Charles Allen Lechmere - new suspect?

[Elamarna]

As I have pointed out before, we know that Chapmans abdominal wall came away in four sections.
We know that Kellys abdominal wall came away in three sections.
And we know that Jacksons abdominal wall was divided into two sections.

We therefore know that the sections cannot possibly have looked the same - they must have differed to some degree in size and shape.

We have no information about the implement used to take these abdominal walls away, but since it was said that the Ripper cases were all knife deeds (although not necessarily the same knife/knives) as were the torso deeds (with the addition of a saw or saws), the reasonable conclusion must be that the sections of abdominal walls were simply cut away by way of knife work.

The work could have been clumsily done in Jacksons case, and cleanly done in the Chapman and Kelly cases - all we know is that the Ripper and the Torso man were both highly skilled with the knife, and so the skill was there to do a neat job in both cases. We cannot tell that it WAS when it comes to the abdominal walls, though.

In the early 1990:s, three women were found in Dallas, Texas, slain by the same man. The two first cases, both caucasian girls, were very similar. The bodies were even dumped in the same street, and they had both been subjected to the exact same type of violence. Both had also had their eyballs surgically removed. It was not discovered until they lay on the slab, so skilfully was the job done, with no damage around the eye sockets.

The third dead girl was found in another area of Dallas. She was black, not caucasian. She had been subjected to a much cruder treatment than the first two, there were traces of torture that were not there in the first cases, she had multiple gunwounds whereas the first two cases had just one shot each - and she had had her eyeballs removed, but much, much sloppier, with severe damage around the eyesockets.
The task force never wavered for a second. Once the missing eyes were noted, they knew that they were dealing with the same killer in all three cases. And indeed, that was so - Charles Albright was caught some time afterwards, and proven to be the killer in each case.

If the eyes had not been missing in the third case, I would say that although the task force needed to ask themselves if there could be a connection, it would not be odd if they ultimately needed to work from the assumption that there was not. The missing eyes immediately changed that into an absolute certainty that the cases were tied together. There could be only two explanations - same killer or a copycat deed.

I propose that the exact same thing applies for us: Same killer, or a copycat deed in Jacksons case. And that would predispose that the killer in her case had read about the not much publicized missing abdominal flaps.
Plus we would have the Ripper copying the cut away colon part from the Rainham case when he killed Eddowes! It would suddenly go the other way there, which would make the cases perfectly unique, with no comparison at all in this respect.

If there were differences in skill, and if there were differences in shape and appearance with the abdominal flaps of Jackson, comparing them to those of Chapman and Kelly, is totally subordinate when it comes to making the call if the killers were one and the same. When a totally rare thing like this is included in what the killer does, it applies that the only reasonable conclusion is a shared identity or a copycat deed.

Fisherman,

well argued, but as you know this hypothesis is at present unproven and indeed I see no way it can be.

However it is a good working hypothesis for discussion and maybe that will lead to something more concrete.


That is the ONLY point I am making.


Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

But at the end of the day it cannot conclusively be proved that all were murdered, and so if you only have one or two that were you dont have a serial killer.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

It seems at least in this post that Fisher is making a fair and reasonable assessment.

Who would have thought it...?

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,

well argued, but as you know this hypothesis is at present unproven and indeed I see no way it can be.

However it is a good working hypothesis for discussion and maybe that will lead to something more concrete.


That is the ONLY point I am making.


Steve

Equals Christmas day to me...!

[Joshua Rogan]

Fisherman,

well argued

Not *that* well argued....I believe Susan Peterson, the second victim, was shot three times, not once. And Albright was only convicted of one murder, so not legally proved to have murdered all three.

[Fisherman]

But at the end of the day it cannot conclusively be proved that the all were murdered, and so if you only have one or two that were you dont have a serial killer.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So very little in these cases can be conclusively proven, Trevor, and I don´t think it would be realistic to hope for it. What I am hoping for is an acceptance that the two series are most likely by the same hand. After that, we can quibble for ages about which victims to count in and to what degree we may be certain that the people involved were actually killed.
The probable thing is that the Ripper and the Torso man were one and the same.
The probable thing is that the torso victims, all seven of them, were the victims of murder.
That is what I am saying.

[Fisherman]

Not *that* well argued....I believe Susan Peterson, the second victim, was shot three times, not once. And Albright was only convicted of one murder, so not legally proved to have murdered all three.

Yep, checked, you are correct - Peterson was shot three times. It remains, though, that the two first victims displayed no signs of torture, that they were found on the same street, that they had had their eyeballs removed very neatly and that they were caucasian.
The third victim was coloured, found in another spot in town, was tortured and had much damage around the eye sockets.

It remains a good argument at any rate, if we make the daring leap of faith that Albright killed them all.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

Modus Operandi
a method of procedure; especially a distinct pattern or method of operation that indicates or suggests the work of a single criminal in more than one crime

JTR MO was to mutilate prostitutes, torso killer's was to dismember. I'm pretty sure I used it correctly.

Signature is a certain aspect of a crime that the criminal does that ties the crimes together. JTR took organs, torso killer planted body parts.


Columbo

wrong.

MO is the how of the crime. sig is the why.

MO is how the killer achieves his aim of the sig.

MO includes pre crime activity such as stalking, random attack, ruse etc. how the murder is committed-gun, knife etc. and how the killer gets away or covers up the crime-flees leaving body, disposal, hiding body etc.

but yes you can use MO as well as sig to link crimes.

The rippers MO was to ruse victims as being a client, get them to a secluded spot, sudden attack to incapacitate, probably via strangulation, cut the neck.
Flee leaving body before being discovered.

his sig was post mortem mutilation and the removal of internal and external body parts.

We don't know the torso mans full MO. I would venture however that it was pretty close to the ripper in that there was a ruse involved to get victim to a secluded spot (his bolt) hole. dismemberment was part of post murder MO to dispose of body.

neither the ripper nor the torso man made any overt attempts to hide the body, and one could argue that they both were actually displaying the body.

Torso mans sig was post mortem mutilation and removal of internal and external body parts. same as the rippers.

[Jon Guy]

But at the end of the day it cannot conclusively be proved that the all were murdered, and so if you only have one or two that were you dont have a serial killer.

Hopefully, the facts will be presented in a way that will allow the reader to make their own mind up.

But I`m happy to wait for the book and it`s conclusions.

[Abby Normal]

Well, as far as examples there's Jeffery Dahmer. He virtually skinned several of his victims (there are quite gruesome pics that I regret looking at). Karl Denke sold flesh as pork so he most certainly flayed his victims. Fritz hararmann, Joachim Kroll, Lam Kor-wan, all dis-disemboweled their victims which would involve cutting flesh off their victims. Albert Fish, Adolfo Constanzo, Alexander Spesivtsev, I could go on but what's the point?

This is just a cursory glance at a list of serial killers. Most cannibalistic killers will have flayed their victims at some point in time. Did they flay large flaps of skin off? Most likely since you can't get to the internal organs without doing so. These were not doctors, so technique was not especially important to them.

So yes it's not as UN-common as people would think, unfortunately.

Columbo

yes but did they cut away the abdominal wall in several large flaps??

[Trevor Marriott]

So very little in these cases can be conclusively proven, Trevor, and I don´t think it would be realistic to hope for it. What I am hoping for is an acceptance that the two series are most likely by the same hand. After that, we can quibble for ages about which victims to count in and to what degree we may be certain that the people involved were actually killed.
The probable thing is that the Ripper and the Torso man were one and the same.
The probable thing is that the torso victims, all seven of them, were the victims of murder.
That is what I am saying.

I am sorry but based on evidence to hand I see no conclusive connection to point to the same killer as being JTR and a mythical killer who you say was responsible for another seven murders, which you cannot even prove were murders. You cant keep making things up as you go along to suit this misguided theory.

You keep pointing to the panes of flesh, and you have been told this is a descriptive term and nothing more, because we haven't seen them and have no further information about them. Dr Biggs gave you a general explanation relating to panes of flesh yet you choose to reject it.

The cuts from pubes to sternum is a method adopted by medicos and by those performing post mortems. Again you have been told that in the absence of being able to prove murder in most cases. You reject other plausible explanations for this procedure along with other plausible medical explanations for the absence of heads when the bodies were found.

The WM have been glamorised over the years, partly because of the suggestion that the killer took the organs, you are doing exactly the same with these torsos. Now be a good boy and desist

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

I think his point was it is rare in the realm of serial killers. Not that it never happened.

Even if you rattle off a couple of dozen names this does not remove the unlikeliness of two serial killers in the same city around the same time with very similar signatures operating over a similar time period. Both of which would have had to taken parts of their signature from each other.

I am a logical person and I prefer the answer that logically makes the most sense. We could invent numerous excuses to explain away the similarities or we can simply accept that there is at least a chance these people were killed by the same hand. One answer requires simply accepting one truth. The other requires a whole slew of things to have to have been true.

exactly. how many similarities do you have to keep chalking up to coincidence?
at some point too many coincidences equals no coincidence at all.

[Elamarna]

Dear Fisherman,



I have been trying to construct a post to put the arguments about Lechmere, both being the killer known as JtR and the Torso killer togeather.

I do not want to go into interminable discussion on opinion, and that has forced me to cut right back to the bare facts.

So this is my hopefully reasonably unbiased view.


1. Lechmere was certainly in London at the correct time.


2. Lechmere was at one of the murder sites with the body of one of the victims close to the time of death.( no debate about if he was found near or with a body).


3. He gave what some believe was intentionally misleading information to the police, some do not see it has such.
However with out going into debate, it does mean questions need to be asked.


THERE IS A CASE AGAINST LECHMERE FOR THE NICHOLS MURDER.

I do not say it is strong or conclusive, but it is certainly stronger than many put forward and deserves careful consideration.


4. There appears to be no direct link to any of the other C5 murders, other than some of the sites may have been on his way to work. that is not particularly strong.

THE CASE AGAINST LECHMERE FOR THE OTHER C5 MURDERS IS AT BEST CIRCUMSTANTIAL

It appears to be based on the following premises:

All the C5 were killed by the same hand (which I agree, others do not) and if Lechmere killed Nichols he is therefore JtR.



5. There are some apparent similarities between the C5 murders and the Torso murders.


6. Some see these as being sufficient to claim that this proves the same hand.


7. Some argue, there is no link at all.


8. Some like myself argue that while there may be a possible link, it is far from established.


IT APPEARS THE CASE FOR BOTH SETS BEING BY THE SAME HAND IS VIABLE.

That means that it must be looked at and researched to see if there is any data which can be used to either prove of disprove the hypothesis



9. There appears to be no link to the Torso murders from Lechmere himself.

It would seem the logic being followed is clear

Lechmere killed Nichols, the same hand killed all of the C5, the killer of the C5 was the Torso killer( or at least took part in the case) Lechmere is therefore JtR.


THERE IS AT PRESENT NO HISTORIC DATA TO LINK LECHMERE TO THE TORSO'S. (Sorry if i sound like Pierre, don't mean to).


That does not mean that there will not be some found at some date.


Hope you see that I am not precluding the possibility of any of the above.


Steve

[Abby Normal]

Abby

What Have I said wrong?

Given that Jerry's view on this issue, is no secret, he did not need to make any comments. And my reply was completely respectful.

The quotes were useful in that they allowed me to demonstrated the issues I have with the hypothesis, why is that a problem?

Unlike some on the site, I go to great lengths to say I may be incorrect, and others may be right, indeed I have said that several times in my last few posts.

Just for consistency I will say again, the flaps may be very similar, they may not.

We have insufficient data to compare the two sets of murders using the available medical data.

The use of the word "flap" in both sets of descriptions is not conclusive evidence; it is a pointer to a POSSIBLE similarity that is all and the starting point for discussion.


The questioning of the similarities is not ridiculous I do not believe they are as clear as some think.

From the quotes Jerry supplied the flaps in the case of Jackson appear to be different the flaps for Kelly and Chapman, even with the limited evidence. If you do not feel that possible difference is important, so be it.



You say I have already made my mind up, I have made it very clear tonight that I am undecided on the issue at present, but certainly do not believe the case has been made anything like conclusively at this point.

It seems however that you have certainly made your mind up, no problem.




best wishes





Steve

hi el
thanks. No I have not made up my mind on the issue. in the past I only thought that there was a very slim possibility torso man and the ripper were the same. then I learned that all the torso victims had post mortem mutilations to the abdomen and that internal organs were missing so then for a while I was 50/50 on them being the same. then with further excellent research and details from Deb, fish and others I learned about MANY more similarities. and after analyzing all the info and similarities and differences and possible explanations for either now I'm at (if I had to put a number on it) at about 70/30 they were the same man.

I still keep an open mind and surely will be swayed either way with more evidence and debate, but so far the arguments against them being the same man is beset with innacuracies, faulty logic, lack of knowledge and weak or non existant counterpoints IMHO.

[Abby Normal]

How many of these posters besides Abby Normal believe JTR and The Torso Killer were one and the same?

Hi John
I don't believe they were one in the same. I believe there is a high probability they were one in the same.

I also think that Bury makes a better suspect than Lech at this point. (sorry fish : ) But that Blotchy and hutch make better suspects than both.

and I admire your uh well,, passion on the subject. LOL