Charles Allen Lechmere - new suspect?

[Fisherman]

Yes but you seem to presume Lechmere is guilty.

Personally, I presume that, yes. But that is not the same as me not accepting that others disagree and that he is not proven to have been the killer. If he had been alive, and if a jury had let him go, I would respect their decision - but feel convinced that they were wrong.
And all of this, I am allowed to do.

Your pointing to Bellsmith was also allowed - up til now. Now we know that it was a wrongful thing to do. But such things happened. The only difference is that it has not happened to Lechmere, who is still in the running.

[Fisherman]

John Wheat: Well his first child is recorded as having been born in London in 1873. Are you telling me this is incorrect? Please site why and your sources.

If you take the time to read through the text I posted about Henry Bellsmith, you will find that it says that he married in London in the year 1871. And that is pretty consistent with him having had his first child born in London in 1873.
However, John, it also tells us that the couple moved to Toronto in 1878. And Toronto is in Canada, where the couple spent the following ten years. Then, in early 1888, the couple separated, whereupon Henry Bellsmith went back to London, arriving there in the early months of that year.

So, you see, since the Rainham torso was discovered in 1887, Bellsmith could not have been him.
And since Bellsmith left London, headed for New York, on the 4:th of November 1888, he was not the Ripper either.

No your always blithering on about how Lechmere was the Ripper. It goes far beyond you saying Lechmere is the leading candidate.

No, it does not. What I have said and what I keep saying is that Lechmere is the prime suspect, that he is very probably the Ripper and that I personally believe that this is so.
If you take the time to read what I say, you will be a lot better informed.

To be quite honest if Bellsmith wasn't in London in 1873 I really don't care...

Oh, he WAS in London in 1873, it would seem. It was in 1887 he was missing, making him an impossible torso man.

...however if Lechmere could be definitely proven to not be JTR I'd expect you would be distraught but frankly the onus is on proponents of the Lechmere theory to prove his guilt not for others to prove his innocence.

Distraught? No, not at all. Iīd be genuinely surprised. But I donīt think it is going to happen.

And to be honest the speculation about Lechmnere being the Ripper is poor at best.

Well, since you have been wrong on just about anything else I have corrected in your posts on Bellsmith, I take great comfort in the fact that you seem to be a not very good judge of these matters.

[John Wheat]

You are telling the whole world that he is the most probable killer of the torso victims.
I am telling the whole world that Lechmere is the most probable killer of the Ripper victims.
So wriggling wonīt do it for you.

As for doing research, David Knott is a researcher who looked into Bellsmith, and found this:

"Henry Wentworth Bellsmith was born in London on September 3, 1849. He was one of twelve children, two of his siblings becoming quite famous - the first born, Frederick Marlett Bellsmith [1846-1923] followed in his father's footsteps as an artist, and the youngest, Florence Rosalind Bellsmith [1864-1942] married a well known missionary, Jonathan Goforth, and wrote a number of books about his work.

Henry married his first wife, Susannah Anne Sturch [1843-1921] in England in 1871. They moved to Toronto in 1878, the rest of the family having gone to Canada in the 1860s. Henry and Susannah had five children.

Early in 1888 Henry and Susannah separated. The reasons for this are not known, although interestingly one record states that Susannah died in 1888 - this is certainly not true. Henry came over to London early in 1888, leaving for New York on November 4. Over the next couple of years he appears to have travelled backwards and forwards between England and New York (in 1889 he was in London working for George Eastman, the founder of Kodak). Also during this period he met his second wife, Caroline Taylor [1866-1953] although I have been unable to find a record that they were ever legally married. In 1891 they moved to New York, and thereafter appear to have stayed in New York, Caroline moving to Florida after Henry's death."


Henry Bellsmith was not in London when the Rainham victim died. There is also evidence that he seems to have been elsewhere when Mary Kelly died (as you can see, he left England for New York on November 4 1888).
So he is arguably neither the Ripper nor the Torso killer.

PS. It was not all that hard to find.

Yes but no Torso Killings occurred in 1878 and what exactly is your evidence to prove Bellsmith was not in London at all between 1879 and 1888. Not that I'm that bothered one way or the other but it would be nice to know.

[John Wheat]

Same there - he is innocent of the Ripper murders until proven guilty.

Yes but you seem to presume Lechmere is guilty.

[John Wheat]

You are telling the whole world that he is the most probable killer of the torso victims.
I am telling the whole world that Lechmere is the most probable killer of the Ripper victims.
So wriggling wonīt do it for you.

As for doing research, David Knott is a researcher who looked into Bellsmith,and found this:

"Henry Wentworth Bellsmith was born in London on September 3, 1849. He was one of twelve children, two of his siblings becoming quite famous - the first born, Frederick Marlett Bellsmith [1846-1923] followed in his father's footsteps as an artist, and the youngest, Florence Rosalind Bellsmith [1864-1942] married a well known missionary, Jonathan Goforth, and wrote a number of books about his work.

Henry married his first wife, Susannah Anne Sturch [1843-1921] in England in 1871. They moved to Toronto in 1878, the rest of the family having gone to Canada in the 1860s. Henry and Susannah had five children.

Early in 1888 Henry and Susannah separated. The reasons for this are not known, although interestingly one record states that Susannah died in 1888 - this is certainly not true. Henry came over to London early in 1888, leaving for New York on November 4. Over the next couple of years he appears to have travelled backwards and forwards between England and New York (in 1889 he was in London working for George Eastman, the founder of Kodak). Also during this period he met his second wife, Caroline Taylor [1866-1953] although I have been unable to find a record that they were ever legally married. In 1891 they moved to New York, and thereafter appear to have stayed in New York, Caroline moving to Florida after Henry's death."


Henry Bellsmith was not in London when the Rainham victim died. There is also evidence that he seems to have been elsewhere when Mary Kelly died.
So he is arguably neither the Ripper nor the Torso killer.

PS. It was not all that hard to find.

Well his first child is recorded as having been born in London in 1873. Are you telling me this is incorrect? Please site why and your sources. No your always blithering on about how Lechmere was the Ripper. It goes far beyond you saying Lechmere is the leading candidate. To be quite honest if Bellsmith wasn't in London in 1873 I really don't care however if Lechmere could be definitely proven
to not be JTR I'd expect you would be distraught but frankly the onus is on proponents of the Lechmere theory to prove his guilt not for others to prove his innocence. And to be honest the speculation about Lechmnere being the Ripper is poor at best.

[Fisherman]

No I am not saying Henry Wentworth Bellsmith was The Ripper but I believe he is the leading candidate for The Torso Murders. Bellsmith was certainly in London in 1873. His first child Eustace John Bellsmith is listed at having been born in Penge, London in 1873. There is no evidence to suggest Henry Wentworth Bellsmith moved out of London until 1891 when he moved to New York. I know this info isn't that easy to find but please do your research properly. This info on Henry Wentworth Bellsmith can be gleaned from the old boards. As for your last comment I regard Henry Wentworth Bellsmith as the leading candidate for The Torso Murders but I don't proclaim to all and sundry that he was The Torso Killer.

You are telling the whole world that he is the most probable killer of the torso victims.
I am telling the whole world that Lechmere is the most probable killer of the Ripper victims.
So wriggling wonīt do it for you.

As for doing research, David Knott is a researcher who looked into Bellsmith, and found this:

"Henry Wentworth Bellsmith was born in London on September 3, 1849. He was one of twelve children, two of his siblings becoming quite famous - the first born, Frederick Marlett Bellsmith [1846-1923] followed in his father's footsteps as an artist, and the youngest, Florence Rosalind Bellsmith [1864-1942] married a well known missionary, Jonathan Goforth, and wrote a number of books about his work.

Henry married his first wife, Susannah Anne Sturch [1843-1921] in England in 1871. They moved to Toronto in 1878, the rest of the family having gone to Canada in the 1860s. Henry and Susannah had five children.

Early in 1888 Henry and Susannah separated. The reasons for this are not known, although interestingly one record states that Susannah died in 1888 - this is certainly not true. Henry came over to London early in 1888, leaving for New York on November 4. Over the next couple of years he appears to have travelled backwards and forwards between England and New York (in 1889 he was in London working for George Eastman, the founder of Kodak). Also during this period he met his second wife, Caroline Taylor [1866-1953] although I have been unable to find a record that they were ever legally married. In 1891 they moved to New York, and thereafter appear to have stayed in New York, Caroline moving to Florida after Henry's death."


Henry Bellsmith was not in London when the Rainham victim died. There is also evidence that he seems to have been elsewhere when Mary Kelly died (as you can see, he left England for New York on November 4 1888).
So he is arguably neither the Ripper nor the Torso killer.

PS. It was not all that hard to find.

[Fisherman]

The case against Bury.

Same there - he is innocent of the Ripper murders until proven guilty.

[Fisherman]

We don't know exactly how The Torso Victims were murdered a lot of it is pure speculation. Some even believe The Torso Victims were not even murdered, wrongly in my opinion but there you go.

But what we DO know is that there were cuts from ribs to pelvis, and that organs were taken out, plus the abdominal wall was taken away in the Jackson case.
Going by what we may not know was always going to be a less fruitful path than going by what we DO know.

[John Wheat]

Wait a minute. Are you suggesting that Henry Wentworth Bellsmith was the Ripper and the torso man in combination?

But you donīt even think that there was a shared identity...!?

Or are you saying that he was the Ripper? If so, why say it on this thread?

Perhaps you are suggesting that he was the Torso man? But he really would not be, would he? He arrived in London in early 1888, way after the slaying of the Rainham torso victim in 1887.

By the bye, I donīt think he was ever convicted of anything at all, suggesting that he was nothing but a stand-up citizen. And you have criticized me a number of times for having "dragged Lechmeres name through the dirt" or something such - so why do the same thing to Bellsmith, if you think it is deeply unethical to name people as possible suspects?

No I am not saying Henry Wentworth Bellsmith was The Ripper but I believe he is the leading candidate for The Torso Murders. Bellsmith was certainly in London in 1873. His first child Eustace John Bellsmith is listed at having been born in Penge, London in 1873. There is no evidence to suggest Henry Wentworth Bellsmith moved out of London until 1891 when he moved to New York. I know this info isn't that easy to find but please do your research properly. This info on Henry Wentworth Bellsmith can be gleaned from the old boards. As for your last comment I regard Henry Wentworth Bellsmith as the leading candidate for The Torso Murders but I don't proclaim to all and sundry that he was The Torso Killer.

[John Wheat]

Which case does not? Kosminski? Druitt? Levy?

Pray tell us, John.

The case against Bury.

[John Wheat]

In post 285, you answered an earlier post of mine, in which I wrote:

Why would we look at the methods of disposal before we look at the similarities in how the victims were killed?

Your answer to that was:

I never said we should but there are clear dissimilarities to both sets of murders.

Of course, what was under discussion was the nature of what the killer did to the bodies, and the similarities in that department.
Now you say that the dissimilarities you spoke of related to how one killer mutilated in the open street and left the body lying while the other mutilated in private and dumped the bodies.

I can only assume that this is what was left when you had thought over what dissimilarities there really are. The cutting of the body and the eviscerations are seemingly the exact same, so you could not use that.

As for the fact that one set of murders was street murders and the other not, this has already been covered in extenso, and an explanation has been goven,m saying that one has to get rid of bodies slain on premises that can be tied to yourself, whereas this does not apply in the case of street murders.

I would appreciate if we need not go around in circles any more on that topic, and I take it that you have accepted that there are no differences to be found or pointed at when it comes to the matter of how the killer/s cut and eviscerated the victims in the two series. The one thing that differs is the disposal method.

We don't know exactly how The Torso Victims were murdered a lot of it is pure speculation. Some even believe The Torso Victims were not even murdered, wrongly in my opinion but there you go.

[John Wheat]

Well who the hell is that?

I thought you were a bury guy? (not that there is anything wrong with it)

To Abbey

I am a Bury man for The Ripper murders however my favoured candidate for The Torso Murders is Henry Wentworth Bellsmith.

Cheers John

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman

But we don't know that Liz Jackson was killed by the perpetrator of the other victims, that's speculation. Moreover, it has, of course, been argued that she was the victim of a botched abortion, although I realise there are problems with that argument.

I realise that some posters regard themselves as gifted amateur forensic scientists, and maybe they are. However, your theory, as interesting as it is, is bereft of any kind of authoritative support, as not a single doctor at the time or since drew any sort of connection. And this includes Dr Phillips, who had the opportunity to examine both sets of victims. It is also an approach which is now straying dangerously close into Pierre territory.

And I'm afraid that in this regard, a reliance on, say, Michael Gordon is just completely inadequate.

First of all, thank you for a more low-key post than yesterdays! I will try to answer in the same kind.

Do we know, as such, that Jackson was killed by the same man as the other torso victims? No, we donīt even know for sure that the C5 were by the same hand. There are not two victims where we can swear that they must have had the same killer.

But we must of course look at precisely why Jackson was believed to be by the same hand as the other torso victims! And that lies in the very deviating fact that this killer (I will call him a killer, since there is legal precedence for it and since most people believe there was a killer) did NOT dismember his victims in the same manner as the "normal" dismemberment killer would do. The "normal" dismemberment killer is the type dr Biggs was referring to, where the cutting is sloppily and messily done, and where the result is a lot of fraying, torn limbs and skin, parts only partially divided etcetera.
The Thames torso killer did his work very neatly, leaving no frayed cuts and no mess at all. He opened up the joints instead of just sawing off the limbs, and he then cut very neatly and precisely, not even damaging the underlying cartilage, and he then disarticulated the limbs from the body. He even cut in perfectly straight angles!
This is why I say "forget Biggs". He said that all dismemberment cases look the same. They donīt. Which is a perfect example on how we as laymen should have a say too, by the way.

I donīt think there is any comparison at all to what the Thames torso killer did. And this is evident in all seven victims, although the 1874 victim is only very sparsely written about. We know, however, that this victim was considered to be of the same hand as the 1873 victim, and that would reasonably have been due to itīs likeness in the cutting work.

Elizabeth Jackson was another example of this, the disarticulations and the cutting being very nicely and exactly carried out. The odds that she was a one-off by some other dismemberment killer are totally against the suggestion. Any such suggestion is, I fear, doomed to fail.

You say that I lack all medical and scientific support, but that is wrong. I lean against Hebbert to a very large degree, and against other medicos too. There was a lot of thinking back then that the murder series were connected, and then papers reflect this very well. As for how the series were not declared to be of the same man by the medicos, it warrants some interest that there was not even a consensus about the C5 being by the same man. And there was a very clear misconception that dismemberment murders were always only about facilitating transport. The idea that they could be about the joy of dismemembering seems not to have entered the medicos minds.

I am not any forensic or medical expert. But it does not take such expertise to conclude that opening abdomens from ribs to pubes and taking out organs and cutting away abdominal walls are traits that are extremely unusual. We all know that this is so. So the comparison is one that is very well supported by the evidence.

I have no idea why you bring up Michael Gordon, saying that relying on him is wrong. When did I do so? Gordon quotes a lot of material from the time, and that material is as useful now as it was then. Gordons conclusions, however, are something that I disagree with. If I may do so, that is, being no forensic expert...?

[Fisherman]

What about Henry Wentworth Bellsmith? Who moved into London in 1873 and left London shortly after the last Torso Murder.

Wait a minute. Are you suggesting that Henry Wentworth Bellsmith was the Ripper and the torso man in combination?

But you donīt even think that there was a shared identity...!?

Or are you saying that he was the Ripper? If so, why say it on this thread?

Perhaps you are suggesting that he was the Torso man? But he really would not be, would he? He arrived in London in early 1888, way after the slaying of the Rainham torso victim in 1887.

By the bye, I donīt think he was ever convicted of anything at all, suggesting that he was nothing but a stand-up citizen. And you have criticized me a number of times for having "dragged Lechmeres name through the dirt" or something such - so why do the same thing to Bellsmith, if you think it is deeply unethical to name people as possible suspects?

[John G]

The genitalia of Elizabeth Jackson was cut away together with one of the abdominal flaps. Does that not count as genital mutilation in your book? If not, would you care to explain why?

Hi Fisherman

But we don't know that Liz Jackson was killed by the perpetrator of the other victims, that's speculation. Moreover, it has, of course, been argued that she was the victim of a botched abortion, although I realise there are problems with that argument.

I realise that some posters regard themselves as gifted amateur forensic scientists, and maybe they are. However, your theory, as interesting as it is, is bereft of any kind of authoritative support, as not a single doctor at the time or since drew any sort of connection. And this includes Dr Phillips, who had the opportunity to examine both sets of victims. It is also an approach which is now straying dangerously close into Pierre territory.

And I'm afraid that in this regard, a reliance on, say, Michael Gordon is just completely inadequate.