Lechmere the serial killer?

[Fisherman]

Hi, Fisherman.

Indeed you are correct on that point regarding of my description.
I inadvertently utilised the classification of 'upper' when referring to the abdominal wall parts as found within the bundle.
Are you using 'A system of legal medicine' by Hamilton,1894 as your reference? Within it may also be found descriptions of two other 'torso' incidents in London from the same era and examined by the same Doctor.

Yours, Caligo.

It is by far the best source, I find.

[Caligo Umbrator]

Hi, Fisherman.

Indeed you are correct on that point regarding of my description.
I inadvertently utilised the classification of 'upper' when referring to the abdominal wall parts as found within the bundle.
Are you using 'A system of legal medicine' by Hamilton,1894 as your reference? Within it may also be found descriptions of two other 'torso' incidents in London from the same era and examined by the same Doctor.

Yours, Caligo.

[Fisherman]

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

He doesnīt, Caligo, believe me. Just a point, though - you write "upper abdominal walls", but I think we are dealing with the lower abdominal walls as well. The flaps were described as long and irregular, and on comparison, Hebbert found that they "fitted together in the mid-line, and laterally corresponded to the incisions in the lower pieces of the trunk."
It should be kept in mind that the uppermost piece of the Rainham victimīs thorax was never retrieved, contrary to how it is presented in for example Trowīs book. The trunk was divided into three parts, and what Hebbert tells us is that the flaps fitted the two sections that WERE retrieved, the two lower ones.

[Fisherman]

Not really....one single slice through the waist will cut the colon in two places. Likewise, one long cut down the midline, if it's deep enough, could also sever the colon in two places. Coincidentally, cutting about two feet adrift. And when removed from the body cavity, also coincidentally, giving access to the left kidney.

It all depends on WHERE the colon was cut, as I have pointed out before. In the Rainham case the colon was missing apart from the sigmoid flexure and the rectum. That means that there will have to have been a cut to the cecum/ascending colon attachment on the one side and to the sigmoid colon on the other side.
In the Jackson case, much the same applies, since what was left was part of the rectum only. In the Eddowes case, two feet of the descending colon was cut out.
I find it hard to believe that either of these damages were collateral. In all three cases, the cut to the abdomen was from sternum to pelvis, and such a cut would certainly not cut out a colon the way it was done here. The one part of the colon that would be in immediate danger of getting severed would be the transverse colon, as you will agree.
Incidentally, in the Jackson case, the medicos stated that the heart, the lungs and the colon section were "removed". To my mind, that tells us that the killer purposefully did the removing of the organs.

[Fisherman]

"These flaps accurately fitted together in the midline, laterally corresponding to the incisions in the two lower pieces of the trunk."

There we go, yes.

[Fisherman]

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

There was no forensics in those days so they could have come from any source could they not ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No, they could not. The flaps (and they were long and irregular) were fitted on the corpse and found to dovetail exactly with it. That is how I know that they came from Jackson. Hereīs Hebbert on the issue:

"The flaps of skin and subcutaneous tissue consisted of two long, irregular slips taken from the abdominal walls. The left piece included the umbilicus, the greater part of the mons veneris the left labium majus, and labium minus. The right piece included the rest of the mons veneris, the right labium majus and minus, and part of the skin of the right buttock. These flaps accurately fitted together in the mid-line, and laterally corresponded to the incisions in the lower pieces of the trunk. The skin was fair, and the mons veneris was covered with light sandy hair. The upper part of the vagina was attached to the uterus; both ovaries and broad ligaments were present, and the posterior wall of the bladder. The uterus had been opened on the left side by a vertical cut, six inches long, through the left wall. The organ was much dilated the vessels on the inner surface large and open and the mucus membrane swollen and softened. The uterus measured 10in. long by 7.5 in. wide. The circumference of the os externum was 4in…."

[Caligo Umbrator]

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

There was no forensics in those days so they could have come from any source could they not ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

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

[John Wheat]

Not really....one single slice through the waist will cut the colon in two places. Likewise, one long cut down the midline, if it's deep enough, could also sever the colon in two places. Coincidentally, cutting about two feet adrift. And when removed from the body cavity, also coincidentally, giving access to the left kidney.

That's extremely interesting Joshua. I guess those that believe the Ripper was also the Torso Killer will go back to talking about flaps.

Cheers John

[Joshua Rogan]

It takes TWO cuts that completely severs the colon, Steve. That puts it beyond coincidence, not least when it happens THREE times.

Not really....one single slice through the waist will cut the colon in two places. Likewise, one long cut down the midline, if it's deep enough, could also sever the colon in two places. Coincidentally, cutting about two feet adrift. And when removed from the body cavity, also coincidentally, giving access to the left kidney.

[Joshua Rogan]

"These flaps accurately fitted together in the midline, laterally corresponding to the incisions in the two lower pieces of the trunk."

[Trevor Marriott]

Finally, when Liz Jacksons cut out uterus was found, it had been floated down the Thames in a package. That package contained two long irregular flaps taken from the abdominal wall of Jackson, plus the uterus, with placenta and cord. Once again, we may see that the killer had intentionally cut away the abdominal wall in panes.

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

There was no forensics in those days so they could have come from any source could they not ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

To put an end to the discussion:

You say, Steve, that the fact that civilians take away the abdomens in flaps at times, means that we will be looking at two killers, not one.

I say that there is no relevance in that statement. It is only when a trait is transferred to a murder situation that it gains itīs relevance.

Imagine that two victims in the same time period and in the same town are found with their finger- and toenails clipped off. Should that make us conclude that there are so many manicurists around that we must be talking about two different killers?

Curtains down. Goodnight.

[Fisherman]

Elamarna: Just a few comments

It is what I am discussing, I believed we were discussing if the method of opening the body to obtain organs by the means of flaps is common or not.

We were not. We were discussing if there are any examples of killers cutting away the abdominal walls from their victims in panes. That is what is of interest here.


If the killer was someone trained to do this, be it butcher, doctor, a student of anatomy or physiology, or even someone who seen dissections at school, it would not be unknown, and would be the common way to gain entry for such persons.

So what you are saying is that the two killers were both ex anatomists who used to perform dissections...? Would that not be quite a coincidence?

If not trained then it would be uncommon, and two separate series of murders with the same type cuts could could suggest a link.

It would be utterly and extremely uncommon anyway, if two killers used the method on their victims in the same town at the same time, by sheer coincidence. That does not happen, Steve. Once again, exemplify! What other killer did it? If you can fond no examples, or just the odd and very rare one, then do the maths, please. Draw the conclusions.
The key thing is the rarity of the measure, not the technical performance of it. If two victims are stabbed in the abdomen, they can well have met different killers. If two victims have their abdomens removed in panes, then we can conclude that it is the same killer with a near 100 per cent certainty.

However we do not know who the killer/killers were or if they were trained or not.
with all due respect and to paraphrase Littlechild, - you only think you know.

I do think I know, and I do so on excellent grounds. To celebrate the idea that it MAY have been two killers is to feast on air.


But I am, and i see it as sticking to the subject entirely, it is not for one person to define the limits of a discussion.

You do not agree with me, so be it.

Murders with abdominal walls removed is the only thing discussed here. It is the only thing that should be discussed here. The rest is irrelevant, Iīm afraid. The fact that a butcher may electrocute bulls does not mean that it makes an electrocution murder a triviality. We cannot transfer such thing into real murder situations, it would be improductive.
But I can see why you avoid that discussion.


I would argue that they were not extremely skillful, just skilled in the use of a knife.

Phillips and Galloway disagreed, for whatever thatīs worth.

It also appears the torso man knew how and where to saw a body to separate it, possibly a different skill set from the whitechapel killer who shows no such skill..

Not that we know that he tried, so itīs kind of hard to establish. The marks in the vertebrae of Kelly may be due to excessive force.

So how likely is it that two killers with similar skills were at large at the same time in 1888 London?
Considering the population size, and London’s world status as a trading centre at the time I do not think you can rule the possibility out.

Statistically, I canīt. Practically, I can.

Its not up to one person to say accepting something is a prerequisite to debate surely?

Itīs up to anybody. And it is equally up to anybody to challenge it. And it is up to anybody to draw the conlusion that a person is avoiding a discussion.

It is for this very reason I joined this thread. I did not agree with the statement made by Abby about the similarities.
If I have to accept the view before I can debate this is little point in debating is there?

You have to accept nothing. And I am free to challenge your unwillingness to accept things. Thatīs how the boards work.


I must have missed it, the point is certainly not proven.

It is proven that both killers murdered women who prostituted themselves.


If you dismember and remove the body from the pelvis down as in the Whitehall case, you are likely to encounter the colon more than once.
It depends on where you cut, that’s just anatomy, nothing to do with coincidence at all.

If you inititally cut the transverse colon part, yes. The killer did not, however. In either case. So no, you have no good point there.


Given that I am obviously not a cop, but a retired natural scientist, the point of that statement is?

Ehhh... beyond you?


No, that was the result, not the approach, not the method used or the skill shown.

His approach to the abdomen was to cut away the abdominal flaps. Once more: Have you ever heard of this happening to any other murder victim? Or was it just these two killers who did it, in the history of crime?


Disagree completely, not slight academic interest but central to the debate.

Nope. If two victims are found with the eyes gouged out, one with a knofe, one with a teaspoon, it is the removal of the eyes that sets the agenda, not the iplements. If two victims are found with part of their pinkies removed, then tht is what sets the agenda, not how much of the pinkie is left on the victim. I think anybody can see this. But for you.


You said you are happy as long as you are correct, I just asked what if you are not correct, meaning if that were the case would you still be happy?

I know what you asked me. I was pulling your leg.


At my age I can promise that 100%

Thatīs reassuring! But should not old people be insightful...?

[Elamarna]

Just a few comments

Ah - I see what you mean now. Technically speaking, I suppose that a cut from sternum to pelvis would produce two "flaps" of the abdominak wall, one on each side of the cut.
But this is not what we are discussing, is it? We are discussing flaps that were REMOVED, taken away from the abdomen, leaving the innards on display. SUch flaps, and such flaps only are what I am discussing.

It is what I am discussing, I believed we were discussing if the method of opening the body to obtain organs by the means of flaps is common or not.


If the killer was someone trained to do this, be it butcher, doctor, a student of anatomy or physiology, or even someone who seen dissections at school, it would not be unknown, and would be the common way to gain entry for such persons.

If not trained then it would be uncommon, and two separate series of murders with the same type cuts could could suggest a link.

However we do not know who the killer/killers were or if they were trained or not.
with all due respect and to paraphrase Littlechild, - you only think you know.

Please see my above statement, I am talking about the removal of organs in general, not murders.

Well, I am not. I am specifically talking about murders. That is where I want to see any precedence, in any case. After all, we are dealing with murder cases and not with surgeons operating on people. Letīs stick with the subject!

But I am, and i see it as sticking to the subject entirely, it is not for one person to define the limits of a discussion.

You do not agree with me, so be it.

The knife skill appears to be at least partially valid, in that both series were conducted by someone who knew how to use a knife, but it is no more specific than that.

"Knew how to use knife"? In both series, there was exceedingly skilful cutting on display, enough to make the medicos suggest a surgeon at work. How likely is it that TWO serial killers in the same town at the same time possess such skill?

I would argue that they were not extremely skillful, just skilled in the use of a knife.
It also appears the torso man knew how and where to saw a body to separate it, possibly a different skill set from the whitechapel killer who shows no such skill..

So how likely is it that two killers with similar skills were at large at the same time in 1888 London?
Considering the population size, and London’s world status as a trading centre at the time I do not think you can rule the possibility out.

I have already said that I do not consider the geography or time frame to be significantly similar. You disagree fair enough.

Itīs more than that - it is a prerequisite. It is the very reason we are discussing this.

Its not up to one person to say accepting something is a prerequisite to debate surely?

It is for this very reason I joined this thread. I did not agree with the statement made by Abby about the similarities.
If I have to accept the view before I can debate this is little point in debating is there?

With regards to victimology, given that all but one is it of the torso victims is unknown, how can any comparison be made?

I just did. Didnīt you notice? The comparison that CAN be made points to the same victimology.

I must have missed it, the point is certainly not proven.

When dismembering, of course organs, including the colon will be cut and maybe severed, therefore I do not see that it can be positively said this is a deliberate act in the Torso case (It could be, however I do not feel there is enough information to draw a conclusion on this); it obviously is in the C5 cases..

It takes TWO cuts that completely severs the colon, Steve. That puts it beyond coincidence, not least when it happens THREE times.
whitehall

If you dismember and remove the body from the pelvis down as in the Whitehall case, you are likely to encounter the colon more than once.
It depends on where you cut, that’s just anatomy, nothing to do with coincidence at all.

That is your opinion, mine is different, but such is life.

Yes. And many bad cops keep their jobs.

Given that I am obviously not a cop, but a retired natural scientist, the point of that statement is?

Ah, this is where we really disagree, I made my points in the last post, obviously you see it differently from me, we will have to agree to disagree I think.

Yes, letīs.


Would I bet there was no parallel case reported - probably not
would I bet there were two killers- at present on the balance of probability - yes.

However I am always open to persuasion, with enough evidence that is.
At present I just don't see such to convince me.

Note to self: Never enter on any gambling or betting together with Steve, uness I make the calls.

The same applies in reverse Fish, I can see myself losing big .

That is a possibility but one needs to see how the killer goes about his work, even with different tools, the basic approach should remain fairly constant.

The basic approach was to cut away the abdominal wall in flaps.

No, that was the result, not the approach, not the method used or the skill shown.

The tool used would not matter, would would be of interest would be where the pinky was cut, which joint.

No, that would be secondary. It would be of some slightly academic interest, but the implications would be very clear nevertheless: In all probability the same man.
Thatīs why the press would dub him the Pinky killer.
And that is also why no second Pinky killer would surface.

Disagree completely, not slight academic interest but central to the debate.

I do not believe I am sticking my head in the sand, time will out

Couldnīt disagree less.


ah but what if you are not?

What do you mean?

You said you are happy as long as you are correct, I just asked what if you are not correct, meaning if that were the case would you still be happy?

No, I will accept it as a possible solution, which does nevertheless have some sensible thinking behind it, but that is it.

Possibilities based on sensible thinking are normally true, so thatīs fine by me.


Close in that it is a possibility, but far apart on the probability I would suggest.

Never join the police, Steve, promise me that.

At my age I can promise that 100%

steve

[Fisherman]

Iīm so happy. My research does not depend on flaps.

More like flops... Thereīs that bat again!