Evidence of innocence

[caz]

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.

Was Lechmere an octopus hater?

Or was it just two arms removed from many of the torsos?

If you ask me, it was Lechmere who was 'armless.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Reminds me of the milkman who was accused of putting his arm round the woman at number 22 three times.

He was acquitted on the grounds that no man has arms that long.

[Mark J D]

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

Since when was I 'all Lechmere theorists'?

This is pure mischief-making.

M.

[Fisherman]

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

Yes, there are serialists who turned themselves in. And there are those who didnīt. Guess which group is in majority!

[Fisherman]

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

The message was NOT as clear as mud to the authorities. The authorities even reasoned that the Torso killer emulated the Rippers work to confuse the police!

[Fisherman]

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

He was not "all things" at all - he was in all probability what most serial killers with a decent IQ combined with psychopathy are, nothing more, nothing less.

[caz]

Since when was I 'all Lechmere theorists'?

This is pure mischief-making.

M.

It wasn't directed at you specifically, Mark. Calm down, as they say in Liverpool.

Christer's theory suggests Lechmere was a 'terrible communicator', when leaving what he thought was a 'clear' message that the ripper and torso crimes were connected to one man. I thought you said so yourself. Or were you only referring to the GSG?

But all Lechmere theorists have him down as a terrific communicator, who passed his English Language & Communication exam with flying colours, within seconds of murdering Nichols in Buck's Row, when he most needed to get his 'innocent witness' message across.

Love,

Caz
X

[FrankO]

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.

Putting something forward as a suggestion can never be a bad thing and, although I see some posters think it's a good suggestion, I'm not amongst them. But you knew that already. I agree that the superficial abdominal cut is a bit of an odd thing, though.

[Fisherman]

It wasn't directed at you specifically, Mark. Calm down, as they say in Liverpool.

Christer's theory suggests Lechmere was a 'terrible communicator', when leaving what he thought was a 'clear' message that the ripper and torso crimes were connected to one man. I thought you said so yourself. Or were you only referring to the GSG?

But all Lechmere theorists have him down as a terrific communicator, who passed his English Language & Communication exam with flying colours, within seconds of murdering Nichols in Buck's Row, when he most needed to get his 'innocent witness' message across.

Love,

Caz
X

Iīll try to clarify things for you, Caz:

1. I donīt think that the Ripper wrote the GSG. I have said that if he DID, he was a bad communicator.

2. I think that the Ripper and the Torso killer were one and the same, and I think he may have communicated this by way of how he cut and dumped the Pinchin Street torso.

Now, here comes the hard part: Since I donīt think that the Ripper wrote the GSG, I have actually never said that he was a bad (or terrible) communicator. Can you see how this works? I DONīT Think he wrote the GSG, but I DO think there was just the one killer, who may have communicated that via the Pinchin Street torso. See?

I understand that subtleties like these are perhaps not your cup of tea, and if so maybe you should leave them to those who know how they work? Just a suggestion, mind you, you are free to misrepresent as much as you like to, of course!

[Fisherman]

Putting something forward as a suggestion can never be a bad thing and, although I see some posters think it's a good suggestion, I'm not amongst them. But you knew that already. I agree that the superficial abdominal cut is a bit of an odd thing, though.

Thatīs all perfectly fine, Frank! I cannot force you to go with my gut feeling, and I wouldnīt have even if I could.

[caz]

Yes, there are serialists who turned themselves in. And there are those who didnīt. Guess which group is in majority!

Eh? How is that a response to my post which you quoted, where I acknowledged that Lechmere could have sent an anonymous message to say which crimes were connected, without ever needing to 'turn himself in'?

My example - Colin Ireland - didn't turn himself in. He telephoned the police anonymously to give them information to link his victims.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

The message was NOT as clear as mud to the authorities. The authorities even reasoned that the Torso killer emulated the Rippers work to confuse the police!

Clear as 'mud' means not clear at all. I tend to forget English is not your first language because you are usually so good at it, Fish.

If you could just remember that the correct phrase in English is: "I am of the opinion that..." and not "I am of the meaning that...", I'd say you were a better communicator than most of the English speakers around here.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

He was not "all things" at all - he was in all probability what most serial killers with a decent IQ combined with psychopathy are, nothing more, nothing less.

So why did you claim he would have ended up 'frustrated' because his clear torso message didn't get through? Why couldn't he have communicated it in far clearer ways to ease that frustration and get the recognition - albeit anonymous - that you claimed he would have craved as a narcissist?

You claimed all these things about him, so the onus is on you to support them with something more tangible. Even Abby Normal noted that Lechmere could have made the message crystal clear if it bothered him as much as you suggested.

Love,

Caz
X

[rjpalmer]

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.

Fortunately, or rather, unfortunately, there are dozens and dozens of multiple murderers—mostly late 20th Century American examples, but this doesn’t seem to bother anyone—who, in turn, exhibit all sorts of conflicting behaviors, so one merely needs to find one to fit the current argument. New argument? new serial killer.

But here’s a thought. Isn’t this Torso Man largely a modern concept? Outside a small number of internal documents—Macnaghten and Hebbert—that noted similarities in three or four ‘torso’ cases, was there any real widespread conviction among the police or the public that there was such a person? It’s not like it was being flaunted in the press the way the Ripper was.

So, to me, the idea that someone wanted to ‘prove’ a link between the two series puts the cart before the horse. Wouldn’t the killer be more concerned with first showing that the torso cases were linked to begin with? It’s all rather muddled.

[caz]

Iīll try to clarify things for you, Caz:

1. I donīt think that the Ripper wrote the GSG. I have said that if he DID, he was a bad communicator.

2. I think that the Ripper and the Torso killer were one and the same, and I think he may have communicated this by way of how he cut and dumped the Pinchin Street torso.

Now, here comes the hard part: Since I donīt think that the Ripper wrote the GSG, I have actually never said that he was a bad (or terrible) communicator. Can you see how this works? I DONīT Think he wrote the GSG, but I DO think there was just the one killer, who may have communicated that via the Pinchin Street torso. See?

I understand that subtleties like these are perhaps not your cup of tea, and if so maybe you should leave them to those who know how they work? Just a suggestion, mind you, you are free to misrepresent as much as you like to, of course!

It wasn't me who brought the GSG into this! Mark commented on what Abby wrote about it, and compared the lack of communication skill shown by the author with the fact that the police also failed to get any 'clear' message to link the torso and ripper crimes.

The anomaly for me is all about how on earth Lechmere could have been such a dismal failure at getting his torso message across, when his 'innocent witness' message had come through loud and clear at the scene of a ripper murder, and again at the inquest. Forget the GSG - that wasn't part of my argument.

He couldn't have been that frustrated about both series not being recognised as one man's handiwork, or he'd have made the message a lot clearer.

Love,

Caz
X