Charles Allen Lechmere - new suspect?

[Abby Normal]

This is largely incorrect I'm afraid: see Keppel, 2005 for a discussion on JtR's signature.

Torso's signature was not post mortem mutilation, as there is no proof that any mutilation inflicted on the victims was for purposes other than dismemberment. Removal of the body organs can in no way be regarded as part of Torso's signature-that is wild speculation- as the purpose of removing the organs may well have been for purposes of disposal, i.e. part of the MO. There is certainly not a shred of evidence that any organs were retained by the perpetrator(s).

until you get the basic facts of the case correct and learn the difference between MO and sig I'm done wasting my time with you.

[John G]

until you get the basic facts of the case correct and learn the difference between MO and sig I'm done wasting my time with you.

I'm afraid you've demonstrated that your completely clueless when it comes to understanding signature and MO. I didn't want to embarrass you but I'm afraid you give me no choice but to subject you to the Pierre test: please cite authority to demonstrate that your understanding of signature and MO is correct. This might help: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...staging-posing

And I'm not wrong about the basic facts of the case, and I don't need a lesson on that subject from a poster who once claimed that Torso and JtR used the same weapon!

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;397530]

I doubt it's possible to remove the uterus and bladder with one sweep of the knife. In any event, Dr Calder and Philip Harrison have concluded that it wouldn't be possible to have eviscerated Chapman at the crime scene, demonstrating the level of skill implied by Dr Phillips analysis, especially when taking into account the lighting conditions and time constraints the killer was under: see Marriott, 2013

Marriott, i.e. Trevor, has no valid sources for his claim. It is a known problem here.

Forget Dr Biggs? Are you seriously suggesting you have greater forensic knowledge than a qualified expert? I'm sorry, but with respect, that's totally absurd. Dr Biggs has given his professional opinion that Dismembererers tend to adopt similar strategies, with the consequence that the results can be startlingly similar. I realise that this is devastating to your layman's conclusions, but you're just going to have to accept it.

And these strategies are usually connected to hiding the victims. But many of the pieces from the torso cases were found and we can therefore hypothesize that this was intended.

There is not a mountain of similarities between the victims, accept on a superficial level. In any event, you haven't examined any of the bodies and lack the necessary expertise to comment on this matter with authority-although I'm starting to believe that you actually view yourself as some sort of forensic genius. This will no doubt come back to haunt you the next time you criticise Pierre.

Well, thanks, but he never answers me anyway. He is a journalist and does not like science.

The Torso perpetrator(s) took extreme steps to prevent his victims from being identified; JtR couldn't care less, so clearly two very different personalities and approaches.

But they were found. And Jackson was ID:d. If he had cared, he would have removed the item that made the ID possible.

JtR, if he existed, was a maurader, who almost certainly didn't have transport: his murders were confined to an incredibly small area.

In stark contrast, the Torso victims were distributed all over London, so their killer(s) was clearly a commuter: he had access to transport.

An intelligent and qualified person can manage many things. It would be his pleasure.

According to Keppel (2005), posing was a signature characteristic of JtR-not so Torso: the Whitehall victim was actually buried.

The trunk was not buried.

Ritualistic behaviour can sometimes evolve, or become more elaborate: see Schlesinger, 2010. In fact, Schlesinger refers to an example where a perpetrator progressed from post mortem genital mutilation to dismemberment. However, serial killers do not alternate between two different rituals, and you've failed to provide a single example of this.

Researchers have actually failed to find more than three (if I remember correctly) serial killers who were similar to Jack the Ripper in some ways. So our general material for comparison is actually useless in that way. It is only helpful for knowing how rare he was.

And of course, the hypothesis that the rare killer was Lechmere is therefore very silly, since Lechmere was a very normal person and not rare or exclusive in any way.

Best wishes, Pierre

[Fisherman]

John G: I doubt it's possible to remove the uterus and bladder with one sweep of the knife.

PART of the bladder, John. Phillips testified to that effect.

In any event, Dr Calder and Philip Harrison have concluded that it wouldn't be possible to have eviscerated Chapman at the crime scene, demonstrating the level of skill implied by Dr Phillips analysis, especially when taking into account the lighting conditions and time constraints the killer was under: see Marriott, 2013

Marriott? Over Phillips? No, thank you.

Forget Dr Biggs? Are you seriously suggesting you have greater forensic knowledge than a qualified expert?

No. I am suggesting that Biggs, regardless of the level of his knowledge and qualifications, never commented on the torso cases per se.

I'm sorry, but with respect, that's totally absurd. Dr Biggs has given his professional opinion that Dismembererers tend to adopt similar strategies, with the consequence that the results can be startlingly similar. I realise that this is devastating to your layman's conclusions, but you're just going to have to accept it.

What nonsense! I have no problems accepting that this is the experience Biggs has, but the Thames torso cases differed a whole lot from the "normal" dismembering case. The fact that "normal" cases are often alike does not preclude that all cases donīt have to be. Wake up, please!

There is not a mountain of similarities between the victims, accept on a superficial level.

There is, Iīm afraid. And these similarities are very uncommon matters.

In any event, you haven't examined any of the bodies and lack the necessary expertise to comment on this matter with authority-although I'm starting to believe that you actually view yourself as some sort of forensic genius. This will no doubt come back to haunt you the next time you criticise Pierre.

Well, that takes the bisquit, I have to say! Have you been drinking...? Or worse?

The Torso perpetrator(s) took extreme steps to prevent his victims from being identified; JtR couldn't care less, so clearly two very different personalities and approaches.

Extreme steps? Floating the face of a victim down the Thames? Using a victims clothes to drape the body parts in? The "extreme steps" you are talking about is, letīs face it, that the heads were cut off and not found. But the easiest explanation is that they sunk in the Thames. So much for the "extreme steps"!

JtR, if he existed, was a maurader, who almost certainly didn't have transport: his murders were confined to an incredibly small area.

"Almost certainly..."? You seem off balance, John.

In stark contrast, the Torso victims were distributed all over London, so their killer(s) was clearly a commuter: he had access to transport.

Once more, if the victims were killed on premises knit to the killer, they had to go. And where they went is of little consequence when comparing the two sets of murders. Would you have the Torso killer dump his victims in Hanbury Street and Bucks Row before he could possibly be the Ripper...?

According to Keppel (2005), posing was a signature characteristic of JtR-not so Torso: the Whitehall victim was actually buried.

Correction - some of it was. The rest was as posed as can be, in the basement of the New Scotland Yard!

Ritualistic behaviour can sometimes evolve, or become more elaborate: see Schlesinger, 2010. In fact, Schlesinger refers to an example where a perpetrator progressed from post mortem genital mutilation to dismemberment. However, serial killers do not alternate between two different rituals, and you've failed to provide a single example of this.

Peter Kürten. But that matters little, what matters is the exact alignment of maby details involved in both sets of murders.
Now, go sleep, you seem to need a rest. I know that I do.

[Pierre]

I'm afraid you've demonstrated that your completely clueless when it comes to understanding signature and MO. I didn't want to embarrass you but I'm afraid you give me no choice but to subject you to the Pierre test: please cite authority to demonstrate that your understanding of signature and MO is correct. This might help: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...staging-posing

And I'm not wrong about the basic facts of the case, and I don't need a lesson on that subject from a poster who once claimed that Torso and JtR used the same weapon!

I do not think that Abby will appreciate the so called Pierre test.

Anyway, this article describes the organized killer rather well. It is a very good description of Jack the Ripper, I think:

"Organized Offenders

According to the offender and crime scene dichotomy, organized crimes are premeditated and carefully planned, so little evidence is normally found at the scene. Organized criminals, according to the classification scheme, are antisocial (often psychopathic) but know right from wrong, are not insane and show no remorse.

Based on historical patterns, organized killers are likely to be above-average intelligent, attractive, married or living with a domestic partner, employed, educated, skilled, orderly, cunning and controlled. They have some degree of social grace, may even be charming, and often talk and seduce their victims into being captured.

With organized offenders, there are typically three separate crime scenes: where the victim was approached by the killer, where the victim was killed, and where the victim’s body was disposed of. Organized killers are very difficult to apprehend because they go to inordinate lengths to cover their tracks and often are forensically savvy, meaning they are familiar with police investigation methods.

They are likely to follow the news media reports of their crimes and may even correspond with the news media. Ted Bundy, Joel Rifkin and Dennis Rader are prime examples of organized killers." (Ibid.)

[Fisherman]

Please cite authority. Please cite your medical/forensic qualifications to demonstrate that you're an authority in this area.

As I said, I have searched the net for parallels, and I know that Debra Arif has done the same, with no outcome. That does not take medical qualifications, it takes an ability to make a useful search on the net. I have a decade and a half of experience in such matters. There may well be the odd case that I failed to find, but it will nevertheless be extremely rare.

You need to give it a rest. One can debate without all that scorn and belittling.

[Fisherman]

This is largely incorrect I'm afraid: see Keppel, 2005 for a discussion on JtR's signature.

Torso's signature was not post mortem mutilation, as there is no proof that any mutilation inflicted on the victims was for purposes other than dismemberment. Removal of the body organs can in no way be regarded as part of Torso's signature-that is wild speculation- as the purpose of removing the organs may well have been for purposes of disposal, i.e. part of the MO. There is certainly not a shred of evidence that any organs were retained by the perpetrator(s).

Wild speculation? The heart and lungs were "removed" in one torso case. And do you think Jacksons uterus left her body on itīs own account? It is no wild specualtion at all, itīs established facts, John. You need to respect that. Making the issue part of a personal crusade will not work, especially not if you look away from recorded facts.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;397548]

According to Keppel (2005), posing was a signature characteristic of JtR-not so Torso: the Whitehall victim was actually buried.

Correction - some of it was. The rest was as posed as can be, in the basement of the New Scotland Yard!

What is your hypothesis here, Fisherman - Why did he select the new police building?

It is easy to understand the magnitude of the risk he took. Why was it worth taking it?

[Fisherman]

Time for bed now! I strongly advice you all to join me - the climate out here is getting very infected for no good reason at all. Let the facts speak for themselves, and we will all be fine.

[Pierre]

Wild speculation? The heart and lungs were "removed" in one torso case. And do you think Jacksons uterus left her body on itīs own account? It is no wild specualtion at all, itīs established facts, John. You need to respect that. Making the issue part of a personal crusade will not work, especially not if you look away from recorded facts.

Established facts? The uterus was not separated from the body, was it?

[Abby Normal]

I'm afraid you've demonstrated that your completely clueless when it comes to understanding signature and MO. I didn't want to embarrass you but I'm afraid you give me no choice but to subject you to the Pierre test: please cite authority to demonstrate that your understanding of signature and MO is correct. This might help: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...staging-posing

And I'm not wrong about the basic facts of the case, and I don't need a lesson on that subject from a poster who once claimed that Torso and JtR used the same weapon!

wow. just wow

and I don't need a lesson on that subject from a poster who once claimed that Torso and JtR used the same weapon!

[Elamarna]

One can not be "trying not to intepret anything", Steve. That is impossible. Our brains interpret everything we experience.

Incorrect, if one just copies from a source with no other input, there is no conscious interpretation what so ever; other than the subconscious interpretation of visual signals from the optic nerve, which the brain sends as commands via the central nervous system to the hands to type.

That is why I said "try", it has to be a conscious decision to avoid adding comment, which I attempted but admit was not completely able to do..

First he has got to become a suspect. He was not a suspect for the police in 1888 or later and now he is not a suspect. He is just an historical person who found a victim.

That is down to ones definition of the word "suspect", one of which is :

"a person thought to be guilty of a crime or offence."



True he appears not to have been a suspect in 1888, However there are those today who believe he is such a person, I do not!


We are not using the police definition here of suspect, as you so often tell us this is not a court, it is a forum. And so persons can use what ever words they like, so long as the meaning is clear.


With all due respect it is not for any individual, to tell those persons whom they may or may not suspect.

One can argue that the argument is weak or even non existent, but one cannot dictate, yes that is the correct word, who others may or may not call a suspect.

And that goes for other finders too and for people in the extreme proximity to the victims.

I think you will find that at some stage the discoverers in the Chapman and Eddowes cases have certainly been looked at.

However no other victim is found as close to the time of the attack, as the medical evidence suggests on this occasion.

Therefore I repeat there is a need to check if only to decide there is no evidence against.

Well, I donīt know anything about those but I guess there is no evidence at all.

Nothing of any note, wild speculation and conspiracy theories on the whole.

Yes, and the key word of course is "connecting".

Again we are back to definitions and meanings, the one I used is perfectly correct.

But his actions were not connected to the murder, that was my point.

How can one be sure of that unless one analyzes all the data first, it would seem you reached the conclusion first.

OK. Cross did not kill Nichols. If he was on the murder site when she was mutilated he must have seen the killer. The only sighting Cross mentioned to Mizen, according to Mizen himself when he testified, was a sighting of a policeman.

That is just an historical fact. There is nothing I can do about it.

Sorry not sure which of those statements above you are claiming is an historical fact?

Not that it really matters given that none of that is an historical fact, it is your interpretation of the various data.

You may well be incorrect in all or any of those interpretations.

From an research point of view it must be said that given it is the work of only one mind, with no external input or balances there must be a real possibility that such may be the case.

I do not believe it. But I think it is a more valid hypothesis than the idea that Lechmere was a serial killer, since it follows the sources very well and does not create a vast distance between the sources and the interpretation.

Please this is getting rather silly, twice in this post you have made the same claim, that something is not what you believe but an hypothesis over which you have no control and are therefore intellectually and emotional divorced from.

Either you are convinced by the data that something is probably or you are not, in which case you believe it, to say otherwise is foolish.

Of course it could be the hypothesis is as yet incomplete and you have not reached a conclusion, in which case you are not in a position to argue for it



Steve

[Elamarna]

The trunk was not buried.

Correct, it was wrapped up to conceal its nature and placed in an underground, dark, little used vault,

The parts of the body found at the same site later were however buried.


Steve

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;397553]

What is your hypothesis here, Fisherman - Why did he select the new police building?

It is easy to understand the magnitude of the risk he took. Why was it worth taking it?

Pierre

from the extensive research i have done on the Whitehall case over the last few months, it appears that there was little risk involved the security at the site was extremely poor.


Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

Jackson's uterus was removed. Even if we strip everything else away and say that definitely JTR's Signature was exclusively about the removal of internal organs, Jackson would still fit firmly inside of JTR's signature. Moreso than most other C5s.

That is on the belief that JTR removed the same organs from Chapman and Eddowes. If he didn't then there is no signature.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk