Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evidence of innocence

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

  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

    ... and when he put his knife to the victim´s flesh, he only cut shallowly into her abdomen? The person I call the Torsoripper would indeed have been a man who very much enjoyed cutting into flesh and opening bodies up.
    I don't believe I've ever denied that.

    He would however not be a man who engraved shallow cuts on his victims.
    Yet, he did it anyway, so he must have felt like it at the moment. And perhaps he did it because he wanted to send some message by it, although I don't see what he then wished to convey. What are you trying to say here?

    Plus, of course, there is no conflict between the two matters. You can BOTH killand cut AND send a message - if the cutting is adjusted to do so.
    Indeed, Christer. It's just that I, for the reasons already given, remain unconvinced that Torso Man wanted to send the message you suggest he sent by placing a torso in Pinchin Street.

    "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
    Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

    Comment


    • Originally posted by FrankO View Post
      I don't believe I've ever denied that.

      You did not, Frank. I mentioned it because you said that cutting and killing was what he was about. In this case, the cutting was very lame and differed very much from the other cases.

      Yet, he did it anyway, so he must have felt like it at the moment. And perhaps he did it because he wanted to send some message by it, although I don't see what he then wished to convey. What are you trying to say here?

      The same as before: the shallow cut would send a message about the Ripper.

      Indeed, Christer. It's just that I, for the reasons already given, remain unconvinced that Torso Man wanted to send the message you suggest he sent by placing a torso in Pinchin Street.
      Fair enough. I cannot be 100 per cent convinced myself. I am putting it forward as a suggestion that I think has a lot going for it.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by caz View Post

        On the contrary, Christer, if the cops had been cross with Cross for coming forward and questioning their competency, that would have been their cue to keep a quiet eye out for the carman, and come up with any dirt they could find on the critter, to restore the status quo. Nobody else would have needed to know if nothing came of it, but boy what a coup if they had caught him on his cart with Annie Chapman's chitterlings in his pockets.

        Love,

        Caz
        X
        I didn’ t say the cops were crossed, I said they were embarrased. They would not have been interested in looking for dirt linked to his person, but instead they would want to get him off the stage as soon as possible, no questions asked. Thank you very much, Mr Cross, Sir!

        It is a very common thing to do when you get your behind kicked black and blue. The one exception I can think of are some Ripperologists out here, who instead come back for more.
        Last edited by Fisherman; 09-09-2021, 12:12 PM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by caz View Post

          Don't forget that Trevor Marriott, who was once a policeman, doesn't believe the killer was ever at the place where the rag was found, or that he went to Mitre Square from Berner Street. So he doesn't have a sodding clue what route the killer took to Mitre Square, or where he may have been heading when he left.

          I have never understood why rejecting every potential clue is good practice, in a series of unsolved murders where clues are rarer than hens' teeth to begin with.

          But I suppose it's different for those happy few who already imagine they have the solution.

          Love,

          Caz
          X
          Although I believe the message and the cloth together suggest that the man who took the cloth was also the Mitre Square killer, (which would explain the messages reference to Jews, which are the prominent ethnicity at the site of the first murder that night), I suggest to you Caz that there are clues which you choose to ignore. So being a pot calling a kettle black with respect to Trevor doesnt make a convincing argument. There are huge clues in Berner Street that indicate a man intent on ripping open working prostitutes wasnt present there. All you need do is forgoe wanton speculation and just take what is given.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
            What I suggest in my book is that Charles Lechmere was frustrated about how everybody seemed to think that the Ripper and the Torso killer were two different men. Serial killers are frequently narcissists, and they want recognition for what they do. There is the example of how the police told the press that the so called BTK killer was not really responsible for the many Wichita murders, and this made Rader so infuriated that he wrote to them to prove what he had done, and the police were then able to trace Rader via the computer he used.
            My suggestion is that Lechmere killed the Pinchin Street victim and dumped her in Ripper territory with a blueprint cut down the whole abdomen, a cut that was made not to make eviscerations but instead to make a point: This is MY work, Ripper work, remember it? He then took off the arms and the head so that there were examples of explorations typical to both series; this too is MY work, remember the dismemberments? I am the single killer of ALL of these victims, when will you understand that?

            If I am correct on all of this, it must have seemed bonkers to Lechmere that such a clear message was not deciphered correctly.
            So why did Lechmere not, as an old man whose back catalogue of daring deeds had been deciphered incorrectly, leave some sort of confession with a solicitor, to be opened and made public after his demise, to prove how he had done all this and cheated the hangman, if he was the narcissist and recognition seeker you need to portray him as?

            Did he have a complete character transplant in later life? Did he suddenly think about the effect on his adult children, despite not having given a flying feck about them as nippers, when the police could have joined the dots and caught him, if only his clear messages and links to all his crimes had been as clear to them in the LVP as they are to you today? Or did the solicitor defy his wishes and destroy the evidence, keeping the secret of JtR's identity to himself?

            Love,

            Caz
            X
            "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

              I didn’ t say the cops were crossed, I said they were embarrased. They would not have been interested in looking for dirt linked to his person, but instead they would want to get him off the stage as soon as possible, no questions asked. Thank you very much, Mr Cross, Sir!

              It is a very common thing to do when you get your behind kicked black and blue. The one exception I can think of are some Ripperologists out here, who instead come back for more.
              How can you possibly know this, Christer? All the cops, thinking as one, would have had such red faces that they'd have swept the carman under the carpet, when they might have been able to pull the rug out from under him instead?

              If a copper gets his arse kicked by a lowly member of the public, will he never look for reasons to kick back - even harder?

              Cross was 'off the stage' anyway, following any embarrassment the police, as a body, may have felt about his inquest testimony. But it would surely have been satisfying to drag him back centre stage if they could have discredited him as a witness, don't you think? Wouldn't it have redressed the balance to catch Good Citizen Cross in some act of dishonesty, to show him up as a thoroughly untrustworthy character?

              Or did they find they were on a hiding to nothing because he turned out to be Mister Squeaky Clean, working long hours and sleeping for short ones?

              Love,

              Caz
              X
              "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


              Comment


              • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                Although I believe the message and the cloth together suggest that the man who took the cloth was also the Mitre Square killer, (which would explain the messages reference to Jews, which are the prominent ethnicity at the site of the first murder that night), I suggest to you Caz that there are clues which you choose to ignore. So being a pot calling a kettle black with respect to Trevor doesnt make a convincing argument. There are huge clues in Berner Street that indicate a man intent on ripping open working prostitutes wasnt present there. All you need do is forgoe wanton speculation and just take what is given.
                Remind me again, Michael, where I have insisted that the ripper was active in Berner Street that night, or quit with the broken record.

                There are also clues, which you ignore, pointing to the possibility that he was there, but couldn't have risked ripping on this occasion, for several plausible reasons connected with circumstances that would have been beyond any killer's control.
                Last edited by caz; 09-09-2021, 01:15 PM.
                "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                Comment


                • Originally posted by caz View Post

                  How can you possibly know this, Christer?

                  I know it to the exact same degree that you know that your view is the more likely one, Caz. What we are doing out here is not about presenting facts only, it is also about trying to make sense of the few facts we have. So my take on thing s is - SHUDDER - speculation!

                  All the cops, thinking as one, would have had such red faces that they'd have swept the carman under the carpet, when they might have been able to pull the rug out from under him instead?

                  I don´t think they took a vote, Caz. I think the ones in charge said "Enough"!

                  If a copper gets his arse kicked by a lowly member of the public, will he never look for reasons to kick back - even harder?

                  Not likely if there is a risk of further embarrassment, no.

                  Cross was 'off the stage' anyway, following any embarrassment the police, as a body, may have felt about his inquest testimony. But it would surely have been satisfying to drag him back centre stage if they could have discredited him as a witness, don't you think?

                  Absolutely. Only, if they decided not to stir the pot any further, they would never find out. Which I think is what happened.

                  Wouldn't it have redressed the balance to catch Good Citizen Cross in some act of dishonesty, to show him up as a thoroughly untrustworthy character?

                  See the above.

                  Or did they find they were on a hiding to nothing because he turned out to be Mister Squeaky Clean, working long hours and sleeping for short ones?

                  Love,

                  Caz
                  X
                  They never investigated him, Caz. If they did, they would know that his name was not Mr Squeaky Clean. Or Cross.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by caz View Post

                    On the contrary, Christer, if the cops had been cross with Cross for coming forward and questioning their competency, that would have been their cue to keep a quiet eye out for the carman, and come up with any dirt they could find on the critter, to restore the status quo. Nobody else would have needed to know if nothing came of it, but boy what a coup if they had caught him on his cart with Annie Chapman's chitterlings in his pockets.

                    Love,

                    Caz
                    X
                    We know the police back then were not the brightest sparks in the fire but they clearly did what they thought was the best way to investigate potential suspects, and that would have entailed keeping observations on the likely suspects addresses during the nightime hours. So with regards to not just Cross but all the other well known suspects who keep being banded about who had known addresses back then. In my opinion would be wrong to assume that the police did not keep watch on some of these suspects during the night, a point that seems to have been overlooked when discussing the viabilty of suspects.

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by caz View Post

                      So why did Lechmere not, as an old man whose back catalogue of daring deeds had been deciphered incorrectly, leave some sort of confession with a solicitor, to be opened and made public after his demise, to prove how he had done all this and cheated the hangman, if he was the narcissist and recognition seeker you need to portray him as?

                      The fewest do, Caz. I guess they want themselves to be eternally undetected. There are many diagonsed psychopaths and narcissists who deny they are the ones sought for by the police. You should know that, really.

                      Did he have a complete character transplant in later life? Did he suddenly think about the effect on his adult children, despite not having given a flying feck about them as nippers, when the police could have joined the dots and caught him, if only his clear messages and links to all his crimes had been as clear to them in the LVP as they are to you today? Or did the solicitor defy his wishes and destroy the evidence, keeping the secret of JtR's identity to himself?

                      Love,

                      Caz
                      X
                      Really, Caz ... Are you aquainted with the Golden State Killer, DeAngelo? Did HE have a character transplant in later life, becoming a grandfather and an appreciated co-worker? Or could it be that these kinds of killers actually CON others...? Surely not, eh?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                        We know the police back then were not the brightest sparks in the fire but they clearly did what they thought was the best way to investigate potential suspects, and that would have entailed keeping observations on the likely suspects addresses during the nightime hours. So with regards to not just Cross but all the other well known suspects who keep being banded about who had known addresses back then. In my opinion would be wrong to assume that the police did not keep watch on some of these suspects during the night, a point that seems to have been overlooked when discussing the viabilty of suspects.

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                        Once you prove that they permanently watched Lechmere throughout that fall, your dreams can all come true, Trevor!

                        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.
                          Agreed, RJ.

                          Her legs may have been particularly hairy - or perhaps a Pickfords man could have driven an omnibus between them?

                          I'll get me raincoat...
                          "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                            Really, Caz ... Are you aquainted with the Golden State Killer, DeAngelo? Did HE have a character transplant in later life, becoming a grandfather and an appreciated co-worker? Or could it be that these kinds of killers actually CON others...? Surely not, eh?
                            Well either Lechmere was a narcissist, who badly wanted recognition for the ripper and torso crimes, or he went to the grave not giving two hoots that the police had failed to connect them. He didn't need to sign a confession if he wanted to remain Mr Nobody, but he could at least have written to the papers anonymously, explaining how his 'clear' messages had gone unheeded.

                            Colin Ireland telephoned the police in his frustration that they had failed to connect his victims to a single killer.

                            Love,

                            Caz
                            X
                            "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                            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.
                              Agreed, Abby.

                              Fish described Lechmere as a frustrated narcissist, who wanted recognition for the fact that both series were the work of one man.

                              Yet the 'message' he left was apparently as clear as mud to the authorities at the time, and according to Fish, Lechmere would thought that was 'bonkers'.

                              So when Lechmere realised the message was not going to get through without help, what was stopping him from sending one - or chalking one - that was unambiguous and plain as day, without ever needing to identify himself as the author?

                              Love,

                              Caz
                              X
                              "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Mark J D View Post

                                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.
                                But Lechmere the Ripper was also an extremely accomplished communicator when successfully bluffing his way past Paul and PC Mizen, and everyone at the Nichols inquest.

                                The chap was clearly all things to all Lechmere theorists.

                                Love,

                                Caz
                                X

                                "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X