Lechmere the serial killer?

[John G]

John G: 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.

He threw the mask in the Thames, John. Why not throw the head in instead, and save heaps of work?
If he wanted to obliterate the traits, it would take three inutes to do with a knife/hammer/stone etc. He spent lots of time meticulously cutting the face away IN ONE PIECE. Why not do it in a hundred pieces ans throw them to the fish? Much easier, less time consuming and an effective way to prevent identification.
You are totally wrong here.

As for "cutting away of the abdomens in large flaps", what does that even mean?

The abdominal WALL - not the abdomen.

It's certainly not a medical phrase...

The why did the medicos use it? They said that abdominal wall had been removed in flaps with subcutaeous tissue attaching.

, 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.

So you think you know the objectives? I know I wouldnīt go so far - but I do think I know what inspired his deeds. But I am not telling, as of now.


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...

Was that why he left Jacksons clothing to the police? And why he left a face for the police to see?

...whereas JtR's objective was the removal of body organs.

Sounds reasonable. But WHY did he do it? And why did he not take them along in Kellys case? Any ideas?

Different objects, different killers. Except, of course, you haven't proved any of the Torso victims were actually murdered, have you?

I donīt have to, John.

I could go on.

No doubt. But it seems pointless.

Loss of part of the victim's colons, in respect of three victims? So what?

So it ties the series together. Do you know of any other murder series where part of the colon was removed?

If that were relevant you could argue that they were part of a separate series of murders.

I would n ot do that, since I believe I know the overriding factor that ruled what he did.

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.

So n ow I think he was an expert? How? And when did I say that? He WAs extremely skilled with the knife, but that was not me saying that - it was the medicos who looked at the victims. In BOTH series.

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.

He did not know, so he suggested this. And I agree that some of the dismemberment could have been made for purposes of disposal. The 1874 torso however had one leg attached to the trunk - how do you think that is related to a wish to easily dispose of the body?
And not to forget - do you think the WHOLE objective for the torso killer was to find a body to dispose of...? Has it not downed on you that the killer may have mutiladed and eviscerated away to his hearts delight, and THEN he bhad to dispose of the remains of the feast afterwards, since he had done the deed in a locality to which he could be tied?

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.

Was there now?

Ellen Bury did not have her neck cut - the torso medicos suggested that a number of the victims in that series died following having had their necks cut.

Ellen Bury was not a working prostitute - Jackson was.

Ellen Bury had a 4,5 inch wound in her abdomen. The Pinchin Street torso, The Rainham torso and Liz Jackson had their abdomens opened from sternum to pubes, like the Ripper victims had.

Ellen Bury had no organs removed - Jackson and the Rainham victim had organs removed. like the Ripper victims.

Maye some reconsideration is due here, John?


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

Eh...? That works how, John?

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?

Not even close, no.

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

But the signature is the same: abdominal ripping and organ evisceration.

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."

That owed to the skilled knife work, as becomes obvious when reading up on the cases. Phillips knew that cutting the uterus out together with parts of the vagina and bladdeer was very unsurgical, but he was impressed with how the killer did the cutting. Galloway was equally impressed with the knife work of the Rainham killer. He said something like "a surgeon would not be as skilled, so it was probably a butcher or hunter with heaps of experience."
Does it tell you nothing when medicos from both series agreed that they were dealing with an extremely skilled cutter?

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

Thompson was 14 when the 1873 torso victim was killed by Jack the Ripper. That is disastrous news for you, Iīm afraid.

Hi Fish,

I will respond to this post in more detail when I have the time. However, here's some initial thoughts. Dr Phillips clearly believed that Chapman's killer had surgical knowledge, which is why the police responded by investigating suspects with medical knowledge-I believe they identified three suspects.

And Trevor's experts concluded that both Eddowes and Chapman had had their organs expertly removed, i.e. by someone with human anatomical knowledge.

The cause of death was never established in the Torso cases.

There is no p roof that the Torso killer intentionally mutilated anyone, apart from the purpose of dismemberment. If you believe otherwise, please cite medical authority.

The Rainham victim's uterus wasn't removed, whereas it could be argued JtR specifically targeted the organs of reproduction.

And apart from Jackson and Rainham, did any of the the other victims have missing organs? Not that that would prove they were retained by the perpetrator-they could have been lost in transit, for instance, or simply discarded.

Loss of part of the colon, in respect of some of the victim's, doesn't tie the "series" together, just three victims. And there could be alternative explanations as to why this happened.

Liz Jackson was identified by shear luck. The perpetrator obviously made every effort to disguise her identity, hence the retention of the head-although unlike JtR, you could argue part of his signature involved storing the head.

[Fisherman]

Now, fight away at will. Just donīt get ridiculous.

I am going to bed.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;391003][QUOTE=Pierre;391001]

I can. But I wonīt. I am discussing the case, not participating in your fake science show.

So - IF you CAN - explain your correlations to us:

1 X Lechmere was lying > Y Lechmere was a killer

2 X Lechmere was a killer > Y Lechmere was lying

3 X Lechmere was lying > Y Lechmere was a psychopath

4 X Lechmere was a psychopath > Lechmere was lying

5 X Lechmere said he found a woman on the street > Lechmere was a killer

6 X Lechmere was a killer > Lechmere said he found a dead woman on the street

7 X Lechmere lied about seeing a policeman > Lechmere was a killer

8 X Lechmere was a killer > Lechmere lied about seeing a policeman

9 X Lechmere said his name was Cross > Lechmere was a killer

10 X Lechmere was a killer > Lechmere said his name was Cross

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Pierre;391001][QUOTE=Fisherman;390965]

Because your correlations are spurious, overlapping and go in two ways, and you can not decide on which is X and which is Y.

So you can not explain how your "coherence" is constructed.

I can. But I wonīt. I am discussing the case, not participating in your fake science show.

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: 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?

Ehhh - the heads were not retrieved in the torso series but for the Tottenham head, so the question is a bit meningless.

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

They overlap. End of.

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

London. And we donīt know where the torso victims were killed. But we are speaking of the same city!

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.

Like putting a torso in the basement of the New Scotland Yard? Is that an "attempt to hide"? Is throwing a part of a leg into the grounds of Percy Shelleys house an "attempt to hide"? Is floating body parts down the Thames an "Attempt to hide"? Is cutting a face off an "attempt 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.

They are a guarantee for a shared ID, more or less. Donīt be ridiculous, Steve. Can you list other cases where the whole of the abdominal walls were removed in a few large panes with subcutaneous issue attaching? For example? Is it a total coincidence that this happened to Chapman, Kelly and Jackson?
I will answer that: It CAN be - but the odds for it are astronomical.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;390965][QUOTE=Pierre;390964]

After having given it some serious afterthought, I decided not to answer this post of yours, Pierre. I find it a waste of time.

Because your correlations are spurious, overlapping and go in two ways, and you can not decide on which is X and which is Y.

So you can not explain how your "coherence" is constructed.

[Fisherman]

John G: 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.

He threw the mask in the Thames, John. Why not throw the head in instead, and save heaps of work?
If he wanted to obliterate the traits, it would take three inutes to do with a knife/hammer/stone etc. He spent lots of time meticulously cutting the face away IN ONE PIECE. Why not do it in a hundred pieces ans throw them to the fish? Much easier, less time consuming and an effective way to prevent identification.
You are totally wrong here.

As for "cutting away of the abdomens in large flaps", what does that even mean?

The abdominal WALL - not the abdomen.

It's certainly not a medical phrase...

The why did the medicos use it? They said that abdominal wall had been removed in flaps with subcutaeous tissue attaching.

, 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.

So you think you know the objectives? I know I wouldnīt go so far - but I do think I know what inspired his deeds. But I am not telling, as of now.


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...

Was that why he left Jacksons clothing to the police? And why he left a face for the police to see?

...whereas JtR's objective was the removal of body organs.

Sounds reasonable. But WHY did he do it? And why did he not take them along in Kellys case? Any ideas?

Different objects, different killers. Except, of course, you haven't proved any of the Torso victims were actually murdered, have you?

I donīt have to, John.

I could go on.

No doubt. But it seems pointless.

Loss of part of the victim's colons, in respect of three victims? So what?

So it ties the series together. Do you know of any other murder series where part of the colon was removed?

If that were relevant you could argue that they were part of a separate series of murders.

I would n ot do that, since I believe I know the overriding factor that ruled what he did.

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.

So n ow I think he was an expert? How? And when did I say that? He WAs extremely skilled with the knife, but that was not me saying that - it was the medicos who looked at the victims. In BOTH series.

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.

He did not know, so he suggested this. And I agree that some of the dismemberment could have been made for purposes of disposal. The 1874 torso however had one leg attached to the trunk - how do you think that is related to a wish to easily dispose of the body?
And not to forget - do you think the WHOLE objective for the torso killer was to find a body to dispose of...? Has it not downed on you that the killer may have mutiladed and eviscerated away to his hearts delight, and THEN he bhad to dispose of the remains of the feast afterwards, since he had done the deed in a locality to which he could be tied?

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.

Was there now?

Ellen Bury did not have her neck cut - the torso medicos suggested that a number of the victims in that series died following having had their necks cut.

Ellen Bury was not a working prostitute - Jackson was.

Ellen Bury had a 4,5 inch wound in her abdomen. The Pinchin Street torso, The Rainham torso and Liz Jackson had their abdomens opened from sternum to pubes, like the Ripper victims had.

Ellen Bury had no organs removed - Jackson and the Rainham victim had organs removed. like the Ripper victims.

Maye some reconsideration is due here, John?


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

Eh...? That works how, John?

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?

Not even close, no.

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

But the signature is the same: abdominal ripping and organ evisceration.

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."

That owed to the skilled knife work, as becomes obvious when reading up on the cases. Phillips knew that cutting the uterus out together with parts of the vagina and bladdeer was very unsurgical, but he was impressed with how the killer did the cutting. Galloway was equally impressed with the knife work of the Rainham killer. He said something like "a surgeon would not be as skilled, so it was probably a butcher or hunter with heaps of experience."
Does it tell you nothing when medicos from both series agreed that they were dealing with an extremely skilled cutter?

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

Thompson was 14 when the 1873 torso victim was killed by Jack the Ripper. That is disastrous news for you, Iīm afraid.

[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!

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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.