Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • Christer,

    I'm not sure how you feel about the John Arnold story? But, if Arnold's account is true and I think it is, why would the lone wolf (Lechmere) confide in someone else that a body was to be found in Backchurch Lane? A same similar account was also predicted in the Whitehall case. So, assuming Lechmere was the perpetrator, he let someone pass on information that he was going to leave two bodies in two different locations?

    Also, and we have discussed this before, I think it would be impossible for anyone (other than someone very familiar with the basement of New Scotland Yard) to find there way in the dark to the spot where the torso was found in that particular vault. Did Lechmere have deliveries to that building? Was it on his route? What type of product would he have delivered there? When would he do it as the workers were there during the day?

    Hope all is well! I haven't spoken to you for awhile.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by jerryd View Post

      As to not stray from this discussion Doctored Whatsit, you can read a summary of the Board of Works stuff here. Board of Works and Ripper/Torso Sites (Compiled info) - Casebook: Jack the Ripper Forums
      Many thanks, jerryd. Very interesting.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

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

        Yes, that is true. I sloppily got that wrong - but the rest right.

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

        Perhaps, yes. Unless it made him laugh.

        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)?
        He didnīt wait. He delivered the message in Pinchin Street.
        Last edited by Fisherman; 09-04-2021, 05:36 PM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
          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.
          The police made the exact same mistake, R J. But they knew nothing about the concept of aggressive dismemberment, so we really should do better today. We know that the torso murders involved elements that lent themeselves quite well for identification, moles, birthmarks, clothing with a name written on them, all things that a killer taking care to hide the identities of his victims would not have left with the dumped bodies.

          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.
            Killers can be very eager to have the police acting on them, like how for example Heirens wrote "Please catch me before I kill again!" by one of his victims, thereby disclosing that he was a serial killer, but NOT disclosing his identity. He made no further communications with the police as far as I can remember.

            Letīs not oversimplify. It may be that one or more of the letters were genuine, which would have a bearing on this. It may be that the story about Charley Lechmere and the horse radish girl did. And so on.

            Comment


            • [QUOTE=Mark J D;n767360]
              Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

              Somewhere or other, I've seen Christer put his own first clear JtR killing in 1872.

              From what I've seen here and there, Lechmere also seems to have moved all the way up and out to Doveton Street in the middle of 1888 -- shifting his entire walk to Broad Street up north of Whitechapel Road and into the Christ Church/Spitalfields area -- less than two months before the murder of Tabram. How many coincidences is he allowed, again...?

              M.
              I fumbled with the keyboard once and got 1872, but it should be 1873.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by jerryd View Post
                Christer,

                I'm not sure how you feel about the John Arnold story? But, if Arnold's account is true and I think it is, why would the lone wolf (Lechmere) confide in someone else that a body was to be found in Backchurch Lane? A same similar account was also predicted in the Whitehall case. So, assuming Lechmere was the perpetrator, he let someone pass on information that he was going to leave two bodies in two different locations?

                It is indeed strange. But strange somethines enter our equations only to look anything but strange when we identify the cause. I do think that our man was very into getting his work advertised as broadly as possible. I have said before that I thibnk that the reason he took his work to the streets may well have been how he found it gave more press coverage and public outcries, just as I think he "posted" body parts in the westernmost parts of London in order for them to flaot ashore along the power centre of the world as it was back then.

                Also, and we have discussed this before, I think it would be impossible for anyone (other than someone very familiar with the basement of New Scotland Yard) to find there way in the dark to the spot where the torso was found in that particular vault. Did Lechmere have deliveries to that building? Was it on his route? What type of product would he have delivered there? When would he do it as the workers were there during the day?

                Again, I have no defintive answer. Again, I think that if we got the answer, we would perhaps go "A-ha, it was THAT simple!" Basically, the vault in which the torso was deposited was not sealed off, and so it was accessible to anybody as such. After that, just as in the vault, it is all darkness.

                Hope all is well! I haven't spoken to you for awhile.
                I am always good when I hear from you, Jerry! I hope youīre not too bad either!

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Mark J D View Post

                  Replies like this genuinely baffle me, mate. I used the simplest possible words to suggest an imaginary scenario where the killer is only 3/5 of the way through a dismemberment when there's a sudden and unexpected need to get the body shifted; you reply with a disagreement that focuses on the victim having been dead for a day or more.
                  Why is this baffling?

                  Even if I accepted your theory, how would this point to Lechmere or even to anyone in the immediate neighborhood?

                  I could just as easily offer an ‘imaginary scenario’ where the exact opposite was true—the unexpected departure of someone—a landlady? —eliminated the need to cut the body into smaller pieces. She left town for a few days, and with this added privacy, the lodger no longer needed to cut up the body and smuggle it downstairs and through the kitchen. He could now haul the entire torso downstairs unimpeded, all in one large section. So we are not looking for someone with a private home—but for a lodger.

                  In fact, I’d suggest this scenario is more plausible because there is direct forensic evidence that the body was dismembered not all at once, but over a period of time--1 or 2 or 3 days (this had to do with different levels of decomposition at the edges of the dismemberments) so, at some unknown level, the perpetrator appears to have had plenty of time, but was forced to smuggled the body parts past neighbors, a landlady, etc. If not, why not cut it all up at once?

                  The only 'rush' was decomposition, as the smell became an issue in an occupied house.

                  Meanwhile, only a few posts back, Christer offered an entirely different "imaginary scenario"--that the victim's legs were removed to send a message to the police—which has nothing to do with a rush job or the lack of a rush job, so maybe he’s the one you need to convince?

                  I don’t say any of this merely to be ‘difficult’—we all have our theories. I just don’t see how any of these theories points the finger of blame at any specific individual.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                    Why is this baffling?

                    Even if I accepted your theory, how would this point to Lechmere or even to anyone in the immediate neighborhood?

                    I could just as easily offer an ‘imaginary scenario’ where the exact opposite was true—the unexpected departure of someone—a landlady? —eliminated the need to cut the body into smaller pieces. She left town for a few days, and with this added privacy, the lodger no longer needed to cut up the body and smuggle it downstairs and through the kitchen. He could now haul the entire torso downstairs unimpeded, all in one large section. So we are not looking for someone with a private home—but for a lodger.

                    In fact, I’d suggest this scenario is more plausible because there is direct forensic evidence that the body was dismembered not all at once, but over a period of time--1 or 2 or 3 days (this had to do with different levels of decomposition at the edges of the dismemberments) so, at some unknown level, the perpetrator appears to have had plenty of time, but was forced to smuggled the body parts past neighbors, a landlady, etc. If not, why not cut it all up at once?

                    The only 'rush' was decomposition, as the smell became an issue in an occupied house.

                    Meanwhile, only a few posts back, Christer offered an entirely different "imaginary scenario"--that the victim's legs were removed to send a message to the police—which has nothing to do with a rush job or the lack of a rush job, so maybe he’s the one you need to convince?

                    I don’t say any of this merely to be ‘difficult’—we all have our theories. I just don’t see how any of these theories points the finger of blame at any specific individual.
                    I can't help with this. Sorry. So much of it is you agreeing with me in a disagreeing tone of voice. It would take forever to sort out.

                    M.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                      Why is this baffling?

                      Even if I accepted your theory, how would this point to Lechmere or even to anyone in the immediate neighborhood?

                      I could just as easily offer an ‘imaginary scenario’ where the exact opposite was true—the unexpected departure of someone—a landlady? —eliminated the need to cut the body into smaller pieces. She left town for a few days, and with this added privacy, the lodger no longer needed to cut up the body and smuggle it downstairs and through the kitchen. He could now haul the entire torso downstairs unimpeded, all in one large section. So we are not looking for someone with a private home—but for a lodger.

                      In fact, I’d suggest this scenario is more plausible because there is direct forensic evidence that the body was dismembered not all at once, but over a period of time--1 or 2 or 3 days (this had to do with different levels of decomposition at the edges of the dismemberments) so, at some unknown level, the perpetrator appears to have had plenty of time, but was forced to smuggled the body parts past neighbors, a landlady, etc. If not, why not cut it all up at once?

                      The only 'rush' was decomposition, as the smell became an issue in an occupied house.

                      Meanwhile, only a few posts back, Christer offered an entirely different "imaginary scenario"--that the victim's legs were removed to send a message to the police—which has nothing to do with a rush job or the lack of a rush job, so maybe he’s the one you need to convince?

                      I don’t say any of this merely to be ‘difficult’—we all have our theories. I just don’t see how any of these theories points the finger of blame at any specific individual.
                      Of course, any individual guilty of having been the Ripper and the Torso killer in combination and who killed and cut the Pinchin Street victim so as to make the point that there was only one, not two serial killers afoot, could have produced the kind of damage that was done to the body found in Pinchin Street.

                      However, R J, however! The fact that Pinchin Street was chosen of all the streets that could be described as the Rippers backyard DOES sit extremely well with the suggestion that Charles Lechmere was the man we look for. And not only that, once we regard the torso series as spanning over the period of 1873 up to 1889, a whole range of "suspects" fall away for various reasons.

                      Lechmere is one of the very few suspects who can accommodate all of the torso and Ripper victims in combination. After that, we can of course speculate that there was a phantom killer who ALSO would have fit the bill if ever found, who would also have avoided calling himself by his registered name when attending inquests, who also would have disagreed with the police if he got tangled up in the investigation, who was also old enough to have done the 1873 murder, who also had a morning trek that took him past the killing fields, who would also have denied to help prop Nichols up if Paul had asked him and so on.

                      But why would we look for such a man when we already have him??

                      Maybe itīs not a failure of the finger to point out the killer, maybe itīs a failure on your behalf to see where the finger points, R J? Who knows? (Well, I do, but...)

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                        I am always good when I hear from you, Jerry! I hope youīre not too bad either!
                        Not bad at all, Thanks!

                        And thank you for the reply, although it didn't quench my thirst on naming Lechmere as the perpetrator of that crime. But that may be my problem. haha. There is not enough evidence out there at this time to have enough information to quench my thirst on anyone, yet.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post

                          Many thanks, jerryd. Very interesting.
                          You're welcome!

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by jerryd View Post
                            Christer,

                            I'm not sure how you feel about the John Arnold story? But, if Arnold's account is true and I think it is, why would the lone wolf (Lechmere) confide in someone else that a body was to be found in Backchurch Lane? A same similar account was also predicted in the Whitehall case. So, assuming Lechmere was the perpetrator, he let someone pass on information that he was going to leave two bodies in two different locations?

                            Also, and we have discussed this before, I think it would be impossible for anyone (other than someone very familiar with the basement of New Scotland Yard) to find there way in the dark to the spot where the torso was found in that particular vault. Did Lechmere have deliveries to that building? Was it on his route? What type of product would he have delivered there? When would he do it as the workers were there during the day?

                            Hope all is well! I haven't spoken to you for awhile.
                            Jerry d in da house! this thread just got a whole lot intersting! hi dude!!

                            i know this was for fish but ill give it a shot. well if what you say is true, someone did. why not lech? perhaps he loved the game, and like the gsg or the dear boss he talked about his grand (Board of) work to others. and he obviously had great knowedge of the area being a delivery man No? and was known to be on the streets late at night. perhaps he dumped the WH torso there as big FU to his copper step dad. and he had a cart

                            what say you?
                            Last edited by Abby Normal; 09-05-2021, 03:52 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                              Why is this baffling?

                              Even if I accepted your theory, how would this point to Lechmere or even to anyone in the immediate neighborhood?

                              I could just as easily offer an ‘imaginary scenario’ where the exact opposite was true—the unexpected departure of someone—a landlady? —eliminated the need to cut the body into smaller pieces. She left town for a few days, and with this added privacy, the lodger no longer needed to cut up the body and smuggle it downstairs and through the kitchen. He could now haul the entire torso downstairs unimpeded, all in one large section. So we are not looking for someone with a private home—but for a lodger.

                              In fact, I’d suggest this scenario is more plausible because there is direct forensic evidence that the body was dismembered not all at once, but over a period of time--1 or 2 or 3 days (this had to do with different levels of decomposition at the edges of the dismemberments) so, at some unknown level, the perpetrator appears to have had plenty of time, but was forced to smuggled the body parts past neighbors, a landlady, etc. If not, why not cut it all up at once?

                              The only 'rush' was decomposition, as the smell became an issue in an occupied house.

                              Meanwhile, only a few posts back, Christer offered an entirely different "imaginary scenario"--that the victim's legs were removed to send a message to the police—which has nothing to do with a rush job or the lack of a rush job, so maybe he’s the one you need to convince?

                              I don’t say any of this merely to be ‘difficult’—we all have our theories. I just don’t see how any of these theories points the finger of blame at any specific individual.
                              because his mom lived nearby. it aint rocket science rj although it seems people try to make it out to be

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by jerryd View Post

                                Not bad at all, Thanks!

                                And thank you for the reply, although it didn't quench my thirst on naming Lechmere as the perpetrator of that crime. But that may be my problem. haha. There is not enough evidence out there at this time to have enough information to quench my thirst on anyone, yet.
                                how bout this jer... lech is the only ripper suspect that agewise could also be torsoman?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X