Charles Allen Lechmere - new suspect?

[Columbo]

Its in my latest book "Jack the Ripper The Secret Police Files"

http://www.trevormarriott.co.uk/?page_id=191

If it is accepted that the name Jack the Ripper was an invention of the press then there could not have been such a person because he never existed.

At best you have three victims killed in what we can now term as "ripper like" fashion. Chapman, Eddowes, and Nicholls. But in 1888 without the name JTR simply a series of similar unsolved murders and had it not been for the name JTR we probably would not be here talking about them today

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes I've read it but you do not address how you would handle Lechmere if you were there. I think your right about the name and posterity of this case being tied together, but we also should put forth the fact that alot of serial killers are press or police creations. Btk, unibomber, the green River killer, the vampire of duessledorf, the yorkshire ripper. The Zodiac killer and son of Sam created their own name, so it's been done either way.



Columbo

[Pierre]

You haven't conversed much with Mr Marriot I take it. There are some where there is no point trying to be civil with them there never civil back. I find the notion ridiculous that all of a sudden in Whitechapel there were loads of knife wielding maniac's about. It's absurd. As for Elizabeth Jackson it's highly unlikely she was killed by JTR.

Cheers John

Hi John,

Yes, one could certainly find the idea of a load of such maniacs absurd, as you say. The problem is that we always find some things absurd, and other things we find "logical".

Now, the past does not work by absurdity or logic. The past is no more, as a total phenomenon. What we have is sources, small bits of the past. They are left to us, and whatever our ideas are, if we think the sources are absurd or not, the sources are our responsibility.

Perhaps Trevor feels that he has such a responsibility. I certainly think I do. And so do you, I believe.

But we can not form our opinions ex nihilio and therefore we misinterpret the sources. That is what David always likes to tell me that I do. He calls it "misunderstanding". He talks like that because he is not a historian. And since he feels that he is in a position of telling people that they misunderstand, he is convinced that he understands. That is his major problem I think. (Hi, David! If you see this, feel free to respond!)

So we end up with what Steve would call "opinions". And we therefore end up in postmodernism and total relativism.

I myself do not think that all is that bad. I do think that we are still able to use historical methods for researching this case. But we do not need aggression. It only shows others that we have nothing to say, since we have no historical tools to use.

I also find it highly unlikely that he killed Jackson. So the sources make me very ambivalent. And that is good.

Best wishes, Pierre

[Fisherman]

As for Elizabeth Jackson it's highly unlikely she was killed by JTR.

Cheers John

-Liz Jackson was a prostitute - as were the victims of JTR.

-Liz Jackson had her heart removed - as had Kelly.

-Liz Jackson lost part of her colon - as did Eddowes.

-Liz Jackson was cut open from sternum to pubes - as were Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly.

-Liz Jackson had her uterus removed - as had Eddowes and Chapman and Kelly.

-Liz Jackson har her abdominal wall cut away in a couple of large panes - the exact same thing happened to Chapman and Kelly.

How is it "highly unlikely" that people who suffer the same type of damage, some of it very rare (the cutting open of the abdomen, the retrieval of inner organs) and some more or less completely unique (the cutting away of the abdominal wall) could have had the same killer? Just how does that work?

And just how likely do you think it is that a killer will cut away the abdomen in large flaps from his victims? How many examples can you quote?

You see, if you cannot find any examples to quote, then it suddenly becomes highly unlikely that it was NOT the same killer. That´s how these things work.

[Elamarna]

And your logic and reasoning is as perplexing to me as mine seems to be to you.

Had there been no named Jack the Ripper, none of the other synonymous rippers might not have followed. I would suggest all those that did emenated from the 1888 term Jack the Ripper.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor

What a truly poor attempt at a reply; however when I remember the image posted of Eddowes, in another thread earlier this year, which you claimed showed knife wounds and at least one of those you highlighted was at least a foot away from the body, I am not really surprised.

you posted in post #91 of this thread

If it is accepted that the name Jack the Ripper was an invention of the press then there could not have been such a person because he never existed.

Which of course is nonsense, just because the name is given by someone else, that does not preclude the killer being real.

Of course I said that in post # 95 and you just ignored that and gave response which did not address that point and it appears you are unable to give a clear reasoned reply to that point.

At best you have three victims killed in what we can now term as "ripper like" fashion. Chapman, Eddowes, and Nicholls. But in 1888 without the name JTR simply a series of similar unsolved murders and had it not been for the name JTR we probably would not be here talking about them today

I see that you did not even attempt to give a reasoned response to the points raised in post #95:



"A person opinion Trevor, not a statement of fact, or indeed an opinion agreed by the majority of researchers on the subject.

Of course there are some who only ascribe the first two to the same hand, however those who say only 2 or 3 victims are at present in a minority.

While that obviously does not make that view wrong, I have real and serious problems with the continual presentation of unproven theories as fact, this applies not just you, others do the same too.

Such is wrong in any serious form of research."




There are indeed argument to be made for reducing the number of victims, and there are also arguments for adding to the list.

However you attempt no such reasoning or justification for your statement which was presented as fact, it is not!


You then make a statement which none would disagree with, except maybe for its grammar. which seems somewhat convoluted.


"Had there been no named Jack the Ripper, none of the other synonymous rippers might not have followed. I would suggest all those that did emenated from the 1888 term Jack the Ripper."



That statement of course has absolutely nothing to do with how many victims there were of a single killer, or even if such a killer existed.



yours as always


steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;397037]

-Liz Jackson was a prostitute - as were the victims of JTR.

And prostitutes as a group are more often victims than other groups of people. That is a problem here.

-Liz Jackson had her heart removed - as had Kelly.

But the methods are very different in many other ways, aren´t they?

-Liz Jackson lost part of her colon - as did Eddowes.

I always say "it must be a coincidence".

-Liz Jackson was cut open from sternum to pubes - as were Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly.

It must be a coincidence.

-Liz Jackson had her uterus removed - as had Eddowes and Chapman and Kelly.

It must be a coincidence.

-Liz Jackson har her abdominal wall cut away in a couple of large panes - the exact same thing happened to Chapman and Kelly.

Now I think there are so many coincidences that I must start to say: there are sources indicating that there was no coincidence. That bothers me. But I can not ignore the sources.

How is it "highly unlikely" that people who suffer the same type of damage, some of it very rare (the cutting open of the abdomen, the retrieval of inner organs) and some more or less completely unique (the cutting away of the abdominal wall) could have had the same killer? Just how does that work?

The killer was on holiday?

But he wasn´t. So, no, I think it is not "highly unlikely". I think we are wrong. I think we do not mean "highly unlikely". We mean "very hard for us as individuals to believe"!

And just how likely do you think it is that a killer will cut away the abdomen in large flaps from his victims? How many examples can you quote?

Let´s see...1, 2...and they were the Whitechapel victims?

You see, if you cannot find any examples to quote, then it suddenly becomes highly unlikely that it was NOT the same killer. That´s how these things work.

The killer is not the man who will be unlikely for nothing...

Regards, Pierre

[John G]

-Liz Jackson was a prostitute - as were the victims of JTR.

-Liz Jackson had her heart removed - as had Kelly.

-Liz Jackson lost part of her colon - as did Eddowes.

-Liz Jackson was cut open from sternum to pubes - as were Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly.

-Liz Jackson had her uterus removed - as had Eddowes and Chapman and Kelly.

-Liz Jackson har her abdominal wall cut away in a couple of large panes - the exact same thing happened to Chapman and Kelly.

How is it "highly unlikely" that people who suffer the same type of damage, some of it very rare (the cutting open of the abdomen, the retrieval of inner organs) and some more or less completely unique (the cutting away of the abdominal wall) could have had the same killer? Just how does that work?

And just how likely do you think it is that a killer will cut away the abdomen in large flaps from his victims? How many examples can you quote?

You see, if you cannot find any examples to quote, then it suddenly becomes highly unlikely that it was NOT the same killer. That´s how these things work.

Well, in the case of the Torso victims the body parts could simply have been discarded, so any "similarity" may be superficial. And of course, this argument fails to recognize the fact that the Torso perpetrator, if he existed, was working to a different objective.

"Cut away in a couple of large panes" is completely meaningless without a frame of reference. Were the frames the same surface area? Was the same knife used? Was the same degree of skill exhibited? Were the perpetrators objectives the same? What does "panes" and "large flaps" mean in each context? They're certainly not medical terms, and I would argue such descriptions are so general as to be meaningless.

[Fisherman]

John G: Well, in the case of the Torso victims the body parts could simply have been discarded, so any "similarity" may be superficial. And of course, this argument fails to recognize the fact that the Torso perpetrator, if he existed, was working to a different objective.

The body parts could have been discarded by the Ripper too, John. We don´t know. But we DO know that both killers took out body parts that were of both sexual and nonsexual types. This is not something that is in any way common. It is instead a quite uncommon thing for a killer to do.

And we know that you can take out body parts from smallish openings in the abdomen but both of these men cut the abdomen open from sternum to pubes.

These are matters that would immediately make any policeman assume that there was probably a connection. That cannot be denied.

"Cut away in a couple of large panes" is completely meaningless without a frame of reference.

No, it is not. Not in any way at all. It is completely relevant, on account of being extremely rare. No matter if the panes were not the same in numbers or sizes, and no matter if they were cut away with different implements, the detail as such is extremely rare nevertheless. And that is what rules the day.

Were the frames the same surface area?

That is of a very subordinate role. We know, for example, that Chapman had her abdomen taken away in four panes whereas Kelly had her abdomen taken away in three panes. That means that the surface areas of the parts were not the same, but it was the same killer nevertheless. And any policeman worth his salt would conclude that too. Do you really think that anybody would suggest that the difference in numbers of plates pointed to different killers...? If so, let´s hope that noone takes you seriously!
Basically, the whole of the abdominal wall was removed on all three victims, and since history has not recorded more than a handful of cases where this happened, the conlusion can only be one: Same killer.

Was the same knife used?

Aha. So if two victims are found with the nosetips cut off, together with the fingertips and the toetips, and if they have both had their behinds painted in the Union Jack colours, we should conclude that two killers did it if the knife and paint used were not the same make? And that goes for every body found in this state - only when the same knife and paint is used, should we entertain the possibility of the same killer?
Le me tell you that the implements used are more relevant the more common the damage done is. If two victims are shot in the belly, then if it can be shown that the bullets came from different weapons, then there is a large chance that there were two killers. That depends on how a bullet to the belly is not an uncommon thing.
But if two victims have bullets entering all body openings - one bullet in each nostril, one in the anus, one in each ear, one in the mouth etcetera, then we can be certain that there IS a connection.
Do you disagree with this?
Do you disagree that taking away the abdominal wall in a small number of large panes is more or less unheard of?

Was the same degree of skill exhibited?

Same thing. If the abdomen os cut away in large flaps, then that points directly to the same killer regardless of the skill involved.

Were the perpetrators objectives the same?

THAT can be a dividing thing - but we don´t know what applies here, so we must assume that the objective was the same.That is because we must assume that it was the same killer.

What does "panes" and "large flaps" mean in each context? They're certainly not medical terms, and I would argue such descriptions are so general as to be meaningless.

And you would loose the argument. We are in each case dealing with sections of the abdominal wall, that taken together made up the whole wall. And they were taken away from the victims by means of cutting. There is no way that you could loose the inference. What we call the sections is of no consequence.

[John Wheat]

Well, in the case of the Torso victims the body parts could simply have been discarded, so any "similarity" may be superficial. And of course, this argument fails to recognize the fact that the Torso perpetrator, if he existed, was working to a different objective.

"Cut away in a couple of large panes" is completely meaningless without a frame of reference. Were the frames the same surface area? Was the same knife used? Was the same degree of skill exhibited? Were the perpetrators objectives the same? What does "panes" and "large flaps" mean in each context? They're certainly not medical terms, and I would argue such descriptions are so general as to be meaningless.

I'm with John G

Cheers John

[Fisherman]

I'm with John G

Cheers John

Two questions:

1. Do you agree that the more rare and odd a detail is, the larger the chance becomes that we are dealing with the same originator?

2. Do you agree that a killer cutting the abdominal wall away in large sections from his victims is very, very rare and odd?

[Pierre]

Two questions:

1. Do you agree that the more rare and odd a detail is, the larger the chance becomes that we are dealing with the same originator?

2. Do you agree that a killer cutting the abdominal wall away in large sections from his victims is very, very rare and odd?

There is always a normal distribution of x. If x is a rare and odd detail, you need a big geographical area and a long time to get the normal distribution.

Now, the murders in London and the findings of body parts is concentrated to a smaller area and shorter time. So it would be problematical to isolate those to their time and place from a statistical point of view.

On the other hand, historical thinking demands that we make an idiographical analysis of these cases.

So what you have is that you are stuck between Scylla and Charybdis. You can not pass through these historical sources without taking the risk of isolating the data and thereby misinterpret them, or thinking statistically (nomothetically) and misinterpret them again. The result will be that you have a particular and rare killer committing all these crimes - or you get two or more killers.

I think that forensic history is the most appropriate way to go with this problem. You need data connected to one specific person indicating that the killer, if it was a killer in all these cases, was the same man. On the other hand, then you also take the risk of overintepreting data and postulating the wrong killer.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes I've read it but you do not address how you would handle Lechmere if you were there. I think your right about the name and posterity of this case being tied together, but we also should put forth the fact that alot of serial killers are press or police creations. Btk, unibomber, the green River killer, the vampire of duessledorf, the yorkshire ripper. The Zodiac killer and son of Sam created their own name, so it's been done either way.

Columbo

You are right but none go as far back as 1888 so JTR was a first, and set the bar to all that followed in similar vain. Every serial killer who emereged thereafater and killed in ripper like fashion has been dubbed-------Ripper

The Yorkshire Ripper
The Camden Ripper
The Ripper Crew

So whoever wrote that Dear Boss letter and signed it JTR has a lot to answer for. But of course we know who that was dont we ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

You are right but none go as far back as 1888 so JTR was a first, and set the bar to all that followed in similar vain. Every serial killer who emereged thereafater and killed in ripper like fashion has been dubbed-------Ripper

The Yorkshire Ripper
The Camden Ripper
The Ripper Crew

So whoever wrote that Dear Boss letter and signed it JTR has a lot to answer for. But of course we know who that was dont we ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

They have to answer for nothing more than giving a name, which has been copied over the years by the press.

Could you please explain how this is linked to the thread

Steve

[Henry Flower]

Not for the first time I just don't understand what the hell Trevor is attempting, in his tortured English, to say.

If we accept that the name JTR was a fabrication then there was no such killer? But what if the killer's actual name was Jack D Ripper, but he only killed Chapman? Where does that leave your idiotic logic Trevor?

Trevor Marriott. I think that name was an invention of Trevor's parents. Therefore there is no Trevor Marriott.

[Trevor Marriott]

Not for the first time I just don't understand what the hell Trevor is attempting, in his tortured English, to say.

If we accept that the name JTR was a fabrication then there was no such killer? But what if the killer's actual name was Jack D Ripper, but he only killed Chapman? Where does that leave your idiotic logic Trevor?

Trevor Marriott. I think that name was an invention of Trevor's parents. Therefore there is no Trevor Marriott.

Right at this time I wish there wasn't, and then I would not have to read idiotic posts written by numpties like you, and several others on here. I know what I meant, everyone I speak to on this topic knows what I mean, but not some on here who are clearly permanent residents in numpty land.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[John Wheat]

Right at this time I wish there wasn't, and then I would not have to read idiotic posts written by numpties like you, and several others on here. I know what I meant, everyone I speak to on this topic knows what I mean, but not some on here who are clearly permanent residents in numpty land.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Pierre remember when I said there are those who are never civil back.

Cheers John