Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I believe the Pinchin Street victim's head was removed for one reason, and one reason only: to thwart positive identification of the victim.

    It's commonplace in such chases. It's also common for the hands and tattoos to be removed, but fingerprints were still unimportant in 1889, so the victim's arms weren't removed. Maybe there was even something about the woman's legs that were distinctive, and it wasn't merely a matter of making the disposal of the body easier.

    The missing head is suggestive of a domestic murder of some kind.
    Last edited by rjpalmer; 09-03-2021, 04:00 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

      And if it was Lechmere sending a message, could he have found a more appropriate place to do so?
      I have a memory of someone (probably Edward Stow) pointing out that the location of that specific arch was between the sites of two former Lechmere residences that had to be demolished to make space for it.

      If this is correct information correctly remembered, then Lechmere found one hell of a spot...

      M.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

        The arms? I suspect you mean the legs. The Pinchin Street victim had her arms still attached.

        So, if this is your theory, wouldn't the police dismissal of the Pinchin Street case have infuriated Lechmere even more?

        Where is the result of this infuriation? He waits another 17 months and merely cuts a woman's throat in Swallow Gardens (a crime the police, correctly in my opinion, attributed to Sadler)?
        good point Rj
        the pinchin torso was the last victim of the torso-ripper series (and yes, full disclosure, I have always leaned heavily they were by the same man).
        I wonder if there was any change in Lechmeres circs at this time that might possibly signal his end of killing? Fish, Gary--anything?

        and I would also think that if lech was so intent on getting credit for both series he would have done something more certain--like write a letter proving it. I mean he wrote the GSG because he was pissed about the interuptions. so perhaps a diverge a bit from Fish on this point.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

          ... and I would also think that if lech was so intent on getting credit for both series he would have done something more certain--like write a letter proving it. I mean he wrote the GSG because he was pissed about the interuptions. so perhaps a diverge a bit from Fish on this point.
          Heh! If he wrote the GSG -- about whose verbal dribble we have more differing interpretations than we have diverging versions! -- then Lechmere was plainly a terrible communicator: no wonder his wordless 'message in an archway' failed to get across...

          By the way, let's not forget that the (copied-out) third letter in the (to me, unconvincing) 'Dear Boss' series comes from someone ostensibly anxious to disclaim responsibility for the Pimlico/Whitehall killing. No, I don't get that, either.

          M.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Mark J D View Post

            I have a memory of someone (probably Edward Stow) pointing out that the location of that specific arch was between the sites of two former Lechmere residences that had to be demolished to make space for it.

            If this is correct information correctly remembered, then Lechmere found one hell of a spot...

            M.
            I think you’ve remembered it correctly, but I believe Ed was mistaken. The house where Lechmere had lived as a child was still there in 1889.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

              good point Rj
              the pinchin torso was the last victim of the torso-ripper series (and yes, full disclosure, I have always leaned heavily they were by the same man).
              I wonder if there was any change in Lechmeres circs at this time that might possibly signal his end of killing? Fish, Gary--anything?

              and I would also think that if lech was so intent on getting credit for both series he would have done something more certain--like write a letter proving it. I mean he wrote the GSG because he was pissed about the interuptions. so perhaps a diverge a bit from Fish on this point.
              His second ‘stepfather’ died in 1889…

              Comment


              • [QUOTE=MrBarnett;n767280]

                His second ‘stepfather’ died in 1889…[/QUOTE

                Comment


                • [QUOTE=MrBarnett;n767282]
                  Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                  His second ‘stepfather’ died in 1889…[/QUOTE
                  Abby,

                  If you suspect the combined torso/Ripper series extended from 1873 to 1889, that almost exactly matches the period of Maria’s marriage to Joseph Forsdike. They married in 1872 and he died in 1889.

                  Gary

                  Comment


                  • [QUOTE=MrBarnett;n767283]
                    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                    Abby,

                    If you suspect the combined torso/Ripper series extended from 1873 to 1889, that almost exactly matches the period of Maria’s marriage to Joseph Forsdike. They married in 1872 and he died in 1889.

                    Gary
                    Thanks Gary
                    Interesting

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                      I think you’ve remembered it correctly, but I believe Ed was mistaken. The house where Lechmere had lived as a child was still there in 1889.
                      Thanks, Mr B. I'll need to check with him what the latest/best info is: I found the old video (the red line here follows Pinchin Street), and there are two old family houses marked (along with four others...) on this map. My memory was slightly off (about 20 yards!) concerning the location...

                      Add in the fence with 'Lipski' painted on it, and the bloody rag on a line mid-way between there and Doveton Street, and you've got what definitely looks like a message from somebody to somebody...




                      Bests,

                      M.​​

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Mark J D View Post

                        Thanks, Mr B. I'll need to check with him what the latest/best info is: I found the old video (the red line here follows Pinchin Street), and there are two old family houses marked (along with four others...) on this map. My memory was slightly off (about 20 yards!) concerning the location...

                        Add in the fence with 'Lipski' painted on it, and the bloody rag on a line mid-way between there and Doveton Street, and you've got what definitely looks like a message from somebody to somebody...




                        Bests,

                        M.​​
                        The ‘best’ info is my assessment that the house was still there. :-)

                        It’s easily checked. If you look at the enumerator’s route on the 1861 census, it shows exactly where the family were living then. Much of Pinchin Street, or Thomas Street as it was then, had been demolished by 1889, but that section remained intact.

                        I’ll see if I can dig out the relevant info.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Mark J D View Post

                          Thanks, Mr B. I'll need to check with him what the latest/best info is: I found the old video (the red line here follows Pinchin Street), and there are two old family houses marked (along with four others...) on this map. My memory was slightly off (about 20 yards!) concerning the location...

                          Add in the fence with 'Lipski' painted on it, and the bloody rag on a line mid-way between there and Doveton Street, and you've got what definitely looks like a message from somebody to somebody...




                          Bests,

                          M.​​
                          Posts 13/14 here may be useful.

                          https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/vict...bay#post411106

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                            ... It's also common for the hands and tattoos to be removed, but fingerprints were still unimportant in 1889, so the victim's arms weren't removed.
                            So, with so many arms removed from so many of the other torsos, you don't think the arms being left on here is evidence of a sudden need to get the unfinished project shifted out of the chop-shop double-quick...?

                            M.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                              The ‘best’ info is my assessment that the house was still there. :-)

                              It’s easily checked. If you look at the enumerator’s route on the 1861 census, it shows exactly where the family were living then. Much of Pinchin Street, or Thomas Street as it was then, had been demolished by 1889, but that section remained intact.

                              I’ll see if I can dig out the relevant info.
                              Gary, old bean, I can't help wondering if we're talking about different houses?

                              I'm talking about the ones at the bottom of old Splidts Street, down in the lower left corner.

                              I don't want to seem simple-minded; but surely they cannot possibly have been there after the railway viaduct was built and all the houses next to them were gone...?!?

                              M.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Mark J D View Post

                                Gary, old bean, I can't help wondering if we're talking about different houses?

                                I'm talking about the ones at the bottom of old Splidts Street, down in the lower left corner.

                                I don't want to seem simple-minded; but surely they cannot possibly have been there after the railway viaduct was built and all the houses next to them were gone...?!?

                                M.
                                The house where the family were living when the 1861 census was taken was still there in 1889. I think Ed was confused by the renumbering of the street.

                                This was the enumeration district in which the family were living:

                                ‘All that part of the parish of St. George in the East which comprises the East side of Philip Street South side of Ellen Street from Philip Street to Elizabeth Street including Ellen Place West side of Elizabeth Street North Side of Thomas Street from Elizabeth Street to Philip Street both sides of Severne Street both sides of Mary Ann Street.’

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X