Charles Allen Lechmere - new suspect?

[Fisherman]

John Wheat: Well his first child is recorded as having been born in London in 1873. Are you telling me this is incorrect? Please site why and your sources.

If you take the time to read through the text I posted about Henry Bellsmith, you will find that it says that he married in London in the year 1871. And that is pretty consistent with him having had his first child born in London in 1873.
However, John, it also tells us that the couple moved to Toronto in 1878. And Toronto is in Canada, where the couple spent the following ten years. Then, in early 1888, the couple separated, whereupon Henry Bellsmith went back to London, arriving there in the early months of that year.

So, you see, since the Rainham torso was discovered in 1887, Bellsmith could not have been him.
And since Bellsmith left London, headed for New York, on the 4:th of November 1888, he was not the Ripper either.

No your always blithering on about how Lechmere was the Ripper. It goes far beyond you saying Lechmere is the leading candidate.

No, it does not. What I have said and what I keep saying is that Lechmere is the prime suspect, that he is very probably the Ripper and that I personally believe that this is so.
If you take the time to read what I say, you will be a lot better informed.

To be quite honest if Bellsmith wasn't in London in 1873 I really don't care...

Oh, he WAS in London in 1873, it would seem. It was in 1887 he was missing, making him an impossible torso man.

...however if Lechmere could be definitely proven to not be JTR I'd expect you would be distraught but frankly the onus is on proponents of the Lechmere theory to prove his guilt not for others to prove his innocence.

Distraught? No, not at all. Iīd be genuinely surprised. But I donīt think it is going to happen.

And to be honest the speculation about Lechmnere being the Ripper is poor at best.

Well, since you have been wrong on just about anything else I have corrected in your posts on Bellsmith, I take great comfort in the fact that you seem to be a not very good judge of these matters.

[Fisherman]

Yes but you seem to presume Lechmere is guilty.

Personally, I presume that, yes. But that is not the same as me not accepting that others disagree and that he is not proven to have been the killer. If he had been alive, and if a jury had let him go, I would respect their decision - but feel convinced that they were wrong.
And all of this, I am allowed to do.

Your pointing to Bellsmith was also allowed - up til now. Now we know that it was a wrongful thing to do. But such things happened. The only difference is that it has not happened to Lechmere, who is still in the running.

[Fisherman]

Yes but no Torso Killings occurred in 1878 and what exactly is your evidence to prove Bellsmith was not in London at all between 1879 and 1888. Not that I'm that bothered one way or the other but it would be nice to know.

He is on record as living in Toronto between 1878 and 1888. If you think he popped over the channel for a quick torso killing in 1887, then that is your prerogative. I can only assume that David Knott - an excellent researcher, by the way - did his homework thoroughly, and so I feel I do not need any evidence to say that Bellsmith was in Canada when the Rainham victim died.

You, on the other hand, will have a massive task disproving that he was NOT in Canada. Knott has mapped him, and found that he started to travel frequently between London and Toronto after 1888, whereas he found no records of any travelling before that year.

It is interesting how you keep pointing out that you are not bothered one way or the other by anything. It seems to me that you are VERY bothered.

[jerryd]

No I am not saying Henry Wentworth Bellsmith was The Ripper but I believe he is the leading candidate for The Torso Murders. Bellsmith was certainly in London in 1873. His first child Eustace John Bellsmith is listed at having been born in Penge, London in 1873. There is no evidence to suggest Henry Wentworth Bellsmith moved out of London until 1891 when he moved to New York. I know this info isn't that easy to find but please do your research properly. This info on Henry Wentworth Bellsmith can be gleaned from the old boards. As for your last comment I regard Henry Wentworth Bellsmith as the leading candidate for The Torso Murders but I don't proclaim to all and sundry that he was The Torso Killer.

Hi John,

Not that it matters date wise for the murders, but I have a U.S Naturalization record for 1897 (New York) in my files somewhere (can't find it now) for Henry Wentworth Bell-Smith. It shows his date of arrival in the U.S in early January, 1890. Not 1891.

I can post it when I get home from work if you want to see it.

[Abby Normal]

To Abbey

I am a Bury man for The Ripper murders however my favoured candidate for The Torso Murders is Henry Wentworth Bellsmith.

Cheers John

interesting. why do you think he was?

[Fisherman]

He is on record as living in Toronto between 1878 and 1888. If you think he popped over the channel ...

The Atlantic. Not the channel.

And "...disproving that he was NOT in Canada" should read "proving that he was not in Canada".

Donīt know what I was thinking of...

[Abby Normal]

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

I think this guy is good bet for ripper and/or torso man.

[Fisherman]

I think this guy is good bet for ripper and/or torso man.[ATTACH]17815[/ATTACH]

He was 12 in 1873, Abby, having been born in 1861. He was arrested for flashing in front of two young boys. He was workwise an "able seaman" in 1889, meaning that he had been in the navy for some considerable time, so he is in all probability not the witness of MillersīCourt fame (who I think has been identified as Topping Hutchinson).
All in all, I find him a very improbable Ripper and an impossible torso man.

[John Wheat]

Personally, I presume that, yes. But that is not the same as me not accepting that others disagree and that he is not proven to have been the killer. If he had been alive, and if a jury had let him go, I would respect their decision - but feel convinced that they were wrong.
And all of this, I am allowed to do.

Your pointing to Bellsmith was also allowed - up til now. Now we know that it was a wrongful thing to do. But such things happened. The only difference is that it has not happened to Lechmere, who is still in the running.

And I'm allowed to think that Lechmere is a rubbish candidate with nothing going for him. Also I note in the past the smug way you have said things like trust me Bury wasn't the Ripper. With nothing to back this up.

Cheers John

[John Wheat]

He was 12 in 1873, Abby, having been born in 1861. He was arrested for flashing in front of two young boys. He was workwise an "able seaman" in 1889, meaning that he had been in the navy for some considerable time, so he is in all probability not the witness of MillersīCourt fame (who I think has been identified as Topping Hutchinson).
All in all, I find him a very improbable Ripper and an impossible torso man.

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

[Fisherman]

And I'm allowed to think that Lechmere is a rubbish candidate with nothing going for him. Also I note in the past the smug way you have said things like trust me Bury wasn't the Ripper. With nothing to back this up.

Cheers John

Eh...? I said what...? Of course, I donīt think that Bury WAS the Ripper, but I prefer to say that straight out, so there īs no need to be smug about it.
As for not being able to back it up, I think you got the wrong end of the stick there: Bury killed his wife, not strangers, he killed at home, not out in the street, he did not cut the neck, but instead strangled, and he did not take out organs although he had all the time in the world on his hands.
Plus of course, he was looked into by the police and they dropped him.

Need this mean that Bury could not have been the Ripper? No, but it DOES mean that he was in all probability not.

So there you are, John, in no uncertain words. I donīt think Bury is a good bid for the Rippers role. Moreover, I am convinced that the Ripper and the Torso man were one and the same (there is forensic evidence pointing clearly in that direction), and Bury would have been what, fourteen, in 1973? So on a personal level, I rule him out.

[Fisherman]

Sorry Abby
But for once I'm going to agree with Fisherman.
Cheers John

Crikey.

[John Wheat]

Need this mean that Bury could not have been the Ripper? No, but it DOES mean that he was in all probability not.

So there you are, John, in no uncertain words. I donīt think Bury is a good bid for the Rippers role. Moreover, I am convinced that the Ripper and the Torso man were one and the same (there is forensic evidence pointing clearly in that direction), and Bury would have been what, fourteen, in 1973. So on a personal level, I rule him out.

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.

[John Wheat]

Crikey.

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

[John Wheat]

Eh...? I said what...? Of course, I donīt think that Bury WAS the Ripper, but I prefer to say that straight out, so there īs no need to be smug about it.
As for not being able to back it up, I think you got the wrong end of the stick there: Bury killed his wife, not strangers, he killed at home, not out in the street, he did not cut the neck, but instead strangled, and he did not take out organs although he had all the time in the world on his hands.
Plus of course, he was looked into by the police and they dropped him.

Need this mean that Bury could not have been the Ripper? No, but it DOES mean that he was in all probability not.

So there you are, John, in no uncertain words. I donīt think Bury is a good bid for the Rippers role. Moreover, I am convinced that the Ripper and the Torso man were one and the same (there is forensic evidence pointing clearly in that direction), and Bury would have been what, fourteen, in 1973? So on a personal level, I rule him out.

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