Charles Allen Lechmere - new suspect?

[John Wheat]

John, you have still not explained what the large dissimilarities you recognize in the two sets of murders are.

How are mutilation on the streets compared with body parts being dumped in or around the River thames not totally dissimilar?

[John Wheat]

I am sorry but based on evidence to hand I see no conclusive connection to point to the same killer as being JTR and a mythical killer who you say was responsible for another seven murders, which you cannot even prove were murders. You cant keep making things up as you go along to suit this misguided theory.

You keep pointing to the panes of flesh, and you have been told this is a descriptive term and nothing more, because we haven't seen them and have no further information about them. Dr Biggs gave you a general explanation relating to panes of flesh yet you choose to reject it.

The cuts from pubes to sternum is a method adopted by medicos and by those performing post mortems. Again you have been told that in the absence of being able to prove murder in most cases. You reject other plausible explanations for this procedure along with other plausible medical explanations for the absence of heads when the bodies were found.

The WM have been glamorised over the years, partly because of the suggestion that the killer took the organs, you are doing exactly the same with these torsos. Now be a good boy and desist

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

For once I have to largely agree with what Trevor is saying. However I really don't see how The Torso Victims were not victims of murder.

[John Wheat]

Dear Fisherman,



I have been trying to construct a post to put the arguments about Lechmere, both being the killer known as JtR and the Torso killer togeather.

I do not want to go into interminable discussion on opinion, and that has forced me to cut right back to the bare facts.

So this is my hopefully reasonably unbiased view.


1. Lechmere was certainly in London at the correct time.


2. Lechmere was at one of the murder sites with the body of one of the victims close to the time of death.( no debate about if he was found near or with a body).


3. He gave what some believe was intentionally misleading information to the police, some do not see it has such.
However with out going into debate, it does mean questions need to be asked.


THERE IS A CASE AGAINST LECHMERE FOR THE NICHOLS MURDER.

I do not say it is strong or conclusive, but it is certainly stronger than many put forward and deserves careful consideration.


4. There appears to be no direct link to any of the other C5 murders, other than some of the sites may have been on his way to work. that is not particularly strong.

THE CASE AGAINST LECHMERE FOR THE OTHER C5 MURDERS IS AT BEST CIRCUMSTANTIAL

It appears to be based on the following premises:

All the C5 were killed by the same hand (which I agree, others do not) and if Lechmere killed Nichols he is therefore JtR.



5. There are some apparent similarities between the C5 murders and the Torso murders.


6. Some see these as being sufficient to claim that this proves the same hand.


7. Some argue, there is no link at all.


8. Some like myself argue that while there may be a possible link, it is far from established.


IT APPEARS THE CASE FOR BOTH SETS BEING BY THE SAME HAND IS VIABLE.

That means that it must be looked at and researched to see if there is any data which can be used to either prove of disprove the hypothesis



9. There appears to be no link to the Torso murders from Lechmere himself.

It would seem the logic being followed is clear

Lechmere killed Nichols, the same hand killed all of the C5, the killer of the C5 was the Torso killer( or at least took part in the case) Lechmere is therefore JtR.


THERE IS AT PRESENT NO HISTORIC DATA TO LINK LECHMERE TO THE TORSO'S. (Sorry if i sound like Pierre, don't mean to).


That does not mean that there will not be some found at some date.


Hope you see that I am not precluding the possibility of any of the above.


Steve

An excellent Post Steve and one which highlights the problems with Lechmere for being JTR and The Torso Killer.

Cheers John

[John Wheat]

Hi John
I don't believe they were one in the same. I believe there is a high probability they were one in the same.

I also think that Bury makes a better suspect than Lech at this point. (sorry fish : ) But that Blotchy and hutch make better suspects than both.

and I admire your uh well,, passion on the subject. LOL

Sorry Abby

I was under the impression you believed they were one and the same. Interesting that you prefer Bury as a suspect to Lech though.

Cheers John

[John Wheat]

just to put a name to it and full disclosure. I believe there is something to it.

If I tend to believe they are the same hand-then out of all the suspects-who could fit the bill? two that I know of-Lech and (Aussie) Hutch.

What about Henry Wentworth Bellsmith? Who moved into London in 1873 and left London shortly after the last Torso Murder.

[John Wheat]

There is no proof that any of the Torso victims were subjected to post mortem genital mutilation, which is the crucial point regarding crime signatures, as JtR's victims clearly were.

Absolutely John G.

Cheers John

[John Wheat]

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

Yeah please do.

[Columbo]

First of all I do not suggest the removal of the organs at the mortuary were carried out by mortuary attendants. If they were removed from there then they were removed by someone with anatomical knowledge i.e. medical student, doctor, surgeon ,anatomist. all were entitled to go to mortuaries and obtain organs for medical research. If that were the case then they were removed with the 12 hour window before the post mortems were officially carried out. Again if this were the case then this would account for the anatomical knowledge seen when the doctors did carry out the post mortems, which they attributed to the killer.

If the killer was harvesting organs then he would not have stabbed and mutilated the victims abdomens in such a way as he did because that would damage the organs.

As to the intestines being out. Two possible explanations the first is that when the abdomen was ripped open and the abdominal wall pierced the intestines recoiled outwards. So if that were the case they could easily have reached the shoulder area. We have the doctors giving an opinion when they say they felt this was by design. Again that is just an opinion but researcher over the years have used it along with the organ removal to glamorise the murders.

The second point is that in the case of Eddowes he did not have enough time to do all that he is supposed to have done. But lets not go over all of this again.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So for some reason in two murders a murderer mutilated the abdomen and in both cases the intestines shot out of the abdomen and landed around the right shoulder?

And in both cases, but not in the Nichols case even though she to was mutilated, a person who was not a mortuary attendant walked into the morgue and just happened to take out the uterus professionally in one case and basically tore out part of the uterus and a kidney from the other? that's your explanation?

Columbo

[John Wheat]

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.)

Yes it would seem from the available evidence that Jack was largely a disorganised killer whereas The Torso Killer was largely an organised killer.

[John Wheat]

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.

What facts would those be? The fact that Lechmere found a body? Because the rest of the case against Lechmere is a mixture of pure speculation and complete and utter bullshit.

[John Wheat]

Fisherman,
Not my opinion.The 3-15 minute period is from as sound a source as any you have given,therefor the probability of a person other than Cross being with Nichols shortly before she was killed is substancial.

Someone asked what fact is apparent in the Nichols murder.Apart from her having been murdered,and at that spot,I cannot think of one,but starting w ith the acceptance that Cross found her body while on the way to his employment,is as near a fact as anything else. That evidence was given under oath.

Begin with the well established '' Considered innocent until proven guilty".See how far it goes.

But if you presume innocent until proven guilty the Lechmere case goes down the toilet. So I doubt Fisherman will ever do that.

[Abby Normal]

What about Henry Wentworth Bellsmith? Who moved into London in 1873 and left London shortly after the last Torso Murder.

Well who the hell is that?

I thought you were a bury guy? (not that there is anything wrong with it)

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
Not my opinion.The 3-15 minute period is from as sound a source as any you have given,therefor the probability of a person other than Cross being with Nichols shortly before she was killed is substancial.

Name your source, please, and provide us with the exact wording. And exemplify where somebody with all vessels in the neck severed and with no obstacle for the bloodflow has bled for 15 minutes.

Thatīs all you need to do. Good luck with it.

[Fisherman]

How are mutilation on the streets compared with body parts being dumped in or around the River thames not totally dissimilar?

In post 285, you answered an earlier post of mine, in which I wrote:

Why would we look at the methods of disposal before we look at the similarities in how the victims were killed?

Your answer to that was:

I never said we should but there are clear dissimilarities to both sets of murders.

Of course, what was under discussion was the nature of what the killer did to the bodies, and the similarities in that department.
Now you say that the dissimilarities you spoke of related to how one killer mutilated in the open street and left the body lying while the other mutilated in private and dumped the bodies.

I can only assume that this is what was left when you had thought over what dissimilarities there really are. The cutting of the body and the eviscerations are seemingly the exact same, so you could not use that.

As for the fact that one set of murders was street murders and the other not, this has already been covered in extenso, and an explanation has been goven,m saying that one has to get rid of bodies slain on premises that can be tied to yourself, whereas this does not apply in the case of street murders.

I would appreciate if we need not go around in circles any more on that topic, and I take it that you have accepted that there are no differences to be found or pointed at when it comes to the matter of how the killer/s cut and eviscerated the victims in the two series. The one thing that differs is the disposal method.

[Fisherman]

Absolutely John G.

Cheers John

The genitalia of Elizabeth Jackson was cut away together with one of the abdominal flaps. Does that not count as genital mutilation in your book? If not, would you care to explain why?