Lechmere The Psychopath

[Abby Normal]

Is it rare, though? There are only so many ways to access the abdominal viscera, after all. One is a long, vertical cut, à la Eddowes, and another is to cut away flaps of flesh, à la Chapman and Kelly (and, possibly, what the killer intended for Nichols). Short of laparoscopy, I can't think of too many others.

from a serial killer Sam. not a doctor performing an autopsy or some other procedure. But come to think of it that's probably rare too.

to think that there was two serial killers working roughly the same time and place, targeting unfortunates, post mortem mutilators, removing internal organs, some by removing flaps of skin from the abdomen-its too much of a coincidence for me anyway.

[Fisherman]

In no way am I entering into the argument as a protagonist on either side..
I mean its only recently I found out Cross and Lechmere were the same person

(I know..but thats me..I flit in and out of it )


But you read theories about it being Vincent Van Gogh, Prince Eddie, Queen Victoria, Lewis Carrol...(Me own Thomas Hardy thingy is on the go...just waiting to hear from Pierre)
So I honestly don't see, that a suspect theory, regarding a bloke actually on his own over the still warm body of a victim..is so outlandish

I think the big problem with Lechmere is that he is where it all turns real. The other guys we can toy with, create scenarios, think up events. With Lechmere, we are suddenly down to the blood pool under Nichols and the hidden wounds - all very real and very physical.
So when a finger is pointed at Lechmere, the game stage is over. The real investigation is launched 129 years too late.
And suddenly we get this debate about how we are dragging a mans reputation in the mud. Not so with Kosminski, Levy, Druitt... it´s okay to speculate as long as we do not get too close.

That´s the trouble with Lechmere.

[Harry D]

But you read theories about it being Vincent Van Gogh, Prince Eddie, Queen Victoria, Lewis Carrol...(Me own Thomas Hardy thingy is on the go...just waiting to hear from Pierre)
So I honestly don't see, that a suspect theory, regarding a bloke actually on his own over the still warm body of a victim..is so outlandish

Except he wasn't "over the still warm body of a victim".

[Fisherman]

from a serial killer Sam. not a doctor performing an autopsy or some other procedure. But come to think of it that's probably rare too.

to think that there was two serial killers working roughly the same time and place, targeting unfortunates, post mortem mutilators, removing internal organs, some by removing flaps of skin from the abdomen-its too much of a coincidence for me anyway.

And they had the same incentive too ...

Anyway, my hat´s off to you, Abby. Much has been said about common sense on these boards, but where is it when you need it?

[Sam Flynn]

So I honestly don't see, that a suspect theory, regarding a bloke actually on his own over the still warm body of a victim..is so outlandish

It would be, Andy, except Lechmere wasn't "over" the body, but standing in the road. The contrary has been implied in some arguments, or even stated outright, but such arguments are factually incorrect and potentially misleading.

[Fisherman]

Except he wasn't "over the still warm body of a victim".

To your mind, how does it detract from his viability as the killer if he was five feet off? And why would he NOT be five feet off? Isn´t it fair to assume that of he wanted to bluff Paul, he would have backed away from the body?

Just asking, you know.

[Sam Flynn]

Except he wasn't "over the still warm body of a victim".

Beat me to it, Harry. You're quite right, of course.

[andy1867]

It would be, Andy, except Lechmere wasn't "over" the body, but standing in the road. The contrary has been implied in some arguments, or even stated outright, but such arguments are factually incorrect and potentially misleading.

Ok thats a fair enough comment...but he was in close proximity..to the victim, before anyone else turned up?

[Sam Flynn]

To your mind, how does it detract from his viability as the killer if he was five feet off?

It's not so much that it detracts from his viability as a killer, but that arguing the opposite artificially strengthens the argument of his being the killer, by giving the impression that he was caught red-handed standing right next to the body... when he wasn't.

And why would he NOT be five feet off? Isn´t it fair to assume that of he wanted to bluff Paul, he would have backed away from the body?

Whilst hiding his knife and washing the blood off his hands, all in the space of a few seconds?

[John G]

Elamarna:
Two points here:

1. The Ripper type killings certainly stopped. Why?

"Certainly"? I don´t think so. I think the Jackson murder is very much a Ripper type killing. Cut open from breastbone to pubes, the uterus plucked out, the abdominal wall taken away in large flaps...
I don´t know what it takes for you to see these traits as "ripperish", but I know I do. So the "certainly" is false, as far as I´m concerned.

2. Apart from a similarity in the words used to describe body parts, in this case the use of "flaps"; nothing has been produced in the form of data to back this idea up.

And much as it would be interesting to know the exact shape and size of the flaps, that remains of inferior interest. Wht matters is that we have definitive proof that the abdominal wall WAS removed in flaps, and that is very, very rare. going on that feature alone, we should accept a probably connection, and when we add Jacksons opened up abdomen, her missing uterus, the rings stolen from her finger we have no choice but to acknowledge great similarities.

Many arguments about how unlikely it is that two killers are working at the same time; but no real tangible data.

"No tangible data"? It is not "tangible" that both killers both took out the uterus? It is not "tangible" that they both cut from breastbone to pubes? It is not "tangible" that they took away the abdominal wall in flaps?
I am sorry, but that is just sheer nonsense.

If it exists produce it and if it holds up then I will happily accept it and say you were right and I am wrong.

It´s a good thing then that your acceptance is of a very peripherous interest to me, Steve.

Apart from your "flaps" argument the Torso and JtR "series" couldn't be more different. And I'm not totally convinced that either of them are "series", insofar as each set of victims having the same perpetrator.

And what does your "flaps" argument amount to? Well, not a lot really. Firstly, it only applies to three victims: Jackson, Chapman and Kelly. Secondly, even these victims are themselves very different.

Thus, Jackson was dismembered with some skill, and the abdominal mutilation may well have been motivated by the fact she was pregnant. In respect of Chapman practical considerations-she was emaciated-were probably the motivational factor.

As for Kelly, she doesn't really fit into either "series" considering she was effectively butchered by a perpetrator, probably intent on destroying the body, and demonstrating no skill whatsoever.

In fact, unlike the other victims Kelly suggests an "aggressive mutilation", although an "offensive mutilation", such as applies to lust murderers, are sometimes "characterised by mutilation of particular parts of the body with sexual association, such as the nipples, breasts, external and internal genitalia, rectum, abdominal wall, or viscera." (Rajs, Lundstrom, Broberg, and Lindquist, 1998).

[Sam Flynn]

Ok thats a fair enough comment...but he was in close proximity..to the victim, before anyone else turned up?

I wouldn't say that standing in the middle of the (admittedly narrow) road constitutes close proximity. Albert Cadoche was in closer proximity to Annie Chapman when he passed the garden fence, and Louis Dymshitz was certainly in close proximity to Liz Stride when he bent over her with a lighted match. In fact, Dymshitz was in closer proximity to Stride than Lechmere was to Nichols when the former was sitting on the plank behind his pony's bum.

[andy1867]

I wouldn't say that standing in the middle of the (admittedly narrow) road constitutes close proximity. Albert Cadoche was in closer proximity to Annie Chapman when he passed the garden fence, and Louis Dymshitz was certainly in close proximity to Liz Stride when he bent over her with a lighted match. In fact, Dymshitz was in closer proximity to Stride than Lechmere was to Nichols when the former was sitting on the plank behind his pony's bum.

Cadoche and co may well have been in closer proximity than Cross, Sam...
but thats a whole different argument isn't it?...
This thread is about Lechmere/Cross isn't it?...and you can't argue he wasn't close (In a physical sense ) to the victim..
I maybe mispoke when I said "Standing over"..I apologise...its simple ignorance that...but he was close enough to say to Paul "I believe she is dead"
but my point was...If folk can happily drag Vincent van Gogh into the equation....Cross has to be up there too

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: It's not so much that it detracts from his viability as a killer, but that arguing the opposite artificially strengthens the argument of his being the killer, by giving the impression that he was caught red-handed standing right next to the body... when he wasn't.

And are you counting me to those people, who say he was over the body and caught red-handed, Gareth?

Whilst hiding his knife and washing the blood off his hands, all in the space of a few seconds?

I was more suggesting that he hid his knife before backing off, Gareth. What makes you think it cannot be done in that sequence? And how do we know he needed to wipe his hands?

[Patrick S]

I think the big problem with Lechmere is that he is where it all turns real. The other guys we can toy with, create scenarios, think up events. With Lechmere, we are suddenly down to the blood pool under Nichols and the hidden wounds - all very real and very physical.
So when a finger is pointed at Lechmere, the game stage is over. The real investigation is launched 129 years too late.
And suddenly we get this debate about how we are dragging a mans reputation in the mud. Not so with Kosminski, Levy, Druitt... it´s okay to speculate as long as we do not get too close.

That´s the trouble with Lechmere.

That's hardly the trouble with Lechmere. I don't think many - although there are some, no doubt - are opposed to getting closer to knowing the truth about the Whitechapel Murders. Personally, I find it obtuse to suspect Lechmere because he was "found" with a "freshly killed" victim after he appears to have not been suspected by anyone at the time. Its all fairly simple. He had a reason to be in Buck's Row at that time. Other than this "alternate name" business, nothing of interest has been learned. But we've nothing to put with that. As best we can tell he was never arrested, detained, questioned....about anything. Ever. Granted, there's a lot we don't know. But, there's a lot we DO know. And what we DO know leads us in another directions, doesn't it? Add that to how the man behaved, completely counter-intuitively, non-instinctive, and inexplicably WERE he Nichols' killer. His behavior, though, is EASILY explained if we accept one simple idea...that he DID NOT kill Nichols and acted as anyone who found a woman on the street WOULD have acted. In the end, it's that simple. We've nothing else in the man's life to suspect him. We have behavior and action that MAKE PERFECT SENSE if he were what he very likely was. A witness. A guy who found a woman's body and acted accordingly.

[Sam Flynn]

I maybe mispoke when I said "Standing over"..I apologise...

Please don't apologise. That's how the Lechmere theory has been sold.

but my point was...If folk can happily drag Vincent van Gogh into the equation....Cross has to be up there too

Oh, indeed. It's fair to say that Lechmere is somewhere on the spectrum between George Chapman and Vincent van Gogh.