Lechmere the serial killer?

[Columbo]

We do know that, Insp Reid who was in charge of Whitechapel CID and who visited the crime scene and in whose hands the file would have passed before being sent to Swanson tells us in The NOW article in 1896 that no organs were taken away.

Just to clarify and to be specific. The organs were found to be missing from Chapman and Eddowes when the post mortems were carried out. There is no evidence that shows they were found to be missing prior to this with regards to either victims and so it not conclusive that the killer removed the organs.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

Sorry for the late post, but according to the reports organs would only be discovered missing at the post mortem since no detailed inspection was done at the crime scene. Kelly was also missing her heart. Do you have a theory as to why the killer would disembowel and not take organs?

Columbo

[Columbo]

Hi, Trevor.

I have read what Dr. Biggs has to say about the issue.
I don't intend to be discourteous to Dr. Biggs but it seems as if he might have been addressing specific queries, perhaps provided by yourself, rather than offering an entirely objective review of the case notes.
It appears as if he does not have a full understanding of the precision of the language used at the time - "When I am describing separated body parts, I'll use terms like 'flap' of skin, 'strip' of skin or perhaps 'bridge' of skin where two pieces haven't entirely separated. These are purely descriptive terms, and have no underlying medical significance. I suspect that the descriptions given in these historical cases were originally just that (i.e. descriptions), but that over the years undue significance has been pinned to the terminology in the hope of somehow finding a 'link' between cases."

He seems unembarrassed to utilise a double negative, while at the same juncture appearing to intimate that those who have gone before him have less understanding of language than himself.

"I'm not saying there is no link between the bodies, of course, I'm just saying that you can't make that link based on similar descriptions of the remains by the medical persons who examined them at the time. I think unfortunately that the original literal, descriptive meaning might have been over-interpreted to try to make something more out of them over the years. "


He further says that " Anyone who has taken the legs off a roast chicken can probably work out that the legs will come off a human with the right encouragement..."
We should firstly note that chicken was not an inexpensive source of protein in the crowded slums of late 19th C. London.
Secondly, we might see that this has little relevance to the case, unless it is soon to be suggested that a kitchen hand has a part in the affair,

Even so, we see that he concludes that " I don't think (from what I have read) that there are sufficient similarities between the cases to conclude that the same 'killer' dismembered the bodies.

Equally, they could have been the work of the same individual, as there is nothing that can be used to conclude that a different individual must have done the deed." and then follows that with "Essentially, these two individuals 'could' have been killed by the same person, or by different individuals. There is no way of telling one scenario from the other based purely on the pattern of body dismemberment.".

Rather ambiguous, surely?

And irregardless of Dr. Biggs position, although his final conclusion seems less than beneficial to your argument, he is merely reviewing, from a distance, evidence that was drawn up by the very doctors you seem to suggest are wrong in their beliefs, even though they had the bodies there in front of them and held those fractured parts in their hands.

Yours, Caligo

Nice Post.

Columbo

[Fisherman]

Unless, as this young husband in Texas did, you save the evidence of your crime:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/texas-man-beheaded-wife-put-head-freezer-article-1.2767544

They said he confessed while being handcuffed, but the blood all over him was probably another good clue. Thank God the children were all right.

One wonders what plans he had for the severed head of his wife, keeping it in the freezer...?

[Pcdunn]

Unless, as this young husband in Texas did, you save the evidence of your crime:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/texas-man-beheaded-wife-put-head-freezer-article-1.2767544

They said he confessed while being handcuffed, but the blood all over him was probably another good clue. Thank God the children were all right.

[Fisherman]

True although I'm sure you'll admit that to categorically state or even just suggest that the Torso Murders never happened and that they were for instance the remains of bodies that medico's had studied or something is a bit silly.

Cheers John

I would even go a bit further and state that is outright bonkers, John. But I would not be able to deprive those who promote the idea of their favourite chewing bone - murder cannot be decisively proven.

[John Wheat]

As an aside, it is not an established fact that the torso matters were murders. It is a near certainty. So this time over, we only nearly agree.

True although I'm sure you'll admit that to categorically state or even just suggest that the Torso Murders never happened and that they were for instance the remains of bodies that medico's had studied or something is a bit silly.

Cheers John

[Fisherman]

Not really Fisherman. When you're right such as on the fact that the Torso Murders were murders I'll agree with you.

Cheers John

Mmmm. It just seemed to me that you are disinclined to agree with me, no matter what. But that may of course be my misinterpretation of things only. You could well be a thoroughly discerning man, completely unlikely to let any animosity govern what calls you make, and always able to set aside your personal feelings in favour of an enlightened perspectice.

As an aside, it is not an established fact that the torso matters were murders. It is a near certainty. So this time over, we only nearly agree.

[John Wheat]

Thatīs quite a problem youīve got there - having to agree with me canīt be easy for you.

Not really Fisherman. When you're right such as on the fact that the Torso Murders were murders I'll agree with you.

Cheers John

[Fisherman]

That's funny
Having said that the idea there were no Torso Murders is just as funny.

Thatīs quite a problem youīve got there - having to agree with me canīt be easy for you.

[John Wheat]

Fishermans approach to all of this is like someone trying to suggest they have completed a jigsaw without having the actual jigsaw in front of them

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

That's funny
Having said that the idea there were no Torso Murders is just as funny.

[Caligo Umbrator]

Hi, Trevor.

I have read what Dr. Biggs has to say about the issue.
I don't intend to be discourteous to Dr. Biggs but it seems as if he might have been addressing specific queries, perhaps provided by yourself, rather than offering an entirely objective review of the case notes.
It appears as if he does not have a full understanding of the precision of the language used at the time - "When I am describing separated body parts, I'll use terms like 'flap' of skin, 'strip' of skin or perhaps 'bridge' of skin where two pieces haven't entirely separated. These are purely descriptive terms, and have no underlying medical significance. I suspect that the descriptions given in these historical cases were originally just that (i.e. descriptions), but that over the years undue significance has been pinned to the terminology in the hope of somehow finding a 'link' between cases."

He seems unembarrassed to utilise a double negative, while at the same juncture appearing to intimate that those who have gone before him have less understanding of language than himself.

"I'm not saying there is no link between the bodies, of course, I'm just saying that you can't make that link based on similar descriptions of the remains by the medical persons who examined them at the time. I think unfortunately that the original literal, descriptive meaning might have been over-interpreted to try to make something more out of them over the years. "


He further says that " Anyone who has taken the legs off a roast chicken can probably work out that the legs will come off a human with the right encouragement..."
We should firstly note that chicken was not an inexpensive source of protein in the crowded slums of late 19th C. London.
Secondly, we might see that this has little relevance to the case, unless it is soon to be suggested that a kitchen hand has a part in the affair,

Even so, we see that he concludes that " I don't think (from what I have read) that there are sufficient similarities between the cases to conclude that the same 'killer' dismembered the bodies.

Equally, they could have been the work of the same individual, as there is nothing that can be used to conclude that a different individual must have done the deed." and then follows that with "Essentially, these two individuals 'could' have been killed by the same person, or by different individuals. There is no way of telling one scenario from the other based purely on the pattern of body dismemberment.".

Rather ambiguous, surely?

And irregardless of Dr. Biggs position, although his final conclusion seems less than beneficial to your argument, he is merely reviewing, from a distance, evidence that was drawn up by the very doctors you seem to suggest are wrong in their beliefs, even though they had the bodies there in front of them and held those fractured parts in their hands.

Yours, Caligo

[Abby Normal]

I dont need to defend my position !

In my initial post I was stating what is fact. Read what Dr Biggs says about this issues and the torsos.

He also says that much of what Victorian doctors said back then was nothing more than guess work, but it seem you and Fish and another small minority want to accept those Victorian opinions as being correct.

If you want to be flippant about the panes of flesh all being the same. I have panes of glass in my windows. My next door neighbour has panes of glass in his but they are different to mine. !!!!!!!!!!!!!

There are none so blind as they that cannot see !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Not only are you a total ass hat, but you don't even have the common decency to appreciate when people try to help you learn something, let alone just admit you are wrong.

Don't you have anything better yo do? Like sell some ripper coffee mugs or something?

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi, Trevor.

You asked : "How do you know the uterus and the flaps of skin found floating in the thames came from Jackson?"

And then you stated : "There was no forensics in those days so they could have come from any source could they not ?"

I gave, to your enquiry, what I believe was a reasonable response, detailing the manner in which the various parts had been determined by authorities in the relevant field, as to being from the same unfortunate individual.
Whether Fishermans approach is correct or not, I am not here to defend or rebuke him.
I am not sure what you are inferring when you speak of jigsaws, as there is no theory, including yours, that is in any manner 'all pieces in place'.
My query was related to whether you have evidence that the body parts you hold in dispute, and were found at the same time as the rest of the body, and were determined by qualified medical persons to be all from the same individual, were in fact from some separate individual?
It seems as if you have avoided answering a directed question and, instead, strived to denigrate some other theory with no attempt to defend your own position.

Yours,Caligo

I dont need to defend my position !

In my initial post I was stating what is fact. Read what Dr Biggs says about this issues and the torsos.

He also says that much of what Victorian doctors said back then was nothing more than guess work, but it seem you and Fish and another small minority want to accept those Victorian opinions as being correct.

If you want to be flippant about the panes of flesh all being the same. I have panes of glass in my windows. My next door neighbour has panes of glass in his but they are different to mine. !!!!!!!!!!!!!

There are none so blind as they that cannot see !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Caligo Umbrator]

Hi, Trevor.

You asked : "How do you know the uterus and the flaps of skin found floating in the thames came from Jackson?"

And then you stated : "There was no forensics in those days so they could have come from any source could they not ?"

I gave, to your enquiry, what I believe was a reasonable response, detailing the manner in which the various parts had been determined by authorities in the relevant field, as to being from the same unfortunate individual.
Whether Fishermans approach is correct or not, I am not here to defend or rebuke him.
I am not sure what you are inferring when you speak of jigsaws, as there is no theory, including yours, that is in any manner 'all pieces in place'.
My query was related to whether you have evidence that the body parts you hold in dispute, and were found at the same time as the rest of the body, and were determined by qualified medical persons to be all from the same individual, were in fact from some separate individual?
It seems as if you have avoided answering a directed question and, instead, strived to denigrate some other theory with no attempt to defend your own position.

Yours,Caligo

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi, Trevor.


The medical professionals familiar with this case at the time had no doubt that the findings of parts within the bundled remains were all related to the same deceased person. The missing female, who these parts were believed to have belonged to, was in a similar state of pregnancy as that which the discovered remains suggested (although the fetus had been removed, the remaining portions of the body presented themselves in such a manner as to seem likely to confirm such a belief) and, further, the unfortunate victim's found remains, which you appear to dispute, exhibited pubic hair colouration which was stated to be in conformity with the underarm hair of the same 'light sandy' colour and type, as found upon parts of the upper torso.
Had they come 'from any source' as you suggest, then there was;
1, A woman's body, resting somewhere undiscovered, that lacked only a portion of her upper external vagina, uterus, and upper abdominal walls,
2, And also, at the same time, a female being fished from the waters of London whose body lacked only that portion of her anatomy which you wish to ascribe to this other, different and otherwise undiscovered cadaver.
It would seem, when taking into account all of the medical information regarding the remains that were found, that the part you dispute was, in fact, one more remnant of the same poor lady.
Unless, of course, you have persuasive evidence to the contrary.

Yours, Caligo

Fishermans approach to all of this is like someone trying to suggest they have completed a jigsaw without having the actual jigsaw in front of them

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk