Lechmere the serial killer?

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott:

The abdomens were stabbed and ripped open that is fact.

If you with "stabbed" mean that the knife must enter through the skin to enable ripping the belly up, then you are correct.

Why would a killer do that to a body if he had a design on removing specific organs.

If he was intent on removing organs, then a prerequisite would actually be to rip the abdomen open. Otherwise, he would have a dilemma on his hands.

By stabbing the abdomen that would likely as not damage the organs.

You may need to define the "stabbing" you are talking about.

So as far as The Whtechapem victims are concerned there is nothing to suggest that murder and mutilation were not the motive.

True. But there is also the question WHY the killer wanted to mutilate (killing was likely more a means to aquire a body to work with).

Placed by design is the doctors opinion nothing more.

It´s good enough for me. I don´t see who could be better served to make that call. The colon section was stretched out alongside Eddowes´ body, and the killer needed to cut it in two places to get it out.

You keep going on about the colon take a look at the pic.

Yes...?

There are different parts of the colon.

Yes. Which is why the killer was able to take out a part of the colon.

You dont know which parts they are referring ...

Actually I do, since it was stated.

stabbing someone and ripping the abdomen open would likely as not sever some part of the colon.

It could well damage the colon. But to sever it entirely is another thing. But let´s accept that this happened. The next thing is that you need to sever it in TWO places to remove part of it. How did that come about, Trevor? And why was it always the colon that suffered this fate? Why no other intestine?
You have formerly tried and miserably failed to lead on that taking away the abdominal wall in sections could be collateral damage.
It cant.
Now you are trying it with the colon.
It does not work here either.

So you are reading into something that is not there to be read.

Nope. I am pinpointing something tht should have been pinpointed long before. Like how Jackson and Chapman and Eddowes all had their uteri cut out.
But that was probably collateral damage too, was it not?

[John G]

nice response Fish and good summary of the similarities.
for anyone to say we cant now, after doing the research, reading all the available material, and making a reasonable analysis and comparison, as you have done, regardless of not being a medical professional is ludicrous.
good job.

the ripper and torso man may or may not be the same man but the similarities are there for anyone see clearly, anyone with half a brain at least.

re Battersea-how does meticulous removal of the face aid in disposal? LOL!

What similarities?

[John G]

John G:

I don't see how you can remotely compare Kelly's murder with the Battersea Torso (not even proved to be murder). And, as I've noted, not a single medical expert has ever suggested otherwise.

To begin with, I think that if any medical expert worth his salt knew about the similarities, there would be a recognition of them.
There were victims in both series who had part of the colon removed. There were victims in both series who had the abdominal wall removed in large panes. If you can point to any other case in any other era where this happened, I would be interested to hear about it.
Organs were taken away in both series, sexually oriented as well as non-sexually oriented. How does that strike you?
In both series, there were abdomens that were cut open from sternum to pubes. What does that make you think?
In both series, the killer was so skilled with the knife that it was reasoned that he was a surgeon. Is that a mere coincidence?

I would also point out that the objectives of the respective perpetrators was clearly radically different, so there's no reason that there should be any significant similarities anyway: in the case of Kelly the objective was to remove the body organs; in the Battersea case to dismember the body.

A few questions: WHY did the killer take out the organs of Kelly, if he did not want to keep them?
There were torso victims where the organs were taken out deliberately too, uterus, heart, lungs...
So where is the significant difference?
If the Battersea case was about dismembering the body, why did the killer meticulously cut away the face and scalp from the victim? Is that what a dismemberment killer does?
I would say that in BOTH cases, the killers aim was to use his knife to deconstruct the victim. And the dismemberment may have been only a way to dispose of the parts from a location that he could be tied to. In the Kelly case, such a thing was not necessary.
How does that strike you?
Moreover, are you saying that the dismemberment itself was the aim for the Battersea torso killer? Was there no other wish, preceding that?

And personally I think it very unwise for anyone who, say, regards themselves as a bit of an amateur forensics expert, without holding any relevant qualifications, to attempt to draw radical conclusions based upon comparing medical reports-which, in any event, by today's standards were often vague and unscientific in their assessments.

Are you saying that perhaps there was never any cutting away of the abdomens in large flaps from Chapman, Kelly and Jackson?
Are you saying that Eddowes and Jackson and the Rainham victim did perhaps not loose part of their colons?
Are you saying that maybe the Rainham victim, Jackson and the Pinchin Street victim did not have their bellies opened up from sternum to pubes?
Are all of these matters misunderstandings on my behalf, led on by how the victorian medicos were unscientific?
Are you saying that Jackson did perhaps not have her uterus cut out, as had Chapman and Eddowes?
Please feel free to elaborate on this.

How about this explanation? The face was removed to prevent identification of the victim: part of Torso's signature, but sadly, for your argument, not JtR's.

As for "cutting away of the abdomens in large flaps", what does that even mean? It's certainly not a medical phrase, and is completely meaningless unless considered in a proper context, i.e Torso's objectives were radically different to JtR's. Moreover, not a single medical expert was crazy enough to link the Torso victims to the Whitechapel murders.

And, of course, you've neglected to mention the most salient point: Torso, if he existed, was trying to prevent the victim's being identified; whereas JtR's objective was the removal of body organs. Different objects, different killers. Except, of course, you haven't proved any of the Torso victims were actually murdered, have you?

I could go on. Loss of part of the victim's colons, in respect of three victims? So what? If that were relevant you could argue that they were part of a separate series of murders. Or perhaps it simply indicates that Torso Man, If he existed at all, wasn't quite the expert you suggest he was. Just a thought.

Pinchin Street victim? Dr Phillips stated that any mutilations carried out were for the purpose of disposal if the body. But why listen to him? He was only a medical expert, after all.

Of course, surprisingly you've forgot to mention Ellen Bury, because there was a far greater similarity between her murder and the Whitechapel victims than any of the Torso victims.

But then again, that would destroy your Lechmere theory, wouldn't it?

Regrettably, you're another one who's put the proverbially horse before the proverbially cart. You've latched on to a suspect, Lechmere, and you've thought, "You know what? Let's rope in all of the supposed torso victims. That way I can argue that only Lechmere would have been old enough, of all the major suspects, to commit all the crimes."

Bet I'm right, aren't I?

And you still haven't given a single example of any killer who has alternated between crime signatures. I wonder why.

But allow me the luxury of taking the Fish approach. Dr Phillips believed Chapman's killer had surgical knowledge, and Brown seemed to believe the same thing about Eddowes' killer.

And guess what? Dr Galloway argued that the Rainham victim's perpetrator had "a thorough knowledge of surgery."

Great news for more, as my favoured suspect trained as a surgeon for six years. Not so good news for you though, is it?

[John G]

Myriads of people have thought this over, and 99 per cent of them reached the same conclusion - the abdomen was opened up to allow for access to the inner organs, and the killer was more than likely the organ retriever too.
You may have noticed that I speak of how part of the colon was cut out from a number of victims. Eddowes was one such victim, and her colon was drawn lying beside her in Mitre Square - placed there by design, as it happens.
I take it you are not going to argue that is an unfortunate misunderstanding too?

By design? So now you have telepathic abilities!

[John G]

The abdomens were stabbed and ripped open that is fact.

Why would a killer do that to a body if he had a design on removing specific organs. By stabbing the abdomen that would likely as not damage the organs. So as far as The Whtechapem victims are concerned there is nothing to suggest that murder and mutilation were not the motive.

Placed by design is the doctors opinion nothing more.

You keep going on about the colon take a look at the pic. There are different parts of the colon.You dont know which parts they are referring stabbing someone and ripping the abdomen open would likely as not sever some part of the colon. So you are reading into something that is not there to be read.

Excellent points, Trevor. However, I feel you're just banging you're proverbial head against the proverbial brick wall. Unfortunately, there will always be the poster who will argue, "look, the word "flaps" as been used in relation to two victims, there must be a connection!"

"And if that's not conclusive, the word "sections" as also been used in respect of more than one victim! Wow, you obviously don't need to be a medical expert to spot an obvious connection!"

[John Wheat]

Excellent points, Trevor. However, I feel you're just banging you're proverbial head against the proverbial brick wall. Unfortunately, there will always be the poster who will argue, "look, the word "flaps" as been used in relation to two victims, there must be a connection!"

"And if that's not conclusive, the word "sections" as also been used in respect of more than one victim! Wow, you obviously don't need to be a medical expert to spot an obvious connection!"

Hi John

I think a lot of people are just banging there head against a brick wall when it comes to Fisherman and his invention of Lechmere as a Ripper suspect. I know I am.

Cheers John

[Abby Normal]

What similarities?

for the hundredth time:

large flaps of skin removed from abdomen
internal organs removed and taken away
sexual organs targeted
non sexual organs targeted
non internal body parts removed
abdominal mutilations
facial mutilations
victimology
same time frame
same geographic location
bodies left displayed with no overt attempts to hide
knife/cutting instrument used
unsolved

[Abby Normal]

How about this explanation? The face was removed to prevent identification of the victim: part of Torso's signature, but sadly, for your argument, not JtR's.

As for "cutting away of the abdomens in large flaps", what does that even mean? It's certainly not a medical phrase, and is completely meaningless unless considered in a proper context, i.e Torso's objectives were radically different to JtR's. Moreover, not a single medical expert was crazy enough to link the Torso victims to the Whitechapel murders.

And, of course, you've neglected to mention the most salient point: Torso, if he existed, was trying to prevent the victim's being identified; whereas JtR's objective was the removal of body organs. Different objects, different killers. Except, of course, you haven't proved any of the Torso victims were actually murdered, have you?

I could go on. Loss of part of the victim's colons, in respect of three victims? So what? If that were relevant you could argue that they were part of a separate series of murders. Or perhaps it simply indicates that Torso Man, If he existed at all, wasn't quite the expert you suggest he was. Just a thought.

Pinchin Street victim? Dr Phillips stated that any mutilations carried out were for the purpose of disposal if the body. But why listen to him? He was only a medical expert, after all.

Of course, surprisingly you've forgot to mention Ellen Bury, because there was a far greater similarity between her murder and the Whitechapel victims than any of the Torso victims.

But then again, that would destroy your Lechmere theory, wouldn't it?

Regrettably, you're another one who's put the proverbially horse before the proverbially cart. You've latched on to a suspect, Lechmere, and you've thought, "You know what? Let's rope in all of the supposed torso victims. That way I can argue that only Lechmere would have been old enough, of all the major suspects, to commit all the crimes."

Bet I'm right, aren't I?

And you still haven't given a single example of any killer who has alternated between crime signatures. I wonder why.

But allow me the luxury of taking the Fish approach. Dr Phillips believed Chapman's killer had surgical knowledge, and Brown seemed to believe the same thing about Eddowes' killer.

And guess what? Dr Galloway argued that the Rainham victim's perpetrator had "a thorough knowledge of surgery."

Great news for more, as my favoured suspect trained as a surgeon for six years. Not so good news for you though, is it?

sorry John
but as you've demonstrated time and time again-you wouldn't know what a signature is from a hole in the ground.

but ill try one more time.

signature is the "why" a killer does something-the key psychological motivational factor.

you keep confusing it with MO-which is the "How" factor. Its the means to the end.

MO's usually can and do change and evolve as the killer gets better at it and/or the circumstances dictate.

signatures can change, though not as common as MO change, as the killer escalates in there fantasies. although signature change is even a moot point in this case because there is no obvious sig change/difference between the ripper and torso man-the signature of both which at its essence is the post mortem mutilation and removal of body parts from a female victim.

[Harry D]

signature is the "why" a killer does something-the key psychological motivational factor. .

Not quite, Abby. The killer's signature was abdominal mutilation and organ removal, but his motives for doing so were taken to the grave.

[Abby Normal]

Not quite, Abby. The killer's signature was abdominal mutilation and organ removal, but his motives for doing so were taken to the grave.

not sure what your saying here-your agreeing with me on his signature, but we don't know what the "deeper" motive was behind it? As in-why did he have that particular sig? Then I would agree basically-we don't really know.

The only response though I could give is that for some reason he found some pleasure in doing so and/or it relieved some urge.

[Harry D]

not sure what your saying here-your agreeing with me on his signature, but we don't know what the "deeper" motive was behind it? As in-why did he have that particular sig? Then I would agree basically-we don't really know.

The only response though I could give is that for some reason he found some pleasure in doing so and/or it relieved some urge.

Ah, I thought you were arguing that the 'signature' tells us what motivated the killer. Obviously the organ removal was his thing, but the underlying motivation will remain a mystery.

[John G]

for the hundredth time:

large flaps of skin removed from abdomen
internal organs removed and taken away
sexual organs targeted
non sexual organs targeted
non internal body parts removed
abdominal mutilations
facial mutilations
victimology
same time frame
same geographic location
bodies left displayed with no overt attempts to hide
knife/cutting instrument used
unsolved

Large flaps of skin removed from the abdomen? That's so general as to be meaningless. And you've forgotten context! The torso perpetrator(s) objective was to dismember bodies, JtR's to access body organs.

Internal organs removed and taken away? In some cases yes, in others no. Moreover, in the case of torso there's no evidence they were "taken away."

Sexual organs targeted? In the case of torso, what's the evidence for this?

Non sexual organs targeted? Nope, no evidence for this.

Non internal body parts removed? Er, how else are you supposed to dismember a body?

Facial mutations? Not in respect of the majority of the victim's.

Victimology? Now you're just making stuff up. I mean, only one torso victim was ever identified!

Same time frame? Nope, not if you include Battersea, Putney and Tottenham Torso. Anyway, dismemberment crimes were not that uncommon.

Same geographical location? Nope.

Bodies left displayed with no attempt to hide. You're kidding, right? What about the Whitehall Torso, for instance? And why don't you mention the fact that Torso used dump sites, JtR didn't? Or that Torso took extreme steps to hide the identity of the victims, and JtR didn't? Or that Torso must have had transport and a dismemberment site, whereas JtR almost certainly didn't?

Knife cutting/instrument used? Have you bothered reading any of the cases? I mean torso used a saw, JtR didn't. And where's the evidence the same type of knife was used?

Unsolved? Wow! You've got one right at last. Obviously the same killer!

To summarize, any fool can be selective with the evidence to find similarities in crimes. For instance, facial disfigurement, evidence of surgical skill, victims found in Whitechapel, strangulation-maybe you should include Rose Mylett! However, the difficulty is that there were many more dissimilaritities, than similarities, between the various victims.

A fact you conveniently ignore.

And what about the radically different signatures?

With so many posters pursing their own agenda, ignoring the facts as being too inconvenient-Fish Lechmere, you a more the merrier approach- I sometimes wonder why I bother. I really do.

[Elamarna]

for the hundredth time:

large flaps of skin removed from abdomen
internal organs removed and taken away
sexual organs targeted
non sexual organs targeted
non internal body parts removed
abdominal mutilations
facial mutilations
victimology
same time frame
same geographic location
bodies left displayed with no overt attempts to hide
knife/cutting instrument used
unsolved

Abby

so much of that is wrong

1. How many of the torso victims had facial mutilations? and for that matter how many of the c5?
Are not the numbers too low to draw any conclusions?

2. Same time frame?
Come on Abby the c5 are over a 3 month period the torsos are over 2 decades.

3. Same geographical location? Not really, c5 in whitechapel , torso all over london.

4 The torso's were certainly not left on display, pinchin street excepted.
The bits were scattered, dumped in the river, left in dark basement. That is various attempts to hide.


You obviously think there is a link, and that is fair enough, but the similarities you list are simply not similarities which could strongly suggest a link.

sorry

steve

[John G]

sorry John
but as you've demonstrated time and time again-you wouldn't know what a signature is from a hole in the ground.

but ill try one more time.

signature is the "why" a killer does something-the key psychological motivational factor.

you keep confusing it with MO-which is the "How" factor. Its the means to the end.

MO's usually can and do change and evolve as the killer gets better at it and/or the circumstances dictate.

signatures can change, though not as common as MO change, as the killer escalates in there fantasies. although signature change is even a moot point in this case because there is no obvious sig change/difference between the ripper and torso man-the signature of both which at its essence is the post mortem mutilation and removal of body parts from a female victim.

No signatures don't change. If you believe they do, please cite authority. I realize you have little knowledge in this area, and I would offer to mentor you, but unfortunately I'm a little busy at present. And where's the evidence that Torso's motive was post mortem mutilation and removal of body parts? Not a single medical expert supports that argument, but Dr Abby obviously knows better.

Frankly, you're either making stuff up, or you've got an overactive imagination.

Either way, I fear you're doing your reputation enormous damage.

[John G]

Abby

so much of that is wrong

1. How many of the torso victims had facial mutilations? and for that matter how many of the c5?
Are not the numbers too low to draw any conclusions?

2. Same time frame?
Come on Abby the c5 are over a 3 month period the torsos are over 2 decades.

3. Same geographical location? Not really, c5 in whitechapel , torso all over london.

4 The torso's were certainly not left on display, pinchin street excepted.
The bits were scattered, dumped in the river, left in dark basement. That is various attempts to hide.


You obviously think there is a link, and that is fair enough, but the similarities you list are simply not similarities which could strongly suggest a link.

sorry

steve

Excellent post Steve. Unfortunately some posters think that all that is required to prove an argument is a long list!