's just a matter of wording, but it makes a huge difference.