Lechmere the serial killer?

[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

[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

[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 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]

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]

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?

[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?

[Trevor Marriott]

My point ?

You wrote that all files would have passed through Reid`s hands, which is wrong. Reid was busy looking after other CID issues in Whitechapel whilst Abberline looked after the Ripper case.




ermm Dr Bond, you mean ?
Your memory is as bad as Inspector Reid`s

Yes sorry, I have a life

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

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?

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.

[Trevor Marriott]

Thank you.
The same source that places Reid in Millers Court, also states that some portions of the body are missing. Hmmm

Reids interview is a primary source from someone directly involved. Out of all those others who were directly involved none say any organ was missing from Kelly, which goes to corroborate Reids statement.

Do you not think that on such an important issue as the heart being taken others would have made comment about it over the years that followed? The reason they didnt was because they knew nothing was missing.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Jon Guy]

The Echo, 10th November 1888...

“The investigation made by the doctors yesterday was not the final one, mainly because the room was ill-adapted for the purpose of carrying out a complete autopsy. The post-mortem examination-in-chief was only commenced this morning, at the early hour of half-past seven, when Dr. Phillips, Dr. Bond, Dr. Hibbert, and other experts attended. Some portions of the body are missing, and, says an Echo reporter, writing at two o'clock this afternoon, Dr. Phillips and Dr. Bond, accompanied by Inspector Moore, Inspector Abberline, and Inspector Reid, are again paying a visit to Miller's-court, in order to examine the ashes found in the grate, as it is thought small parts of the body may have been burnt.”

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Thank you.
The same source that places Reid in Millers Court, also states that some portions of the body are missing. Hmmm

[Jon Guy]

[B]And your point is ? Does that make his memory of such an hoffic crime less creditable ?

My point ?

You wrote that all files would have passed through Reid`s hands, which is wrong. Reid was busy looking after other CID issues in Whitechapel whilst Abberline looked after the Ripper case.

Perhaps you would care to show where it conclusively says the heart was taken away by the killer, and not relying on the ambigous statmenet of Dr Brown.

ermm Dr Bond, you mean ?
Your memory is as bad as Inspector Reid`s

[Trevor Marriott]

Abberline was in charge of the Ripper investigation. All Ripper related reports would have gone to Swanson through him.

Do we have any official documents placing Reid at Millers Court ?

The Now article was produced on his retirement, 8 years after the Kelly murder.

The Echo, 10th November 1888...

“The investigation made by the doctors yesterday was not the final one, mainly because the room was ill-adapted for the purpose of carrying out a complete autopsy. The post-mortem examination-in-chief was only commenced this morning, at the early hour of half-past seven, when Dr. Phillips, Dr. Bond, Dr. Hibbert, and other experts attended. Some portions of the body are missing, and, says an Echo reporter, writing at two o'clock this afternoon, Dr. Phillips and Dr. Bond, accompanied by Inspector Moore, Inspector Abberline, and Inspector Reid, are again paying a visit to Miller's-court, in order to examine the ashes found in the grate, as it is thought small parts of the body may have been burnt.”

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Abberline was in charge of the Ripper investigation. All Ripper related reports would have gone to Swanson through him.

But as head of Whitechapel CID he would have had an involvement in the presenting of the file to swanson and would have known if any organs were take away by the killer.

Perhaps you would care to quote anything from Abberline which corroborates the misguided belief that kellys heart was taken away by he killer

Do we have any official documents placing Reid at Millers Court ?

Do we have any not placing him at Millers Court ?

The Now article was produced on his retirement, 8 years after the Kelly murder.

And your point is ? Does that make his memory of such an hoffic crime less creditable ?

Perhaps you would care to show where it conclusively says the heart was taken away by the killer, and not relying on the ambigous statmenet of Dr Brown.

This issue has been argued over many times before I am not going to get involved in bringing it back to life yet again. I have my assessment of the facts relating to this issue, you and a small minority have your own assessment lets leave it at that

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Jon Guy]

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

Abberline was in charge of the Ripper investigation. All Ripper related reports would have gone to Swanson through him.

Do we have any official documents placing Reid at Millers Court ?

The Now article was produced on his retirement, 8 years after the Kelly murder.