Lechmere the serial killer?

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=John Wheat;390904]

Unless of course Bury was the Ripper and I believe there is a distinct possibility he was.

I know you do.

I donīt, however. The way I got things lined up, he could not possibly have been the Ripper. I am fairly certain that the man who killed Mary Kelly was also the killer of the 1873 Battersea torso victim. I think the forensic evidence puts that beyond reasonable doubt. And Bury was 14 at the occasion, so he is most likely ruled out.

Kosminski was 8 and in Poland, Chapman was 8 and in Poland, Thompson was 14, just like Bury. Tumblety was not in the UK in 1889. To name but a few.

Lechmere was 24 at the time of the Battersea torso murder. Somehow, he always seems to fit the bill.

Goodnight, John.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;390845]

There we have it: a very clear indicator that Mizen WAS told by Lechmere that another PC awaited him in Bucks Row.

Yes. And considering the historical fact that we do not have the inquest source:

How do you know that Lechmere lied because he was a killer - and not for another reason?

And why did he lie twice?

Pierre

[John G]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;390911]

I know you do.

I donīt, however. The way I got things lined up, he could not possibly have been the Ripper. I am fairly certain that the man who killed Mary Kelly was also the killer of the 1873 Battersea torso victim. I think the forensic evidence puts that beyond reasonable doubt. And Bury was 14 at the occasion, so he is most likely ruled out.

Kosminski was 8 and in Poland, Chapman was 8 and in Poland, Thompson was 14, just like Bury. Tumblety was not in the UK in 1889. To name but a few.

Lechmere was 24 at the time of the Battersea torso murder. Somehow, he always seems to fit the bill.

Goodnight, John.

And I am very certain that the killer of the 1873 Battersea Torso did not kill Mary Kelly. In my opinion there is no forensic evidence that would suggest otherwise, and not a single medical expert has ever suggested otherwise. Not that the "forensic evidence" is worth much anyway, as I believe the Victorian medicos were way out of their depth.

Of course, there is also the radically different crime signatures. Sorry Fish, I couldn't resist!

Goodnight, Fish.

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Pierre;390913]

Yes. And considering the historical fact that we do not have the inquest source:

How do you know that Lechmere lied because he was a killer - and not for another reason?


And why did he lie twice?
Pierre

I can make sense of the first question you ask, so I can answer it, although I donīt think it is normally a good idea to answer you at all. In this case, I see it as a pedagogical exercise, so there may be good reason to do it.

I donīt know that Lechmere lied because he was a killer, and not for another reason. I do, however, find the idea that he would lie for another reason less credible - to lie to get earlier to work, for example, could be extremely dangerous.
Overall, a lie on accound of being the murderer fits well with numerous other details knit to the case, nit least his refraining from giving his correct name to the police. There is a consistency.

Your question why he lied twice is less intelligible, and snce I don+t know what you are asking about, I will leave it unanswered. It is not unheard of that criminals lie multiple times, however, and basically, if a lie can get you off the scaffold, I think most criminals would lie indefinitely if it served that cause.

I am not sure why you ask me for answers, Pierre. Am I not supposed to be a liar? So why waste your valuable time, if you cannot trust me?

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=John G;390919]

And I am very certain that the killer of the 1873 Battersea Torso did not kill Mary Kelly. In my opinion there is no forensic evidence that would suggest otherwise, and not a single medical expert has ever suggested otherwise. Not that the "forensic evidence" is worth much anyway, as I believe the Victorian medicos were way out of their depth.

Of course, there is also the radically different crime signatures. Sorry Fish, I couldn't resist!

Goodnight, Fish.

Thatīs fine.

And you are wrong.

[John G]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;390921]

Thatīs fine.

And you are wrong.

Nope, don't think so.

Mind you, in respect of Kelly I do find it ironic that the one opportunity that the Whitechapel murderer had to demonstrate the skills you believe the Torso perpetrator(s) had, i.e. because he could spend time with the body at his leisure, the result is no dismemberment, no attempted dismemberment, and a body that was absolutely butchered, by a killer who didn't even demonstrate the skills of a common horse slaughterer.

I would also point out that the inquest resulted in an open verdict on respect of the Battersea victim, so there's no proof she was even murdered.

Just saying...

[John Wheat]

[QUOTE=John G;390919]

And I am very certain that the killer of the 1873 Battersea Torso did not kill Mary Kelly. In my opinion there is no forensic evidence that would suggest otherwise, and not a single medical expert has ever suggested otherwise. Not that the "forensic evidence" is worth much anyway, as I believe the Victorian medicos were way out of their depth.

Of course, there is also the radically different crime signatures. Sorry Fish, I couldn't resist!

Goodnight, Fish.

Absolutely John G
Fisherman believes that Lechmere has to be the Torso Killer because he believes he was the Ripper or something. Even though there's nothing to indicate
he was the Ripper.

Cheers John

[John Wheat]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;390921]

Thatīs fine.

And you are wrong.

No he's right whereas as usual you are wrong.

[John G]

[QUOTE=John Wheat;390948]

Absolutely John G
Fisherman believes that Lechmere has to be the Torso Killer because he believes he was the Ripper or something. Even though there's nothing to indicate
he was the Ripper.

Cheers John

Thanks John. 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.

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.

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.

[Fisherman]

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.

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=John Wheat;390949]

No he's right whereas as usual you are wrong.

You will forgive me for not entering in debate with you on this subtle issue.

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

Just to remind you that no organs were taken away by the killer from Kelly

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Just to remind you that no organs were taken away by the killer from Kelly

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

We donīt know that, Trevor - but the comparison stands regardless as we KNOW that organs were taken from other Ripper victims.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;390920][QUOTE=Pierre;390913]

I can make sense of the first question you ask, so I can answer it, although I donīt think it is normally a good idea to answer you at all. In this case, I see it as a pedagogical exercise, so there may be good reason to do it.

I donīt know that Lechmere lied because he was a killer, and not for another reason.

Thatīs right. If you did know it, you would not be here discussing it with us. And this site would not exist. The killer would have been found and everyone would have known that.

I do, however, find the idea that he would lie for another reason less credible - to lie to get earlier to work, for example, could be extremely dangerous.

So what you do basically is that you think you calculate how inclined Lechmere would have been to lie if he had different types of motives for lying.

A problem with this is that you do not know how inclined Lechmere was to do anything apart from what he did.

Do you agree with this?

The next important question:

You use different types of calculations for Lechmere when you are constructing history.

Could you tell us in what order you postulate these calculations from an historical point of view?

With historical I mean that you establish facts from sources.

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

Overall, a lie on accound of being the murderer fits well with numerous other details knit to the case, nit least his refraining from giving his correct name to the police. There is a consistency.

And the starting point is how you sort the "correlations" above. You call it "consistency", we historians call it coherence. But for the coherence not to be spurious there can not be any spurious correlations between the established facts and the sources.

Do you think that there are any such potential spurious correlations in the coherence of your theory? If you look at the calculations, what do you find?

Your question why he lied twice is less intelligible, and snce I don+t know what you are asking about, I will leave it unanswered.

He lied twice. First he lied to Mizen about a policeman in Buckīs Row and then he lied to the jury about a policeman in Buckīs Row. 1. There is a policeman in Bucks Row = a lie. 2. He did not say that he had seen a policeman in Buckīs Row = a lie.

Mizen lied 0 times about a policeman. Lechmere lied 2 times about a policeman.

Why Fisherman?

It is not unheard of that criminals lie multiple times, however, and basically, if a lie can get you off the scaffold, I think most criminals would lie indefinitely if it served that cause.

General knowledge, deducing from the general. But you are always very specific with Lechmere, and you try to explain every source and what happened every minute, so why did he lie two times about a policeman?

I am not sure why you ask me for answers, Pierre. Am I not supposed to be a liar? So why waste your valuable time, if you cannot trust me?

I trust you. People lie all the time. That is nothing remarkable. So why do I ask you for answers? Because I think that you could do something better with your time than wasting it on a man in the past who wasnīt the serial killer called Jack the Ripper. If I can and as soon as I can, Fisherman, I will show you why he wasnīt.

Best wishes, Pierre

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Pierre;390964][QUOTE=Fisherman;390920]

Thatīs right. If you did know it, you would not be here discussing it with us. And this site would not exist. The killer would have been found and everyone would have known that.



So what you do basically is that you think you calculate how inclined Lechmere would have been to lie if he had different types of motives for lying.

A problem with this is that you do not know how inclined Lechmere was to do anything apart from what he did.

Do you agree with this?

The next important question:

You use different types of calculations for Lechmere when you are constructing history.

Could you tell us in what order you postulate these calculations from an historical point of view?

With historical I mean that you establish facts from sources.

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



And the starting point is how you sort the "correlations" above. You call it "consistency", we historians call it coherence. But for the coherence not to be spurious there can not be any spurious correlations between the established facts and the sources.

Do you think that there are any such potential spurious correlations in the coherence of your theory? If you look at the calculations, what do you find?



He lied twice. First he lied to Mizen about a policeman in Buckīs Row and then he lied to the jury about a policeman in Buckīs Row. There is a policeman in Bucks Row = a lie. He did not say that he had seen a policeman in Buckīs Row = a lie.

Mizen lied 0 times about a policeman. Lechmere lied 2 times about a policeman.

Why Fisherman?



General knowledge, deducing from the general. But you are always very specific with Lechmere, and you try to explain every source and what happened every minute, so why did he lie two times about a policeman?



I trust you. People lie all the time. That is nothing remarkable. So why do I ask you for answers? Because I think that you could do something better with your time than wasting it on a man in the past who wasnīt the serial killer called Jack the Ripper. As soon as I can and if I can, Fisherman, I will show you why he wasnīt.

Best wishes, Pierre

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