Charles Allen Lechmere - new suspect?

[John Wheat]

I would say Debra Arif thinks it is probably so, Gary Barnett definitely thinks so, Edward Stow definitely thinks so, Cris Malone thinks it is a very obvious chance, and Jerry Dunlop is more or less certain about it.

Well at the end of the day what I would term to be experts Bill Beadle, Euan McPherson and Richard Whittington Egan believe/believed that JTR and The Torso Killer were separate killers and that JTR was in all likelihood Bury.

[Fisherman]

I never said we should but there are clear dissimilarities to both sets of murders. Yes but your explanation to the variation in disposal methods is as usual to suit your bizarre and perverse quest to convict Lechmere.

Which are the clear dissimilarities in the sets of murders?

How does Lechmere come into play? Is it not true that victims killed in localities that will give away the killer must be disposed of elsewhere whereas those who are killed in spots that do NOT give away the killer may be left in these spots without causing the same risk? Does that somehow change because I favour Lechmere as the killer? And if it is true and does not change because I favour Lechmere as the killer, then why would I NOT point to it?

[Fisherman]

Well at the end of the day what I would term to be experts Bill Beadle, Euan McPherson and Richard Whittington Egan believe/believed that JTR and The Torso Killer were separate killers and that JTR was in all likelihood Bury.

Two men have written on the torso murders. One says it is one and the same killer - but thinks it was Chapman. The other author says that it was NOT the same killer - but misses out on the abdominal flaps (and so does the other author).

At the end of MY day, we make our calls ourselves, and we support them as best as we can. We do not claim that something is right or wrong because some author has speculated along the same lines. That author has the exact same duty to factually prove his case as you and I have.

[John Wheat]

Which are the clear dissimilarities in the sets of murders?

How does Lechmere come into play? Is it not true that victims killed in localities that will give away the killer must be disposed of elsewhere whereas those who are killed in spots that do NOT give away the killer may be left in them spots without causing the same risk? Does that change because I favour Lechmere as the killer? And if it is true and does not change because I favour Lechmere as the killer, then why would I NOT point to it?

I've already answered that but mutilated in the streets is different to being cut in pieces and disposed of in or around the Thames River. You always bring Lechmere into it either consciously or unconsciously as you have some weird idea that he was JTR and The Torso Killer. Your explanation is one single possibility which just so happens to say JTR and The Torso Killer were one and the same.

[John Wheat]

Two men have written on the torso murders. One says it is one and the same killer - but thinks it was Chapman. The other author says that it was NOT the same killer - but misses out on the abdominal flaps (and so does the other author).

At the end of MY day, we make our calls ourselves, and we support them as best as we can. We do not claim that something is right or wrong because some author has speculated along the same lines. That author has the exact same duty to factually prove his case as you and I have.

I never said I relied on the opinions of others I frankly make my own calls.

[John Wheat]

I would say Debra Arif thinks it is probably so, Gary Barnett definitely thinks so, Edward Stow definitely thinks so, Cris Malone thinks it is a very obvious chance, and Jerry Dunlop is more or less certain about it. To be absolutely sure, you must ask them. So I ask you again why you claim that more or less everybody agrees with you.

Just out of interest how many of the above posters believe that Lechmere was responsible for both sets of murders?

[Fisherman]

I never said I relied on the opinions of others I frankly make my own calls.

Well, you DID throw a number of author names around as if they would make your take on things a better idea, did you not?

[John Wheat]

Well, you DID throw a number of author names around as if they would make your take on things a better idea, did you not?

No I named some authors who agreed with my take on things just as you named some posters who agreed with your idea that JTR and The Torso Killer were one and the same. Admittedly I named some posters who don't agree with you on this point however they have recently posted that very view on this thread.

[Fisherman]

Just out of interest how many of the above posters believe that Lechmere was responsible for both sets of murders?

I will not put words in the mouths of others, so without tying it to names, I would say that based on my own take:

One of the posters thinks that this was definitely so.
Two have said that there may well be something to it.
One thinks it is an interesting suggestion, but wants more evidence.
One does not exclude it, but is more in favour of another killer.

[Fisherman]

John Wheat: No I named some authors who agreed with my take on things just as you named some posters who agreed with your idea that JTR and The Torso Killer were one and the same.

I only named the ones I named because you said that a large majority disagreed with me. I thought it was of importance to point out that you were wrong. Otherwise, I try to avoid namedropping. I think my own views should carry enough weight without such measures. I do, however, often enough name other posters for making interesting points. And I try to point ut that things that are sometimes ascribed to me, actually have other originators.

Admittedly I named some posters who don't agree with you on this point however they have recently posted that very view on this thread.

Oh, I know - but I demand the same thing from them as I do from anybody else: support your take.

[John Wheat]

John Wheat: No I named some authors who agreed with my take on things just as you named some posters who agreed with your idea that JTR and The Torso Killer were one and the same.

I only named the ones I named because you said that a large majority disagreed with me. I thought it was of importance to point out that you were wrong. Otherwise, I try to avoid namedropping. I think my own views should carry enough weight without such measures. I do, however, often enough name other posters for making interesting points. And I try to point ut that things that are sometimes ascribed to me, actually have other originators.

Admittedly I named some posters who don't agree with you on this point however they have recently posted that very view on this thread.

Oh, I know - but I demand the same thing from them as I do from anybody else: support your take.

I've said this before but in every book I've read about JTR the author has either stated that they believed that JTR and The Torso Killer were separate murderers or have not made the connection between the two sets of murders. Admittedly R. Michael Gordon believes that Chapman was responsible for both sets of murders and some murders in America but his book is tainted by some fairly basic factual inaccuracies. Also it seems to me the majority of recent posters on this thread agree with my point of view that JTR and The Torso Killer were two separate killers.

[Fisherman]

I've said this before but in every book I've read about JTR the author has either stated that they believed that JTR and The Torso Killer were separate murderers or have not made the connection between the two sets of murders. Admittedly R. Michael Gordon believes that Chapman was responsible for both sets of murders and some murders in America but his book is tainted by some fairly basic factual inaccuracies. Also it seems to me the majority of recent posters on this thread agree with my point of view that JTR and The Torso Killer were two separate killers.

Once more, the facts are not changed by what people/authors think. If ninentynine per cent of us and the authors tomorrow think that the killers WERE one and the same, the facts will remain unchanged by that just the same.
What we - and the authors - try to do, is to look at the evidence there is and thereafter assess what really happened. The information we have at hand is what rules what conslusions we draw. In the torso case, it was not until 2008 that Debra Arif deciphered what was really said by Hebbert in his books on the torso murders. Up til that stage, this all-important source had not been at hand; it was largely forgotten about and left unread by the students of the cases. So very many authors have concluded what they concluded without this source - by far most of them.

Now the information IS available to us, and it is about time that happened since it totally changes the gameplan. History is only a immobile anchor in the sense that the true facts of things can never be changed. When it comes to our understanding of what has passed, however, history is a ship with the sails full of ever shifting winds.

[Fisherman]

John, you have still not explained what the large dissimilarities you recognize in the two sets of murders are.

[Jon Guy]

I've said this before but in every book I've read about JTR the author has either stated that they believed that JTR and The Torso Killer were separate murderers or have not made the connection between the two sets of murders. Admittedly R. Michael Gordon believes that Chapman was responsible for both sets of murders and some murders in America but his book is tainted by some fairly basic factual inaccuracies. Also it seems to me the majority of recent posters on this thread agree with my point of view that JTR and The Torso Killer were two separate killers.

To be fair, John.
The recent research by Debra Arif, Jerry Dunlop, Christer and others into the Torso murders (and a possible link to some of the Ripper murders) seems a little more comprehensive than the research that has gone before (with respect to those authors).
Whether Lechmere was the Ripper and Torso murderer is another step, but I for one, am looking forward to the definitive investigation into both cases.

[Dane_F]

There is no drastic variation. There is a consistency that is remarkable. Get hold of a prostitute, kill her quickly, cut her abdomen open from ribs to pelvis and take out inner organs from the body. Then leave what´s left like a pile of trash.

If you compare that to, say, Peter Kürten, you will see what drastic variations really look like.

Although the discarding method is of interest too, it is what is done to the victim when he or she is killed that carries the true implications. Here, we have the exact same elements occurring again and again.

If we were to think that the discarding method is way more important than how the murder is committed (which would be ludicrous, but for the sake of argument...), then we would need to look for an explanation to the differences in that department. And that explanation has just been furnished - if you kill in a locality that is tied to yourself, then the body must be disposed of elsewhere. If you kill in a locality with no ties to yourself, that is no necessity at all, and would instead mean a much larger risk of detection if you were to start butchering the victim into parts in the open street and begin carrying them to the Thames. The mere suggestion is ridiculous, as I am sure you will admit.

I'm confused as to why this comment was overlooked and discarded. Nor do I see where he is pushing Lechmere in it. It seems at least in this post that Fisher is making a fair and reasonable assessment.

Disagreeing is one thing, throwing it to the side as hogwash without anything to support that action seems drastic and uncalled for.