Charles Allen Lechmere - new suspect?

[jerryd]

To Fisherman

Just out of interest who are these presumably numerous people who do think JTR and The Torso Killer are one and the same?

Cheers John

I am one, but, I have different theories on who the killer/s may be than Christer. I haven't discounted Lechmere at this point, but he is also not my top choice.

[Dane_F]

Just wanted to say that while I completely disagree with Fisher about Lechmere, I respect that he has presented his theory and has built an interesting case - even if flawed in my eyes.


On the subject of the torso killer, I find the odds that JTR and The Torso Killer are one in the same to be at least plausible. The MJK murder had what I feel as far more similarities to a torso murder than a ripper one. If someone accepts that MJK was killed by The Ripper then that had to open up the possibility of the torso murders.

There's also the fact that genital mutulations were found in at least a couple of the torso victims. The odds that there would be two serial killers operating in the same general area, at the same general time, both showing signs of genital mutulations (which according to some researchers is extremely rare) feels just as far fetched to me as saying the Ripper and the Torso Killer were one-in-the-same. Both feel equal odds to me.

[John Wheat]

John Wheat: To Fisherman

I was talking about my last post.

Were you now? How does that change that thinking people are illogical means that the "common opinion" that the torso man and the Ripper are not one and the same is by extension therefore illogical?

Yes I think you're theory is ludicrous and so do many, many others.

No, they donīt. Contrary to you, I think most people are familar with simple logic.

Which should indicate to you that it is

So your assertion that there are people who think my theory is bad should indicate to me that it is?
So if I think you are a waste of space, it follows that you are? How interesting! Do elaborate on how that works!

But as I said you're illogical.

But why would I or anybody else care what you say, John? Give me one good reason. Because you are well informed? Because you are a truly discerning man? Because history has regularly proven you right on previous occasions? Because you have a conception of yourself that borders on narcissism?
There are so many possibilities. Which is it? Iīm sure the posters who spend a very sad Sunday evening reading this are dying to know.

So what do I expect? Just out of interest who are these presumably numerous people who do think JTR and The Torso Killer are one and the same?

You are going to have to wait and see. I canīt do all the work for you, John.

Lets be honest Fisherman I think many people at least think you're theory is ludicrous if not a complete and utter crackpot theory. If you don't care what I think why are you continually answering my posts? As I said though you are illogical which you keep on proving. As you haven't answered who these numerous people are I'm going to assume there aren't actually that many unless you can demonstrate who these people are. Every Ripper book I have ever read indicate that the author or author's believe JTR and The Torso Killer are not one and the same or at the very least don't make the connection that they are one and the same.

Cheers John

[John Wheat]

I am one, but, I have different theories on who the killer/s may be than Christer. I haven't discounted Lechmere at this point, but he is also not my top choice.

It seems Lechmere isn't many peoples top choice. Not that that's a surprise.

[John Wheat]

Just wanted to say that while I completely disagree with Fisher about Lechmere, I respect that he has presented his theory and has built an interesting case - even if flawed in my eyes.


On the subject of the torso killer, I find the odds that JTR and The Torso Killer are one in the same to be at least plausible. The MJK murder had what I feel as far more similarities to a torso murder than a ripper one. If someone accepts that MJK was killed by The Ripper then that had to open up the possibility of the torso murders.

There's also the fact that genital mutulations were found in at least a couple of the torso victims. The odds that there would be two serial killers operating in the same general area, at the same general time, both showing signs of genital mutulations (which according to some researchers is extremely rare) feels just as far fetched to me as saying the Ripper and the Torso Killer were one-in-the-same. Both feel equal odds to me.

To Dane F

Isn't it more that Christer has fabricated a case for Lechmere out of nothing. Which I don't think is remotely interesting. But JTR and The Torso Killer did not operate in the same area. JTR largely operated in Whitechapel and The Torso Killer operated all over London.

Cheers John

[Fisherman]

John Wheat: Lets be honest Fisherman I think many people at least think you're theory is ludicrous if not a complete and utter crackpot theory. If you don't care what I think why are you continually answering my posts?

Because I donīt like how you present me and the theory I stand for.

As you can see for yourself now, others are not very eager to buy into your thoughts either. And - Iīm sorry for being frank - contrary to you, we are talking about posters who have shown deep insight into the case(s).

A perfect example would be how you now say that "JTR and The Torso Killer did not operate in the same area. JTR largely operated in Whitechapel and The Torso Killer operated all over London."

Since when is Whitechapel NOT London? And since when did the Ripper kill in Whitechapel only? And since when do we know that the Torso killer operated "all over London"? And since when are serial killers who have killed in a London district prohibited to kill in another? And since when is a carman disenabled to reach throughout London?

Arrogance. How often it goes hand in hand with ignorance...!

But by all means, keep it coming. Itīs highly educative. In some ways.

[John G]

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 donīt 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, letīs 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 donīt 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.

Just a couple of observations until I have more time to respond in detail. The fact that body parts were missing from the Torso victims is hardly earth shattering: the perpetrator(s) was after all trying to dispose of a body.

And how do you know the way the bodies were cut up was extremely rare? Please cite authority. And how do you know Chapman and Kelly were killed by the same perpetrator?

And are you seriously suggesting that you've discovered a serial killer who liked to cut his victims up into panes? Anyway, such a reference is pretty vague and ambitious, and certainly isn't a medical term, and in no way implies the same perpetrator was involved. In fact, not a single doctor at the time considered this matter remotely relevant in terms of linking the crimes. Moreover, whoever murdered Kelly clearly did so in a frenzy, implying that the cuts were more or less random with no particular design being evident.

And then there's Dr Biggs, a real medical expert, who noted that dismemberers tend to adopt similar strategies, with the consequences that the results look pretty similar in the end. As he acutely observes, " If you look at a series of unrelated dismemberment bodies, you will see some startling similarities between them" (Marriott, 2013).

I'm sorry, but all you've done is look through the texts and said to yourself, "wow, this victim was cut up into four panes, and here's another one cut up into three panes, obviously the same killer!" I mean, do you seriously think you've discovered a connection that completely alluded the medical experts at the time, who also had the advantage of examining the bodies? And Dr Phillips, don't forget, was involved in both sets of crimes and be certainly didn't discern any sort of connection

Never mind that there's zero evidence that the cuts were made in the same way, by a killer exhibiting the same level of skill, or using the same implements. In fact, the Torso perpetrator(s) used a saw, which JtR, if he existed, didn't.

Meanwhile, you totally ignore more important evidence such as two radically different signatures; and one killer who was clearly a marauder-because he had no access to transport and lived locally-whilst the other was a commuter-because the opposite was true.

And that's assuming there was one JtR and one torso killer, which there might not have been.

[John G]

John Wheat: Lets be honest Fisherman I think many people at least think you're theory is ludicrous if not a complete and utter crackpot theory. If you don't care what I think why are you continually answering my posts?

Because I donīt like how you present me and the theory I stand for.

As you can see for yourself now, others are not very eager to buy into your thoughts either. And - Iīm sorry for being frank - contrary to you, we are talking about posters who have shown deep insight into the case(s).

A perfect example would be how you now say that "JTR and The Torso Killer did not operate in the same area. JTR largely operated in Whitechapel and The Torso Killer operated all over London."

Since when is Whitechapel NOT London? And since when did the Ripper kill in Whitechapel only? And since when do we know that the Torso killer operated "all over London"? And since when are serial killers who have killed in a London district prohibited to kill in another? And since when is a carman disenabled to reach throughout London?

Arrogance. How often it goes hand in hand with ignorance...!

But by all means, keep it coming. Itīs highly educative. In some ways.

JtR operated over an extremely small geographical area, however you define the location. The torso killer operated over a much larger area, and obviously had access to transport, which JtR obviously didn't.

[Pierre]

Cross is connected to the scene of Nichols killing.Not much doubt of that.There is no physical evidence that connects him to her murder.To kill her he would have had to be in her company at the time of death.That cannot be proven.
It is this lack of connection that is the stumbling block.That he might have lied about the time he was there,might seem a reasonable supposition,but how to prove it.Untill that is done,all talk of Cross as a suspect,is just talk.

It wasnīt Cross. He was innocent.

Pierre

[Pierre]

JtR operated over an extremely small geographical area, however you define the location. The torso killer operated over a much larger area, and obviously had access to transport, which JtR obviously didn't.

Anyone who needed it could use a hansom cab.

Anyone who could afford to pay for it could rent a horse and carriage.

Anyone with some money could stay wherever it suited him.

[Pierre]

Just a couple of observations until I have more time to respond in detail. The fact that body parts were missing from the Torso victims is hardly earth shattering: the perpetrator(s) was after all trying to dispose of a body.

And how do you know the way the bodies were cut up was extremely rare? Please cite authority. And how do you know Chapman and Kelly were killed by the same perpetrator?

And are you seriously suggesting that you've discovered a serial killer who liked to cut his victims up into panes? Anyway, such a reference is pretty vague and ambitious, and certainly isn't a medical term, and in no way implies the same perpetrator was involved. In fact, not a single doctor at the time considered this matter remotely relevant in terms of linking the crimes. Moreover, whoever murdered Kelly clearly did so in a frenzy, implying that the cuts were more or less random with no particular design being evident.

And then there's Dr Biggs, a real medical expert, who noted that dismemberers tend to adopt similar strategies, with the consequences that the results look pretty similar in the end. As he acutely observes, " If you look at a series of unrelated dismemberment bodies, you will see some startling similarities between them" (Marriott, 2013).

I'm sorry, but all you've done is look through the texts and said to yourself, "wow, this victim was cut up into four panes, and here's another one cut up into three panes, obviously the same killer!" I mean, do you seriously think you've discovered a connection that completely alluded the medical experts at the time, who also had the advantage of examining the bodies? And Dr Phillips, don't forget, was involved in both sets of crimes and be certainly didn't discern any sort of connection

Never mind that there's zero evidence that the cuts were made in the same way, by a killer exhibiting the same level of skill, or using the same implements. In fact, the Torso perpetrator(s) used a saw, which JtR, if he existed, didn't.

Meanwhile, you totally ignore more important evidence such as two radically different signatures; and one killer who was clearly a marauder-because he had no access to transport and lived locally-whilst the other was a commuter-because the opposite was true.

And that's assuming there was one JtR and one torso killer, which there might not have been.

We see it from the C-5 point of view.

Look at it from the point of view of the Whitehall victim and the Pinchin Street victim.

What do the C-5 show us compared to those two?

[Abby Normal]

Just wanted to say that while I completely disagree with Fisher about Lechmere, I respect that he has presented his theory and has built an interesting case - even if flawed in my eyes.


On the subject of the torso killer, I find the odds that JTR and The Torso Killer are one in the same to be at least plausible. The MJK murder had what I feel as far more similarities to a torso murder than a ripper one. If someone accepts that MJK was killed by The Ripper then that had to open up the possibility of the torso murders.

There's also the fact that genital mutulations were found in at least a couple of the torso victims. The odds that there would be two serial killers operating in the same general area, at the same general time, both showing signs of genital mutulations (which according to some researchers is extremely rare) feels just as far fetched to me as saying the Ripper and the Torso Killer were one-in-the-same. Both feel equal odds to me.

Hi Dane
Good post. Not only did they both exhibit genital mutilation, both removed and took away internal organs. This is very very rare trait in serial killers. Add to that the specific way in which the abdominal flaps of skin were removed and that the two series were in the same time and place then I think we're probably looking at the same killer.

[Pierre]

We see it from the C-5 point of view.

Look at it from the point of view of the Whitehall victim and the Pinchin Street victim.

What do the C-5 show us compared to those two?

They show us that the choice of dates is significant in all these cases.

[Fisherman]

John G:Just a couple of observations until I have more time to respond in detail. The fact that body parts were missing from the Torso victims is hardly earth shattering: the perpetrator(s) was after all trying to dispose of a body.

Why would he take the organs out before he did that, then? Why did he remove the heart and lungs of the Rainham victim? Why did he take out the uterus of Elizabeth Jackson, instead of leaving it in and dumping the whole pelvis part in the river? Why would a killer who divided a body in parts first open the abdomen from sternum to pubes? Why was this done of the sole purpose was to dispose of the body?

And how do you know the way the bodies were cut up was extremely rare? Please cite authority. And how do you know Chapman and Kelly were killed by the same perpetrator?

The authority is an extensive search I have done that turned up no other cases but for one, where the killer cut up and dried the body for future eating purposes. So now it is up to you to find more cases. Until that happens, my words stand.

And are you seriously suggesting that you've discovered a serial killer who liked to cut his victims up into panes?

His victimīs abdominal walls, John G. And I am not suggesting it, it is on record. It is historical fact. And I did not discover it, the medicos did, and then Debra Arif noted it in, I think, 2008.
It seems you have not noted it yet, however? Wakie-wakie, John!

Anyway, such a reference is pretty vague and ambitious, and certainly isn't a medical term, and in no way implies the same perpetrator was involved.

It is nit vague at all. Chapmans abdominal wall was cut away in four panes, Kellys was cut away in three and Jacksons in two. What is "vague" about that? And "ambitious"...?

In fact, not a single doctor at the time considered this matter remotely relevant in terms of linking the crimes.

And this you know, since...? Did you read Cris Malones post, where he suggests that Phillips may have coupled Kelly to Chapman on account of the cut away panes?

Moreover, whoever murdered Kelly clearly did so in a frenzy, implying that the cuts were more or less random with no particular design being evident.

No, Kelly was not killed in a frenzy. She was killed according to a rather elaborate scheme, where the cuts all made sense.
Can I prove that? No, not conclusively, but I can come pretty close. <then again, how do youn suppose to prove the frenzy...?

And then there's Dr Biggs, a real medical expert, who noted that dismemberers tend to adopt similar strategies, with the consequences that the results look pretty similar in the end. As he acutely observes, " If you look at a series of unrelated dismemberment bodies, you will see some startling similarities between them" (Marriott, 2013).

Dr Biggs was of the meaning that all dismemberment cases were sloppy affairs with messy cutting and fraying. He clearly had no idea whatsoever what the very rare Thames torso cases looked like. Quoting Biggs on this will serve your case the same way quoting the American independence declaration will - not at all, since neither touches on the case under discussion.

I'm sorry, but all you've done is look through the texts and said to yourself, "wow, this victim was cut up into four panes, and here's another one cut up into three panes, obviously the same killer!"

No, That was not me, that was the complete idiot Debra Arif back in 2008. Debs, you know, who have no clue about the torso cases...?
What I have done is to say "Wow, Debra recognized this back in 2008, itīs time it got recognized. Then I have coupled the cases to what I am certain is the inspiration behind them, but I am not telling you what it is. It will come, but not today.

I mean, do you seriously think you've discovered a connection that completely alluded the medical experts at the time, who also had the advantage of examining the bodies?

No, I think Debra has.

And Dr Phillips, don't forget, was involved in both sets of crimes and be certainly didn't discern any sort of connection

To what degree was Phillips involved in the Jackson case? The doctors of the time didnīt even realize that the torso murders were evisceration murders. They believed it was a question of disposing bodies. We know better today.

And overall, why would not somebody today be able to make a connection that was not made then? Hm? Do cold cases get solved at times, on account of somebody putting two and two together?
It seems to me that you are trying to paint me out as a case of narcissism, and I donīt appreciate that at all, John.

Never mind that there's zero evidence that the cuts were made in the same way, by a killer exhibiting the same level of skill, or using the same implements. In fact, the Torso perpetrator(s) used a saw, which JtR, if he existed, didn't.

So the Ripper did not carry a saw with himself? Big surprise! And the fact that he did not, guarantees that he would never use a saw if he had the opportunity, in a secluded bolthole for example?

And I will tell you what: If the abdominal wall panes were cut with a saw in one case and a knife in another, it would STILL point to the same killer. In reality, they were not, however: we have three cases where women had their abdominal walls away in large sections with the aid of a knife, therefore, in the same town, at the same time. Any investigator would be 100 per cent convinced that it was done by the same killer - and he would be spot on.

Meanwhile, you totally ignore more important evidence such as two radically different signatures.

Do I now? So which are the differing signatures?

...and one killer who was clearly a marauder-because he had no access to transport and lived locally-whilst the other was a commuter-because the opposite was true.

If Lechmere, then he HAD access to transport. We cannot possibly know why the Ripper killed in the open streets, but the thrill of it is a very possible explanation. Your reasoning is, sadly, very, very shallow on this point.

And that's assuming there was one JtR and one torso killer, which there might not have been.

There was certainly two serialists active, one responsible for a number of street killings, the other for a series of torso murders. Both series are extremely rare, and the odds that there was five Rippers and seven torso killers is a foolsīhope in a discussion that cannot be won.

I would like for you to answer my post 114, please, if you can find the time.

[Fisherman]

JtR operated over an extremely small geographical area, however you define the location. The torso killer operated over a much larger area, and obviously had access to transport, which JtR obviously didn't.

Let me get this straight, then:

A killer who kills in the open streets must do so because he has no access to a vehicle, is that it? If he had had a vehicle, he would not kill in the open streets, did I get that right?

If i posit that a serialist, with a total disrespect of peoples lives, could enjoy to kill out in the open streets for the sheer suspense and for the hell of it, would you disagree?
If I posit that such a serialist must not be a man of no means and with no trnsport, would you disagree?
If i say that a man who kills in a bolthole, taking his time eviscerating his victims, then dumping them in the Thames and around London, could well develop a disrespect for the ability of the police ti catch him, and start to mix his bolthole killings up with open street murder, would you call it impossible?

The damage done very clearly indicates the same murderer. That is all that counts what is done to the victims. The rarer it is - and these are EXTREMELY rare deeds, evisceration deeds always were - the more certin the shared identity becomes. The totally non-vague cutting away of the abdominal walls puts it beyond reasonable doubt, as well as unreasonable doubt.
You are about to find yourself in a quickly diminishing group of traditionalists, if I am not much mistaken, John.