Charles Allen Lechmere - new suspect?

[Abby Normal]

Sorry Abbey

But for once I'm going to agree with Fisherman. I really don't see how the 1873 and 1874 Torso Murders were not carried out by the same killer as the 1884, 1887, 1888 and 1889 Torso Murders. and I don't see the Torso Killer starting off at the age of 12.

Cheers John

he was 14 in 1873. young but not impossible. age is a little sketchy too as they were not as tight on those things back then, and hutch was nothing if not a good lier. and of course there is always the possibility he wasn't involved in the earlier torso murders.

Aussie George was English, local, proven to be in London, a laborer/ able seaman (peaked cap), fits the witness descriptions to a tee. arrested for a sex crime and his departure fits in extremely well for the cessation of not only the ripper murders, but the torso murders.

The ripper was IMHO a strong man. Look at his picture and note the size of his head neck shoulders upper arms and chest-hes a powerfully built man.
"stout, not tall". He even has the weak eybrows/eyes and full face!!

This guy ticks all the boxes for me and definitely deserves a closer look.

[John Wheat]

he was 15 in 1873. young but not impossible. age is a little sketchy too as they were not as tight on those things back then, and hutch was nothing if not a good lier. and of course there is always the possibility he wasn't involved in the earlier torso murders.

Aussie George was English, local, proven to be in London, a laborer/ able seaman (peaked cap), fits the witness descriptions to a tee. arrested for a sex crime and his departure fits in extremely well for the cessation of not only the ripper murders, but the torso murders.

The ripper was IMHO a strong man. Look at his picture and note the size of his head neck shoulders upper arms and chest-hes a powerfully built man.
"stout, not tall". He even has the weak eybrows/eyes and full face!!

This guy ticks all the boxes for me and definitely deserves a closer look.

Hi Abbey

It wasn't me who first stated he was 12 it was Fisherman. I merely for once trusted Fisherman's word on it. If you're saying he was wrong then I suggest you take it up with him.

Cheers John

[Fisherman]

It doesn't mean Bury was in all probability not the Ripper. You require the Police to be buffoons for allegedly not looking at Lechmere even though this is by no means certain yet you also presume the Police were extremely diligent when they looked at Bury and take there word that he wasn't the Ripper. You really can't have it both ways.

History has awarded me that right, Iīm afraid.

Bury WAS looked into. And the name business guarantees us that Lechmere was not.

Of course, it could still apply that the police got it wrong with Bury and that he had been in Bucks Row half a minute before Lechmere entered the street on the 31:st of August 1888.

But it is not likely.

[Fisherman]

I've said this before but I'll say it again when you are in my opinion right I will agree with you.

We may rate your opinion differently, of course...

[Fisherman]

Yes but what you said presumes that you know 100% that Bury was not the Ripper which you cannot possibly know.

How did you reach that conclusion, John? I certainly never said it.

[John Wheat]

History has awarded me that right, Iīm afraid.

Bury WAS looked into. And the name business guarantees us that Lechmere was not.

Of course, it could still apply that the police got it wrong with Bury and that he had been in Bucks Row half a minute before Lechmere entered the street on the 31:st of August 1888.

But it is not likely.

It is not guaranteed that Lechmere wasn't looked into. Many of the papers on the Ripper investigation have been lost as I'm sure you know. You don't know at all if Lechmere was looked at or not. There is clearly much more of a gap than half a minute where someone most likely Bury could have absconded before Lechmere was on the scene.

[John Wheat]

How did you reach that conclusion, John? I certainly never said it.

Well stating that trust me Bury was not the Ripper suggests you know this to be 100% true.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abbey

It wasn't me who first stated he was 12 it was Fisherman. I merely for once trusted Fisherman's word on it. If you're saying he was wrong then I suggest you take it up with him.

Cheers John

no worries John
I was actually kind of replying to both of you out of laziness since you quoted him and agreed.

forget the age for now anyway (we know he wasn't say under 10 which would rule out a lot of suspects) but look at the rest of my post. Intriguing at the very least, no?

[John Wheat]

no worries John
I was actually kind of replying to both of you out of laziness since you quoted him and agreed.

forget the age for now anyway (we know he wasn't say under 10 which would rule out a lot of suspects) but look at the rest of my post. Intriguing at the very least, no?

Well I Abbey haven't ruled him out for The Torso Murders.

Cheers John

[Fisherman]

Abby Normal: He was 14 in 1873.

No, he was twelve, going by the registered age.

young but not impossible.

I would say virtually impossible. I donīt think history has recorded a fourteen year old dismemberer, Abby. Let alone a twelve year old.

age is a little sketchy too as they were not as tight on those things back then, and hutch was nothing if not a good lier. and of course there is always the possibility he wasn't involved in the earlier torso murders.

Yes, but that puts a very odd slant on it. These murders very clearly seem connected, so it all becomes very hazy if we are to allow for another killer in 1873.

Aussie George was English, local, proven to be in London, a laborer/ able seaman (peaked cap), fits the witness descriptions to a tee. arrested for a sex crime and his departure fits in extremely well for the cessation of not only the ripper murders, but the torso murders.

Who says the killer must be English...? And myriads of men were in London, Abby! Plus since the witness descriptions varied, how can he fit all of them to a tee? The sex crime he was arrested for was flashing - in front of two small boys. And his departure cannot fit both series "extremely well".

I noticed back in the day that you took a shine to Aussie George, Abby. I donīt think you are being very discriminate about him.

The ripper was IMHO a strong man. Look at his picture and note the size of his head neck shoulders upper arms and chest-hes a powerfully built man.
"stout, not tall". He even has the weak eybrows/eyes and full face!!

But is that how we catch the Ripper? By looking at a man and thinking he looks strong? Is that all it takes?
To me, he looks stout, not strong. Strenght must be proven. I have known stout people who could not lift a suitcase and thin men who could juggle with one.

This guy ticks all the boxes for me and definitely deserves a closer look.

Heīs had it already, methinks. But by all means, Abby, if that is your hunch, go get him!

[Fisherman]

John Wheat: It is not guaranteed that Lechmere wasn't looked into. Many of the papers on the Ripper investigation have been lost as I'm sure you know. You don't know at all if Lechmere was looked at or not.

I know that the police should have registered him under his real name if they had checked him in depth. And they did not use his real name in September of 1888, nor in October of 1888, almost a full two months after the death of Nichols. Thatīs good enough for me and it should be good enough for anybody.

There is clearly much more of a gap than half a minute where someone most likely Bury could have absconded before Lechmere was on the scene.

It is anything but clear that there is such time. It is by far more likely that there is not, according to Jason Payne-James, who I trust over you in this errand. Whichever way we look at it, Lechmere was there when she was PROBABLY cut. Bury MAY have been there before him, but for him to have been the killer, the normal bleeding schedule must have been off, according to Payne-James, a very renowned forensic medical expert.

The easiest way you can avoid these facts is to flatly deny them and offer no evidence to the contrary. No doubt you will do precisely that.

[John G]

First of all, thank you for a more low-key post than yesterdays! I will try to answer in the same kind.

Do we know, as such, that Jackson was killed by the same man as the other torso victims? No, we donīt even know for sure that the C5 were by the same hand. There are not two victims where we can swear that they must have had the same killer.

But we must of course look at precisely why Jackson was believed to be by the same hand as the other torso victims! And that lies in the very deviating fact that this killer (I will call him a killer, since there is legal precedence for it and since most people believe there was a killer) did NOT dismember his victims in the same manner as the "normal" dismemberment killer would do. The "normal" dismemberment killer is the type dr Biggs was referring to, where the cutting is sloppily and messily done, and where the result is a lot of fraying, torn limbs and skin, parts only partially divided etcetera.
The Thames torso killer did his work very neatly, leaving no frayed cuts and no mess at all. He opened up the joints instead of just sawing off the limbs, and he then cut very neatly and precisely, not even damaging the underlying cartilage, and he then disarticulated the limbs from the body. He even cut in perfectly straight angles!
This is why I say "forget Biggs". He said that all dismemberment cases look the same. They donīt. Which is a perfect example on how we as laymen should have a say too, by the way.

I donīt think there is any comparison at all to what the Thames torso killer did. And this is evident in all seven victims, although the 1874 victim is only very sparsely written about. We know, however, that this victim was considered to be of the same hand as the 1873 victim, and that would reasonably have been due to itīs likeness in the cutting work.

Elizabeth Jackson was another example of this, the disarticulations and the cutting being very nicely and exactly carried out. The odds that she was a one-off by some other dismemberment killer are totally against the suggestion. Any such suggestion is, I fear, doomed to fail.

You say that I lack all medical and scientific support, but that is wrong. I lean against Hebbert to a very large degree, and against other medicos too. There was a lot of thinking back then that the murder series were connected, and then papers reflect this very well. As for how the series were not declared to be of the same man by the medicos, it warrants some interest that there was not even a consensus about the C5 being by the same man. And there was a very clear misconception that dismemberment murders were always only about facilitating transport. The idea that they could be about the joy of dismemembering seems not to have entered the medicos minds.

I am not any forensic or medical expert. But it does not take such expertise to conclude that opening abdomens from ribs to pubes and taking out organs and cutting away abdominal walls are traits that are extremely unusual. We all know that this is so. So the comparison is one that is very well supported by the evidence.

I have no idea why you bring up Michael Gordon, saying that relying on him is wrong. When did I do so? Gordon quotes a lot of material from the time, and that material is as useful now as it was then. Gordons conclusions, however, are something that I disagree with. If I may do so, that is, being no forensic expert...?

Hi Fish,

I will try and give a detailed response when I have more time. However, have you any sources which demonstrate that any of the 19th c medicos believed any of the Torso victims were linked to the Whitechapel crimes?

I would also tend to be cautious about accepting the evidence about the cleaness of the cuts. Thus, that is what was said about Chapman and Eddowes, i.e. organs were removed without damage, or with minimal, to surrounding tissue.

However, modern experts, Dr Calder and Philip Harrison, have opined that this would have been impossible even for a trained surgeon-and they did believe the perpetrator must have had human anatomical knowledge, if the reports are to be accepted- to have demonstrated such skill, considering the time frame and lighting conditions. This means that either the Victorian doctors exaggerated the skill of the perpetrator; or the reports are misleading; or the organs were not removed at the crime scene.

Of course, this also raises a question mark as to how thorough the Torso doctors were. Dr Biggs certainly questions this, stating, in respect of Liz Jackson, "Are the fragments definitely the same individual? Can they reliably comment on anatomical knowledge/surgical skill?" Marriott, 2013).

[John Wheat]

John Wheat: It is not guaranteed that Lechmere wasn't looked into. Many of the papers on the Ripper investigation have been lost as I'm sure you know. You don't know at all if Lechmere was looked at or not.

I know that the police should have registered him under his real name if they had checked him in depth. And they did not use his real name in September of 1888, nor in October of 1888, almost a full two months after the death of Nichols. Thatīs good enough for me and it should be good enough for anybody.

There is clearly much more of a gap than half a minute where someone most likely Bury could have absconded before Lechmere was on the scene.

It is anything but clear that there is such time. It is by far more likely that there is not, according to Jason Payne-James, who I trust over you in this errand. Whichever way we look at it, Lechmere was there when she was PROBABLY cut. Bury MAY have been there before him, but for him to have been the killer, the normal bleeding schedule must have been off, according to Payne-James, a very renowned forensic medical expert.

The easiest way you can avoid these facts is to flatly deny them and offer no evidence to the contrary. No doubt you will do precisely that.

Well others have stated there was much more than half a minute between the assailant leaving and Lechmere finding the body. I don't put much trust in your supposed experts. And certainly not that you are reporting what they said truthfully. Others have suggested that you have been economical with the truth as regards supposed expert testimonies in the past and I'm inclined to agree with them considering how you bend and mishape truths all the time where Lechmere is concerned.

[Fisherman]

John G: Hi Fish,

I will try and give a detailed response when I have more time. However, have you any sources which demonstrate that any of the 19th c medicos believed any of the Torso victims were linked to the Whitechapel crimes?

I didnīt say that they did. I said that they seemed to have assessed the torso murders from the wrong angle. No doubt, there would have been discussions, and no doubt, similarities will have been noted. Maybe somebody with a better insight into this can elucidate the matter better. I can say, however, that Phillips saw likenesses and commented on them.

I would also tend to be cautious about accepting the evidence about the cleaness of the cuts. Thus, that is what was said about Chapman and Eddowes, i.e. organs were removed without damage, or with minimal, to surrounding tissue.

In the torso cases I donīt have to be cautious, John. The evidence is quite clear, if we read for example what was said about the Rainham torso. Quoting from Trows book: "All cuts were clean, with no signs of jadedness". Further on, Galloway said that the cutting had been performed "in an exceedingly skilful manner". More: "The legs and thighs had been removed with a perfectly straight cut".
I do not have it to hand, but I do know that it is somewhere said that the cutting did not even harm the underlying cartilage of the joints.

When it comes to the Ripper cases, we have the information that you mention, and it must be coupled with how the killer worked under intense time pressure and in dark or very dark conditions. It points very clearly to impressive knife skills.

However, modern experts, Dr Calder and Philip Harrison, have opined that this would have been impossible even for a trained surgeon-and they did believe the perpetrator must have had human anatomical knowledge, if the reports are to be accepted- to have demonstrated such skill, considering the time frame and lighting conditions. This means that either the Victorian doctors exaggerated the skill of the perpetrator; or the reports are misleading; or the organs were not removed at the crime scene.

Note bene that it was first said about the Rainham torso tht it was the work of a surgical expert - but then Dr Galloway changed his mind and said that a surgeon would not be able to achieve what the torso killer achieved! So what a surgeon could not do, the torso killer could!
That brings a fourth possibility to the table: that Calder and Harrison did not weigh this possibility in. And itīs not as if we hape the option that the murders never happend - they certainly did.

Of course, this also raises a question mark as to how thorough the Torso doctors were. Dr Biggs certainly questions this, stating, in respect of Liz Jackson, "Are the fragments definitely the same individual? Can they reliably comment on anatomical knowledge/surgical skill?" Marriott, 2013).

They were very thorough, John. Read the very detailed and intricate information that Hebbert offers. How Dr Biggs could form the idea that the victorian doctors were not able to see if two body parts were connected is more than I can fathom. Of course they could! The mere idea that they could not is ridiculous. It is commented on time and time again how the parts were joined together and made perfect matches. The abdominal flaps, for example, were fit and found to be perfect matches with the rest of the body. The procedure is highlighted in Hebberts book. And since these doctors knew exactly what a surgeon did and how he did it, they were very well fit to make the calls about these matters.
That does not mean that they could not be mistaken - even today medicos can get such things wrong. The vagrant serialist Danny Rolling, for example, who had no useful education at all, was inititally believed to be a surgeon. So that is not a risk only victorian doctors ran.
A much more dangerous risk is involved in listening to Trevor Marriott, who claims that everything a victorian doctor said was sheer guesswork, more or less. As Steve Earle put it in a song: "And if you beleive THAT, we are gonna get along just fine..."
My advice to you is to wash your ears thoroughly whenever Trevor has commented on something and start anew with unprejudiced hearing.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;397565]

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..

No, you are incorrect. "Just copying" is a consequence of your reading. Reading is interpretation.

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!

Of course you donīt. Fisherman will never admit that he has wasted so many years on useless sources.

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.

No, they canīt. It blurres the lines between the past and the language about the past. Doing so is destruction of the past.

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.

It is not about dictation. The operationalization of the word has many possible definitions. That is the problem.

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

I know.

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

And no other finder of a victim said he saw someone with the victim at the murder site when he arrived there. Only Lechmere did.

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

We must analyze the sources from other hypothetical perspectives. The statements of PC Mizen should be analyzed, not turned into fiction.

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.

And what gives you the right to tell me what I believe? I find this very disturbing. When I tell you what I believe and what I think, I expect you to respect it.