The Missing Evidence - New Ripper Documentary

[Simon Owen]

Simon the police report questioned Richardson reliability.
In any case - in sone respects I favour the later time of death for reasons too complex to go into.

This really is a sticking point for the theory though. Lechmere would have been at work by 4am which would seem to mean all the witnesses , and probably Dr Phillips too , would have to be wrong about Annie's time of death for him to have committed the murder.

I am interested in seeing how you explain the discrepancy here : are you saying Annie was killed before 4am , or do you favour a late time of death and have a theory how Lechmere could have pulled off the murder between 4.30-5.30am ?

It would also be interesting to know whether you think that Lechmere was an organised or disorganised serial killer.

[Fisherman]

This really is a sticking point for the theory though. Lechmere would have been at work by 4am which would seem to mean all the witnesses , and probably Dr Phillips too , would have to be wrong about Annie's time of death for him to have committed the murder.

I am interested in seeing how you explain the discrepancy here : are you saying Annie was killed before 4am , or do you favour a late time of death and have a theory how Lechmere could have pulled off the murder between 4.30-5.30am ?

It would also be interesting to know whether you think that Lechmere was an organised or disorganised serial killer.

My own convistion is that Phillips would not say that a woman who had been dead for only an hour or less, would have been dead for perhaps three hours. She had onsetting rigor as Phillips saw her (and that normally never sets in until after at least two hours), he would have looked at lividity and the state of the eyes, for example. Plus she was cold to the touch, apart form some little warmth in the intestines.

When Eddowes had been dead for fortyfive minutes, she was all warm.

Long and Cadosch are gainsaying each other timewise - Long, who should have made the first sighting, made it after Cadosheīs! So if we are to believe them - and they were both sure about their timings - the murder occurred first, Chapman fell against the fence, then she stood up, went out on the street, chatted with the man Long saw, and finally she went back into the yard and allowed her killer to finish his work.

Richardson first says he stood on the steps, then he changes to saying that he sat on the steps. And he had his concentration to the right, and the door swung back on itīs hinges by itīs own weight, so it may have obscured the view to the left - a direction in which Richardson had no reason to look in the first place.

In the end, weighing things up, the police seemingly opted for investing in Phillips on the issue.

I reccommend reading Wolf Vanderlindens dissertation on the TOD for Chapman here on Casebook. I think it is called "Reasonable doubt". It is very enlightening to my mind!

Plus - as I said before - Lechmere was a carman. He could have passed through Hanbury Street at any time of day!

The best,
Fisherman

[Simon Owen]

Actually, what Phillips said was that Chapman had been dead AT LEAST two hours at 6.30 - but probably more!

My guess is that Chapman died at 3.30 or thereabouts. She was displaying an onsetting Rigor as Phillips saw here, and normally, that does not dovetail at all with a TOD at 5.30! In fact, cold conditions slow down Rigor.

But even if Phillips guessed three hours and it was just the one (in which time Chapman grew totally cold with one small exception, as opposed to Eddowes who was all warm 45 minutes after the slaying), there is no ruling out of Lechmere as the killer - he was a carman, and he could have passed Hanbury Street at any time of the day.

The best,
Fisherman

I believe Eddowes was killed at around 1.40am and Dr Gordon Brown made his examination at around 2am so she would only have been dead around 20 minutes before she was examined : " Body was quite warm. No death stiffening had taken place. She must have been dead most likely within the half hour. "
With Chapman , the loss of blood and her poor health may have speeded up the onset of rigor which was only just beginning when Phillips examined the corpse.

[Chris]

But the most damning evidence against Lechmere is, that according to the combined insights of Payne-James (the pathologist) and Andy Griffiths (the DCI), it is almost impossible for anyone other than Lechmere to have killed Nichols.
... neither man has blood on his shoes, hands or his trousers and Paul doesn’t see or smell blood.

What's the evidence for that?

[Lechmere]

Sometimes the absence of evidence is indicative that the evidence was absent.
That should, should mind, be obvious.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Lech and fish
I have not had a chance to see it yet-but look forward to doing so soon!

Does the show touch upon the missing time aspect?
Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't there, according to Lech's own admission when he left home, a 10-20 minute gap that cant be accounted for?

I have always thought the missing time was a red flag.

[Fisherman]

Hi Lech and fish
I have not had a chance to see it yet-but look forward to doing so soon!

Does the show touch upon the missing time aspect?
Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't there, according to Lech's own admission when he left home, a 10-20 minute gap that cant be accounted for?

I have always thought the missing time was a red flag.

Itīs mentioned, yes - and treated as an important factor.

The best,
Fisherman

[Chris]

Sometimes the absence of evidence is indicative that the evidence was absent.
That should, should mind, be obvious.

To be specific, what's the evidence there was no blood on their shoes?

David MacNab cites this as "the most damning evidence against Lechmere". Surely it can't be pure assumption?

[Fisherman]

I believe Eddowes was killed at around 1.40am and Dr Gordon Brown made his examination at around 2am so she would only have been dead around 20 minutes before she was examined : " Body was quite warm. No death stiffening had taken place. She must have been dead most likely within the half hour. "
With Chapman , the loss of blood and her poor health may have speeded up the onset of rigor which was only just beginning when Phillips examined the corpse.

This is a snippet from Wolf VAnderlisndens dissertation "Considerable doubt":

In the Eddowes case the medical opinion is backed up by the impossibility of error. The victim was seen alive talking to her killer at 1.35 a.m. and then found dead at 1.45 a.m. We have Constable Watkins testimony that there was no body lying in Mitre Square at 1.30 and medical and police opinion that she was killed where she was found. We also have Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown's observations after he examined the body.

Dr. Brown stated that he was called to Mitre Square shortly after 2:00 a.m. and arrived there at around 2:20. By this time Catherine Eddowes had been dead for roughly forty minutes. Brown observed that "the body had been mutilated, and was quite warm - no rigor mortis." 39 We can thus say that, after roughly forty minutes, a body with extensive mutilations that was found under cool outdoor conditions was examined and described as being "quite warm." How do we reconcile this with the idea that the body of Annie Chapman was found to be almost completely cold after only the passing of twenty more minutes? We can't.

So forty minutes - and quite warm. Itīs not something that dovetails favourably with Chapmens suggested TOD and her body temperature.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Sometimes the absence of evidence is indicative that the evidence was absent.
That should, should mind, be obvious.

Ah, I see. So it's just opinion, then; and not in fact evidence as stated?

That's the story with Crossmere all the way along, isn't it?

Didn't you tell me earlier that there were some new insights into your case for Crossmere in the C5 documentary? Is this what you meant?

[Lechmere]

Simon
I avoid second guessing the expert opinions of doctors - even ones in 1888.
As did the police.
But happily there is a good (in my valued opinion) theory that has Lechmere murder chapman at the later o'clock. I can go with either time.

[Trevor Marriott]

Sometimes the absence of evidence is indicative that the evidence was absent.
That should, should mind, be obvious.

I don't agree with Griffiths on the point that the Cross needed to stay at the scene. The street were almost pitch black at that time save for one street lamp which wasn't near to the scene.

The street was also quiet Cross would have heard Paul coming along, long before he saw him. Conversely Paul would not have been able to see Cross until he was almost in top of him. So Cross had more than enough time to do the ofski.

Lets hypothesize, by what you say Cross had 9 mins with the body. The expert says it would have taken no more than two mins to do what was done to her, that leaves 7 mins, more than enough time to murder mutilate and to remove organs if he is connected to the Eddowes murder that's approx all the time the killer had there.

What if he had done to Nicholls what was done to Eddowes and removed organs and then heard Paul coming would he have still stayed and not run? Or would he have dumped them on the pavement and suggested that they were part of the crime scene.

Paul in fact said he left home at 3.45am so in effect if Cross had left home at 3.20am he would have had 15 mins with the body before the arrival of Paul

In fact Pc Neil doesnt mention any time in his testimony, and the only time Pc Mizen mentions is 4.15 am. What a fiasco with the times. Times which you heavily rely on

[Simon Owen]

This is a snippet from Wolf VAnderlisndens dissertation "Considerable doubt":

In the Eddowes case the medical opinion is backed up by the impossibility of error. The victim was seen alive talking to her killer at 1.35 a.m. and then found dead at 1.45 a.m. We have Constable Watkins testimony that there was no body lying in Mitre Square at 1.30 and medical and police opinion that she was killed where she was found. We also have Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown's observations after he examined the body.

Dr. Brown stated that he was called to Mitre Square shortly after 2:00 a.m. and arrived there at around 2:20. By this time Catherine Eddowes had been dead for roughly forty minutes. Brown observed that "the body had been mutilated, and was quite warm - no rigor mortis." 39 We can thus say that, after roughly forty minutes, a body with extensive mutilations that was found under cool outdoor conditions was examined and described as being "quite warm." How do we reconcile this with the idea that the body of Annie Chapman was found to be almost completely cold after only the passing of twenty more minutes? We can't.

So forty minutes - and quite warm. Itīs not something that dovetails favourably with Chapmens suggested TOD and her body temperature.

All the best,
Fisherman

Ah my bad , I misread the time of Dr Gordon Brown's time of arrival. Thanks for that.

[Lechmere]

Sally if you have time to comment before and after you also have time to view - it is on again tonight so you have another chance. Until then au revoir.

Chris you have not quoted correctly in your second post there - re read it in its entirety.
Again the absence of evidence in this instance is telling.
The blood seepage observation is of prime importance. I hope you can get that?

[Chris]

Chris you have not quoted correctly in your second post there - re read it in its entirety.
Again the absence of evidence in this instance is telling.
The blood seepage observation is of prime importance. I hope you can get that?

I'm simply trying to clarify what the evidence is for the assertion I quoted.

Is there any evidence for it or not?