Lechmere the serial killer?

[Caligo Umbrator]

How do you know the uterus and the flaps of skin found floating in the thames came from Jackson?

There was no forensics in those days so they could have come from any source could they not ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi, Trevor.


The medical professionals familiar with this case at the time had no doubt that the findings of parts within the bundled remains were all related to the same deceased person. The missing female, who these parts were believed to have belonged to, was in a similar state of pregnancy as that which the discovered remains suggested (although the fetus had been removed, the remaining portions of the body presented themselves in such a manner as to seem likely to confirm such a belief) and, further, the unfortunate victim's found remains, which you appear to dispute, exhibited pubic hair colouration which was stated to be in conformity with the underarm hair of the same 'light sandy' colour and type, as found upon parts of the upper torso.
Had they come 'from any source' as you suggest, then there was;
1, A woman's body, resting somewhere undiscovered, that lacked only a portion of her upper external vagina, uterus, and upper abdominal walls,
2, And also, at the same time, a female being fished from the waters of London whose body lacked only that portion of her anatomy which you wish to ascribe to this other, different and otherwise undiscovered cadaver.
It would seem, when taking into account all of the medical information regarding the remains that were found, that the part you dispute was, in fact, one more remnant of the same poor lady.
Unless, of course, you have persuasive evidence to the contrary.

Yours, Caligo

[Fisherman]

How do you know the uterus and the flaps of skin found floating in the thames came from Jackson?

There was no forensics in those days so they could have come from any source could they not ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No, they could not. The flaps (and they were long and irregular) were fitted on the corpse and found to dovetail exactly with it. That is how I know that they came from Jackson. Hereīs Hebbert on the issue:

"The flaps of skin and subcutaneous tissue consisted of two long, irregular slips taken from the abdominal walls. The left piece included the umbilicus, the greater part of the mons veneris the left labium majus, and labium minus. The right piece included the rest of the mons veneris, the right labium majus and minus, and part of the skin of the right buttock. These flaps accurately fitted together in the mid-line, and laterally corresponded to the incisions in the lower pieces of the trunk. The skin was fair, and the mons veneris was covered with light sandy hair. The upper part of the vagina was attached to the uterus; both ovaries and broad ligaments were present, and the posterior wall of the bladder. The uterus had been opened on the left side by a vertical cut, six inches long, through the left wall. The organ was much dilated the vessels on the inner surface large and open and the mucus membrane swollen and softened. The uterus measured 10in. long by 7.5 in. wide. The circumference of the os externum was 4in…."

[Fisherman]

"These flaps accurately fitted together in the midline, laterally corresponding to the incisions in the two lower pieces of the trunk."

There we go, yes.

[Fisherman]

Not really....one single slice through the waist will cut the colon in two places. Likewise, one long cut down the midline, if it's deep enough, could also sever the colon in two places. Coincidentally, cutting about two feet adrift. And when removed from the body cavity, also coincidentally, giving access to the left kidney.

It all depends on WHERE the colon was cut, as I have pointed out before. In the Rainham case the colon was missing apart from the sigmoid flexure and the rectum. That means that there will have to have been a cut to the cecum/ascending colon attachment on the one side and to the sigmoid colon on the other side.
In the Jackson case, much the same applies, since what was left was part of the rectum only. In the Eddowes case, two feet of the descending colon was cut out.
I find it hard to believe that either of these damages were collateral. In all three cases, the cut to the abdomen was from sternum to pelvis, and such a cut would certainly not cut out a colon the way it was done here. The one part of the colon that would be in immediate danger of getting severed would be the transverse colon, as you will agree.
Incidentally, in the Jackson case, the medicos stated that the heart, the lungs and the colon section were "removed". To my mind, that tells us that the killer purposefully did the removing of the organs.

[Fisherman]

Hi, Trevor.


The medical professionals familiar with this case at the time had no doubt that the findings of parts within the bundled remains were all related to the same deceased person. The missing female, who these parts were believed to have belonged to, was in a similar state of pregnancy as that which the discovered remains suggested (although the fetus had been removed, the remaining portions of the body presented themselves in such a manner as to seem likely to confirm such a belief) and, further, the unfortunate victim's found remains, which you appear to dispute, exhibited pubic hair colouration which was stated to be in conformity with the underarm hair of the same 'light sandy' colour and type, as found upon parts of the upper torso.
Had they come 'from any source' as you suggest, then there was;
1, A woman's body, resting somewhere undiscovered, that lacked only a portion of her upper external vagina, uterus, and upper abdominal walls,
2, And also, at the same time, a female being fished from the waters of London whose body lacked only that portion of her anatomy which you wish to ascribe to this other, different and otherwise undiscovered cadaver.
It would seem, when taking into account all of the medical information regarding the remains that were found, that the part you dispute was, in fact, one more remnant of the same poor lady.
Unless, of course, you have persuasive evidence to the contrary.

Yours, Caligo

He doesnīt, Caligo, believe me. Just a point, though - you write "upper abdominal walls", but I think we are dealing with the lower abdominal walls as well. The flaps were described as long and irregular, and on comparison, Hebbert found that they "fitted together in the mid-line, and laterally corresponded to the incisions in the lower pieces of the trunk."
It should be kept in mind that the uppermost piece of the Rainham victimīs thorax was never retrieved, contrary to how it is presented in for example Trowīs book. The trunk was divided into three parts, and what Hebbert tells us is that the flaps fitted the two sections that WERE retrieved, the two lower ones.

[Caligo Umbrator]

Hi, Fisherman.

Indeed you are correct on that point regarding of my description.
I inadvertently utilised the classification of 'upper' when referring to the abdominal wall parts as found within the bundle.
Are you using 'A system of legal medicine' by Hamilton,1894 as your reference? Within it may also be found descriptions of two other 'torso' incidents in London from the same era and examined by the same Doctor.

Yours, Caligo.

[Fisherman]

Hi, Fisherman.

Indeed you are correct on that point regarding of my description.
I inadvertently utilised the classification of 'upper' when referring to the abdominal wall parts as found within the bundle.
Are you using 'A system of legal medicine' by Hamilton,1894 as your reference? Within it may also be found descriptions of two other 'torso' incidents in London from the same era and examined by the same Doctor.

Yours, Caligo.

It is by far the best source, I find.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi, Trevor.


The medical professionals familiar with this case at the time had no doubt that the findings of parts within the bundled remains were all related to the same deceased person. The missing female, who these parts were believed to have belonged to, was in a similar state of pregnancy as that which the discovered remains suggested (although the fetus had been removed, the remaining portions of the body presented themselves in such a manner as to seem likely to confirm such a belief) and, further, the unfortunate victim's found remains, which you appear to dispute, exhibited pubic hair colouration which was stated to be in conformity with the underarm hair of the same 'light sandy' colour and type, as found upon parts of the upper torso.
Had they come 'from any source' as you suggest, then there was;
1, A woman's body, resting somewhere undiscovered, that lacked only a portion of her upper external vagina, uterus, and upper abdominal walls,
2, And also, at the same time, a female being fished from the waters of London whose body lacked only that portion of her anatomy which you wish to ascribe to this other, different and otherwise undiscovered cadaver.
It would seem, when taking into account all of the medical information regarding the remains that were found, that the part you dispute was, in fact, one more remnant of the same poor lady.
Unless, of course, you have persuasive evidence to the contrary.

Yours, Caligo

Fishermans approach to all of this is like someone trying to suggest they have completed a jigsaw without having the actual jigsaw in front of them

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Caligo Umbrator]

Hi, Trevor.

You asked : "How do you know the uterus and the flaps of skin found floating in the thames came from Jackson?"

And then you stated : "There was no forensics in those days so they could have come from any source could they not ?"

I gave, to your enquiry, what I believe was a reasonable response, detailing the manner in which the various parts had been determined by authorities in the relevant field, as to being from the same unfortunate individual.
Whether Fishermans approach is correct or not, I am not here to defend or rebuke him.
I am not sure what you are inferring when you speak of jigsaws, as there is no theory, including yours, that is in any manner 'all pieces in place'.
My query was related to whether you have evidence that the body parts you hold in dispute, and were found at the same time as the rest of the body, and were determined by qualified medical persons to be all from the same individual, were in fact from some separate individual?
It seems as if you have avoided answering a directed question and, instead, strived to denigrate some other theory with no attempt to defend your own position.

Yours,Caligo

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi, Trevor.

You asked : "How do you know the uterus and the flaps of skin found floating in the thames came from Jackson?"

And then you stated : "There was no forensics in those days so they could have come from any source could they not ?"

I gave, to your enquiry, what I believe was a reasonable response, detailing the manner in which the various parts had been determined by authorities in the relevant field, as to being from the same unfortunate individual.
Whether Fishermans approach is correct or not, I am not here to defend or rebuke him.
I am not sure what you are inferring when you speak of jigsaws, as there is no theory, including yours, that is in any manner 'all pieces in place'.
My query was related to whether you have evidence that the body parts you hold in dispute, and were found at the same time as the rest of the body, and were determined by qualified medical persons to be all from the same individual, were in fact from some separate individual?
It seems as if you have avoided answering a directed question and, instead, strived to denigrate some other theory with no attempt to defend your own position.

Yours,Caligo

I dont need to defend my position !

In my initial post I was stating what is fact. Read what Dr Biggs says about this issues and the torsos.

He also says that much of what Victorian doctors said back then was nothing more than guess work, but it seem you and Fish and another small minority want to accept those Victorian opinions as being correct.

If you want to be flippant about the panes of flesh all being the same. I have panes of glass in my windows. My next door neighbour has panes of glass in his but they are different to mine. !!!!!!!!!!!!!

There are none so blind as they that cannot see !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

I dont need to defend my position !

In my initial post I was stating what is fact. Read what Dr Biggs says about this issues and the torsos.

He also says that much of what Victorian doctors said back then was nothing more than guess work, but it seem you and Fish and another small minority want to accept those Victorian opinions as being correct.

If you want to be flippant about the panes of flesh all being the same. I have panes of glass in my windows. My next door neighbour has panes of glass in his but they are different to mine. !!!!!!!!!!!!!

There are none so blind as they that cannot see !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Not only are you a total ass hat, but you don't even have the common decency to appreciate when people try to help you learn something, let alone just admit you are wrong.

Don't you have anything better yo do? Like sell some ripper coffee mugs or something?

[Caligo Umbrator]

Hi, Trevor.

I have read what Dr. Biggs has to say about the issue.
I don't intend to be discourteous to Dr. Biggs but it seems as if he might have been addressing specific queries, perhaps provided by yourself, rather than offering an entirely objective review of the case notes.
It appears as if he does not have a full understanding of the precision of the language used at the time - "When I am describing separated body parts, I'll use terms like 'flap' of skin, 'strip' of skin or perhaps 'bridge' of skin where two pieces haven't entirely separated. These are purely descriptive terms, and have no underlying medical significance. I suspect that the descriptions given in these historical cases were originally just that (i.e. descriptions), but that over the years undue significance has been pinned to the terminology in the hope of somehow finding a 'link' between cases."

He seems unembarrassed to utilise a double negative, while at the same juncture appearing to intimate that those who have gone before him have less understanding of language than himself.

"I'm not saying there is no link between the bodies, of course, I'm just saying that you can't make that link based on similar descriptions of the remains by the medical persons who examined them at the time. I think unfortunately that the original literal, descriptive meaning might have been over-interpreted to try to make something more out of them over the years. "


He further says that " Anyone who has taken the legs off a roast chicken can probably work out that the legs will come off a human with the right encouragement..."
We should firstly note that chicken was not an inexpensive source of protein in the crowded slums of late 19th C. London.
Secondly, we might see that this has little relevance to the case, unless it is soon to be suggested that a kitchen hand has a part in the affair,

Even so, we see that he concludes that " I don't think (from what I have read) that there are sufficient similarities between the cases to conclude that the same 'killer' dismembered the bodies.

Equally, they could have been the work of the same individual, as there is nothing that can be used to conclude that a different individual must have done the deed." and then follows that with "Essentially, these two individuals 'could' have been killed by the same person, or by different individuals. There is no way of telling one scenario from the other based purely on the pattern of body dismemberment.".

Rather ambiguous, surely?

And irregardless of Dr. Biggs position, although his final conclusion seems less than beneficial to your argument, he is merely reviewing, from a distance, evidence that was drawn up by the very doctors you seem to suggest are wrong in their beliefs, even though they had the bodies there in front of them and held those fractured parts in their hands.

Yours, Caligo

[John Wheat]

Fishermans approach to all of this is like someone trying to suggest they have completed a jigsaw without having the actual jigsaw in front of them

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

That's funny
Having said that the idea there were no Torso Murders is just as funny.

[Fisherman]

That's funny
Having said that the idea there were no Torso Murders is just as funny.

Thatīs quite a problem youīve got there - having to agree with me canīt be easy for you.

[John Wheat]

Thatīs quite a problem youīve got there - having to agree with me canīt be easy for you.

Not really Fisherman. When you're right such as on the fact that the Torso Murders were murders I'll agree with you.

Cheers John