Some questions re. Lechmere

[Pierre]

To Pierre

From my viewpoint Lechmere was a witness to one Ripper killing. Which there is little chance he committed. Nothing links him to any other Ripper murder and nothing whatsoever links him to the Torso murders.

Cheers John

Hi,

I agree.

Regards, Pierre

[John Wheat]

Hi,

So many questions. It is meaningless to work deductively with questions in that way and meaningless to impose a ideal type on Lechmere. One must work inductively with empirical data. Look for historical data, analyse them and validate them and see if they indicate that Lechmere did one, two, three or more murders and dismemberments. There may even be data indicating he did none. Or should I say that there is?

Regards, Pierre

To Pierre

From my viewpoint Lechmere was a witness to one Ripper killing. Which there is little chance he committed. Nothing links him to any other Ripper murder and nothing whatsoever links him to the Torso murders.

Cheers John

[Pierre]

Yes. Both killers seem to have desired to "shock" the public. I fully agree. So, let's look more closely with that idea in mind.

You have Lechmere responsible for the "Thames Mysteries" of 1873 and 1874. Now, like Jack's work these were quite notable murders (conceding for this post that they were, in fact, murders). The were, as you say, shocking. This "serialist" was an "evisorator", and these are quite "rare". And you've stated, Lechmere was in his mid-twenties. Were these his first murders? Had he just graduation to evisceration? This should not be controversial and can be easily resolved by surmising that he stabbed or strangled women around town from his late teens to his mid-twenties before become "Torso Chuck" (a good name, I think).

So, we have bodies found in 1873 and 1874. What's next then? Tottenham Court in 1884? We know that our man Lechmere was alive and well, living in the East End, working at Pickfords during this time. What was he up to? Did he lie dormant? Did he get bored and stop killing for a decade? Did he decide to resume a species of less SHOCKING crimes? Did he decide to focus on his career? Did he decide spend more time raising his children, fathering more children? We know, after all, that he DID those things. Or, did he decide - as I said - to kill people in less conspicuous ways for those ten years? Did he turn to poison? Did he just go with simple stabbing? Did sneak up behind people and push them off bridges and tall buildings? Is there a list of murders by "serialist evisorators" that can allow us to fill this ten year gap?

"Torso Chuck" appears to have tired of this manner of diversion in 1889. Granted, he was concurrently the Ripper, the Torso Killer, husband, father, carman, over what could be called his "salad days". I'm certain we have him killing Coles in 1891. So we can have him as doing "serialist" eviscerations unabated from, what, 1884 through 1891? What then? Lechmere was still a man in his early 40s. Did he decide to focus on his small business around this time? Did he transition again? We know he was still living in the East End. One would think him perfectly capable of killing for at least another dozen, fifteen, twenty years. What do we know about this "evisorator's" awful deeds before and after his dual run as "Chaz the Ripper" and "Torso Chuck"?

Hi,

So many questions. It is meaningless to work deductively with questions in that way and meaningless to impose a ideal type on Lechmere. One must work inductively with empirical data. Look for historical data, analyse them and validate them and see if they indicate that Lechmere did one, two, three or more murders and dismemberments. There may even be data indicating he did none. Or should I say that there is?

Regards, Pierre

[Patrick S]

Well, one thing that springs to mind is how both series seem to have an aim of shocking. The placing of body parts in the New Scotland Yard building and where Mary Shelleys relative lived, lends itself eminently to suggesting that the killer was looking to shock society and get maximum media coverage.

If he was not happy about the outcome, he may have started to ponder how to get even more publicity - and come up with how killing in the open street may do the trick, more or less posing the bodies for maximum shock value.

Just a suggestion, but one I think works rather well.

So why did he return to the torso killing in 1889? Maybe because it was his own favoured method of killing, the one that allowed him more time and privacy to do what he wanted?

Yes. Both killers seem to have desired to "shock" the public. I fully agree. So, let's look more closely with that idea in mind.

You have Lechmere responsible for the "Thames Mysteries" of 1873 and 1874. Now, like Jack's work these were quite notable murders (conceding for this post that they were, in fact, murders). The were, as you say, shocking. This "serialist" was an "evisorator", and these are quite "rare". And you've stated, Lechmere was in his mid-twenties. Were these his first murders? Had he just graduation to evisceration? This should not be controversial and can be easily resolved by surmising that he stabbed or strangled women around town from his late teens to his mid-twenties before become "Torso Chuck" (a good name, I think).

So, we have bodies found in 1873 and 1874. What's next then? Tottenham Court in 1884? We know that our man Lechmere was alive and well, living in the East End, working at Pickfords during this time. What was he up to? Did he lie dormant? Did he get bored and stop killing for a decade? Did he decide to resume a species of less SHOCKING crimes? Did he decide to focus on his career? Did he decide spend more time raising his children, fathering more children? We know, after all, that he DID those things. Or, did he decide - as I said - to kill people in less conspicuous ways for those ten years? Did he turn to poison? Did he just go with simple stabbing? Did sneak up behind people and push them off bridges and tall buildings? Is there a list of murders by "serialist evisorators" that can allow us to fill this ten year gap?

"Torso Chuck" appears to have tired of this manner of diversion in 1889. Granted, he was concurrently the Ripper, the Torso Killer, husband, father, carman, over what could be called his "salad days". I'm certain we have him killing Coles in 1891. So we can have him as doing "serialist" eviscerations unabated from, what, 1884 through 1891? What then? Lechmere was still a man in his early 40s. Did he decide to focus on his small business around this time? Did he transition again? We know he was still living in the East End. One would think him perfectly capable of killing for at least another dozen, fifteen, twenty years. What do we know about this "evisorator's" awful deeds before and after his dual run as "Chaz the Ripper" and "Torso Chuck"?

[Columbo]

Allow me to sum thing up, for my edification.

It's not likely that Jack the Ripper STOPPED killing if he were alive and free, and we know that Lechmere lived until 1920.....so we know that Lechmere stopped being Jack and became the Torso Killer. So, who did he become after? Can we get a full list of Lechmere's victims so that we may flesh out "OUR" theory?

This is starting to sound like, "We know that Lechmere was a psychopath because Jack the Ripper HAD to have been psychopath. And since Lechmere was Jack the Ripper, well, we know he was a psychopath. Or, "Try to view Lechmere with an eye on him being Jack the Ripper and see how you feel then?"

And the inimitable "Columbo" (coauthor of Christer's Lechmere theory now, it seems) asks why I would post regarding such topics? How can one NOT post!?

What's funny is I don't disagree with you at all on this. We don't know if Lechmere was JTR. I have some doubts about the Torso Murders theory but it's interesting. And you make a good point about the historical Lechmere being just a normal family man with some good business sense.

We could very well take Lechmere out of our discussion and just compare the two series of killings but as you pointed out the title of the thread is about Lechmere, so he's gonna be included.

As I said in the previous post, the term "our theory" is used to describe the discussion we're having about the Torso Murders and JTR. I take no acceptance of the creation of the Lechmere theory. As you know it came before Fisherman's input on it! He's done alot of impressive research that I hope will be published some day.

Columbo

[Fisherman]

Abby and Fisherman,

Quite possible. I'm very curious to know what transpired (if our theory is correct) why the transition form inside to outside if he was the torso killer. Was it a job change, location change, etc. wasn't it even inside a building or a wagon?

Any thoughts from all?

Columbo

Well, one thing that springs to mind is how both series seem to have an aim of shocking. The placing of body parts in the New Scotland Yard building and where Mary Shelleys relative lived, lends itself eminently to suggesting that the killer was looking to shock society and get maximum media coverage.

If he was not happy about the outcome, he may have started to ponder how to get even more publicity - and come up with how killing in the open street may do the trick, more or less posing the bodies for maximum shock value.

Just a suggestion, but one I think works rather well.

So why did he return to the torso killing in 1889? Maybe because it was his own favoured method of killing, the one that allowed him more time and privacy to do what he wanted?

[Patrick S]

The term "our theory" simply reflects the current discussion. It has no bearing on how anyone feels or what they believe.

Columbo

My mistake....which theory is the "our" theory we're talking about?

[Columbo]

"OUR" theory. The circle is now complete.

The term "our theory" simply reflects the current discussion. It has no bearing on how anyone feels or what they believe.

Columbo

[Patrick S]

Abby and Fisherman,

Quite possible. I'm very curious to know what transpired (if our theory is correct) why the transition form inside to outside if he was the torso killer. Was it a job change, location change, etc. wasn't it even inside a building or a wagon?

Any thoughts from all?

Columbo

Allow me to sum thing up, for my edification.

It's not likely that Jack the Ripper STOPPED killing if he were alive and free, and we know that Lechmere lived until 1920.....so we know that Lechmere stopped being Jack and became the Torso Killer. So, who did he become after? Can we get a full list of Lechmere's victims so that we may flesh out "OUR" theory?

This is starting to sound like, "We know that Lechmere was a psychopath because Jack the Ripper HAD to have been psychopath. And since Lechmere was Jack the Ripper, well, we know he was a psychopath. Or, "Try to view Lechmere with an eye on him being Jack the Ripper and see how you feel then?"

And the inimitable "Columbo" (coauthor of Christer's Lechmere theory now, it seems) asks why I would post regarding such topics? How can one NOT post!?

[Columbo]

I,m curious tO know what the board thinks of the bruising over the shoulders on some of tge women (especoally when it describes how the markings over one shoulder were more pronounced).

Also, does anyone put any stock in the placement of the bonnet around the body?

I,m at odds with Dr. Llewylyn,s post mortem assessment of her abdominal wounds. I would have hoped he would have gave a better interpretation of them. Were the cross-cuts more superficial in comparison to the deep jagged cut?

Considering the health of some of the victims I would think bruising would come very easily. The bruising on the shoulders I think are from the victims being held while being strangled from behind. I believe Stride had some maybe from being knocked down?

Columbo

[Columbo]

Depends - the 1873 victim was killed by a couple of blows to the temple, apparently. Maybe he chose the more silent throttling/throatcutting when working in public?

PS. I note that Abby beat me to it...

Abby and Fisherman,

Quite possible. I'm very curious to know what transpired (if our theory is correct) why the transition form inside to outside if he was the torso killer. Was it a job change, location change, etc. wasn't it even inside a building or a wagon?

Any thoughts from all?

Columbo

[Columbo]

I forgot to mention another aspect of discussion boards. We are free to pick and choose what we discuss, when, and with whom.

[Patrick S]

Genuinely fascinating discussion.

So assuming that JtR and TTK are one and the same, why were some women killed on the street and others in his 'private quarters'?

Were the women he killed on the street just reluctant to go somewhere unfamiliar, preferring to stay in public, thus forcing his hand? Or could there be another reason? Seasonal quarters...house guests? Anything in the timing of the torso murders to suggest a reason?

There is really no way of knowing why, for instance, Nichols was killed on the street in Buck's Row, Chapman in a yard behind 29 Hanbury Streeet, while Kelly was killed in her room in Miller's Court. Many possibilities exist. Here are just few.

1. Different murderers. One could argue that Nichols was killed by Issenschmidt, Chapman by Richardson, and Kelly by Barnett. One could argue that Nichols was killed by Lechmere, Chapman by Issenschmidt, Kelly by Hutchinson. We could go on and on.

2. The victims chose the spots. Nichols needed money immediately. She was drunk, tired, wanted to get her doss money and sleep it off. Thus, she chose to do the deed on the street and get it done. Chapman may have known that 29 Hanbury offered some privacy. Maybe she'd used it before. Perhaps Kelly often took men to her room.

3. The killer chose the spots and sought the most immediate privacy available. Nichols: Dark, deserted street. No one about. Let's go. Chapman: A yard nearby, let's go there. Might get me bit more time to do my thing. Kelly: You live nearby? Let's go there! I'll pay extra!

I don't think there is a way to know. When you examine questions like this, you realize that we know quite a lot about things....yet we still know very little.

[Abby Normal]

Genuinely fascinating discussion.

So assuming that JtR and TTK are one and the same, why were some women killed on the street and others in his 'private quarters'?

Were the women he killed on the street just reluctant to go somewhere unfamiliar, preferring to stay in public, thus forcing his hand? Or could there be another reason? Seasonal quarters...house guests? Anything in the timing of the torso murders to suggest a reason?

HI
I have always said the torso murders are when he could kill in a private residence and the ripper murders are when he could not and had to kill in the streets. dismemberment was for ease in removal from that private place.

Were the women he killed on the street just reluctant to go somewhere unfamiliar, preferring to stay in public, thus forcing his hand?

perhaps-never thought of that one before.

more likely this:

Seasonal quarters...house guests?

maybe someone was staying with him during the ripper murders, or contruction work, or he was moving??

Anything in the timing of the torso murders to suggest a reason?

ive often pondered but cant come up with anything else.
perhaps Fish does -he knows more about it than I do.

[Robert St Devil]

I,m curious tO know what the board thinks of the bruising over the shoulders on some of tge women (especoally when it describes how the markings over one shoulder were more pronounced).

Also, does anyone put any stock in the placement of the bonnet around the body?

I,m at odds with Dr. Llewylyn,s post mortem assessment of her abdominal wounds. I would have hoped he would have gave a better interpretation of them. Were the cross-cuts more superficial in comparison to the deep jagged cut?