Charles Allen Lechmere - new suspect?

[Abby Normal]

Hi Jerry

Thanks for those quotes, and unfortunately those are some of the very descriptions that just highlights the problem I have on the issue










Three flaps, no description of shape or the angle of cutting. Size is only stated as large, that really is not particularly helpful when attempting to compare mutilations










A somewhat better description, we know that the two pieces of tissue fitted together and we are given some idea of the length, however it also says :

"consisted of two long, irregular slips taken from the abdominal walls."


We therefore do not know the actual size or shape of the tissue, and have no way of comparing the similarities or differences to the Kelly case above.








Once again there is no accurate detailed description of the shape of size or how the cuts were performed to remove the flap.









And the same applies again.


Yes there are certainly superficial similarities, it has been said that removing flaps is highly unusually in murders, however creating flaps of skin when performing a dissection is actually fairly normal. that may hint that the killer/ killers had some idea of either human or animal dissection/butchery.


If there were two separate killers at large in London at the same time, both carrying out mutilations which are like dissection/butchery, which is possible if statistically unusually, it would not be unusually if they used vaguely similar methods.


However because we have no idea of the shape and size of the flaps, or the method used, we cannot know if they are similar or not.


If the same killer was responsible I would expect there to be distinct similarities between the two sets, and from what you have so kindly posted that is not apparent!


We have superficial similarities, we can say no more I think because the precise details we need appear not to have been recorded.


In the case of Jackson we appear to have 2 long, thinnish areas of tissue (the term slips is used); whilst in the Kelly case the descriptions is of 3 large flaps, with no idea of the shape or actual size.
While that of Kelly may sound similar to Chapman, we cannot be sure as there appears to be no description at all of the flaps themselves in that case.

We also appear to have sparse information about the probably direction and type of the cuts needed to create these items of tissue.
For instance are the cuts clean and Sharpe, suggesting skill and precision or are they rough perhaps just indicating hacking.

Are the cuts made to create the flaps in the same direction on the different victims or are there random.
If it is the same killer we should expect him to repeat the method used as far as possible.


There appears to be nothing which would help to indicate the actual angle of cut, which would of course help in deciding the hand used.

It is tempting I agree to just say , well flaps, strips all the same really, however it is not.

You may not agree with me, but do you see my point Jerry?

Best wishes


Steve

All Jerry did was post quotes from sources at the time. He made no judgements on either side and your response only shows you have already made up your mind by going in my view to ridiculous extremes in detail to question their similarity. As I said before the flaps probably don't have the same amount of molecules so they're not similar?

Sorry for the hyperbole but that's what your view looks like to me.

[Kattrup]

Hi Abby

First of all Elizabeth Jackson verdict was willful murder, as was the another of the torsos. I see you conveniantly didnt address this point although it had been clearly pointed out to you.

I do not believe that I "conveniently" did not address it. I was aware of it, and Jerryd also pointed it out.

In my discussion with Fisherman, he (in effect) used the authorities' view of murder in the Jackson-case to bolster his theory. I (in effect) replied that bolstering his argument with that kind of argument meant he ought to take into account the authorities' view that Jackson was not a victim of the Ripper, as Fisherman claims she was.

I don't think I had any particular obligation to address the inquest findings as such, since I merely stated, that if Fisherman wants to convince someone of his theory, he should start by convincing them that the torso cases were actually murders. I did not comment on the inquests at all.

And besides you don't need to some official verdict, just common sense to realize that in these torso cases it's overwhelmingly probable that they were murdered.

Common sense is the least common of all senses. I agree it is likely that foul play was involved in some of these cases, but that is not the same as accepting it in all, nor accepting the same hand in all of them.

Secondly any way you look at it flaps of skin removed in several large flaps from the abdomen is similar. But yes I will agree they probably didn't contain the same amount of atoms and the shapes probably weren't exact size of a template with a 11 inch hypotenuse.

Again, I do not find the similarities as overwhelmingly obvious as you derisively seem to do. It's possible that anyone wanting access to inside the abdomen will start by slicing from sternum to pubes, and then remove some skin for improved access. Maybe it's just the most practical way to open an abdomen.

Thirdly, Jackson had much more removed than just her intestines removed for crying out loud!!

Did she? I was not aware. As I stated, I went by the Harris text in A System of Legal Medicine, 1894 (because I am unable to access the lectures he apparently made on the subject), which included the cases as recounted by Hebbert (I assume you're crying out loud about internal organs, not limbs - I am aware that she was missing some of those too, besides her foetus, of course).

Fourthly, you never responded to my response to your saying you need to show there was murder involved in the torso cases and I said what about Ed gein who started out with already dead bodies??

Frankly, I understood that to mean that you agreed with me. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
I'm guessing now that you meant that a dismemberer might have started dismembering already dead bodies, then moved on to killing people in order to dismember them?
In which case....I guess so. Are there any sources indicating that that is what happened in the 1880s? I don't think so.

[Dane_F]

Hi el
I've seen you make this point before re the flaps and for the life of me I just dont get it. I mean how can the cutting away of several large flaps of skin from the abdominal wall NOT be similar? How??

And regarding the sig- it's basically the same. Post mortem mutilator who cuts up and into the bodies of his victims, removing both internal and external organs and parts.

Any and all other similarities are just icing on the cake, and they are very numerous.

I was just about to make this same point. People trying to over complicate things to refuse accepting the obvious, that there were indeed similarities, seems silly to me.

The shape of the cuts seems largely irrelevant to me. Many of the Ripper victims had varying cuts to them as well. I'd argue anyone that includes MJK as a Ripper victim must also give credence to the possibility of the Torso murders also. MJK had just as many if not more similarities to the Jackson than other C5s.

[Abby Normal]

To Kat and el
I'm afraid you would deny you were standing in a forest because the trees are all different shapes.

At least on this issue.

[jerryd]

Also interesting to note, after reading Hebbert's notes. The two flaps HAD to be removed before the body was sectioned. Hebbert said the flaps matched at the midline and laterally corresponded to the incisions in the two lower pieces of the trunk.

This means this person mutilated the abdomen first in flaps and then sectioned her out for disposal. Going off memory, the torso's had the joints exposed and then either dis-articulated or cut through. I can't help but think of Mary Kelly's right thigh denuded to the bone up to the hip. Her right hip bone is completely exposed almost as if it could be easily dis-articulated at that point.

[Kattrup]

Also interesting to note, after reading Hebbert's notes. The two flaps HAD to be removed before the body was sectioned. Hebbert said the flaps matched at the midline and laterally corresponded to the incisions in the two lower pieces of the trunk.

This means this person mutilated the abdomen first in flaps and then sectioned her out for disposal. Going off memory, the torso's had the joints exposed and then either dis-articulated or cut through. I can't help but think of Mary Kelly's right thigh denuded to the bone up to the hip. Her right hip bone is completely exposed almost as if it could be easily dis-articulated at that point.

Interesting comparison, but I don't understand why the flaps must necessarily have been cut first?

Hebbert only states "These flaps accurately fitted together in the mid-line, and laterally corresponded to the incisions in the two lower pieces of the trunk."

I don't see why they could not have been cut after dismemberment, would you care to expand?

[Abby Normal]

I was just about to make this same point. People trying to over complicate things to refuse accepting the obvious, that there were indeed similarities, seems silly to me.

The shape of the cuts seems largely irrelevant to me. Many of the Ripper victims had varying cuts to them as well. I'd argue anyone that includes MJK as a Ripper victim must also give credence to the possibility of the Torso murders also. MJK had just as many if not more similarities to the Jackson than other C5s.

Bingo

[jerryd]

Interesting comparison, but I don't understand why the flaps must necessarily have been cut first?

Hebbert only states "These flaps accurately fitted together in the mid-line, and laterally corresponded to the incisions in the two lower pieces of the trunk."

I don't see why they could not have been cut after dismemberment, would you care to expand?

Hi Kattrup,

The trunk was divided in the following manner. The first portion of the trunk included the shoulders and upper portion of the back. The head had been taken off opposite the 6th cervical vertebra. This part was separated below at the junction of the 7th and 8th dorsal vertebra. (about the bottom of the shoulder blades) The second portion of the trunk included both breasts and the upper part of the abdomen as far as the intervertebral substance between the 3rd and 4th lumbar vertebrae. (the top of the hip bones) The third portion consisted of the pelvis from below the 3rd lumbar vertebra.

If the flaps included the genital parts, which they did, and the genital parts were part of the pelvic region, which they are, but the flaps also included the umbilicus which would have been in portion 2 of the torso not in portion 3 (pelvic) it must be they were removed prior to dissection. How can you get a continuous length flap covering two section of a dissected corpse. In other words, the lateral cut at the 3rd and 4th lumbar that divided that part of the trunk would also have divided the flap, making 4 parts, unless the flaps were taken before the dissection of the torso.

Wow, that is hard to write in words to get a point across! Does that make sense to you?

[Kattrup]

Hi Kattrup,

The trunk was divided in the following manner. The first portion of the trunk included the shoulders and upper portion of the back. The head had been taken off opposite the 6th cervical vertebra. This part was separated below at the junction of the 7th and 8th dorsal vertebra. (about the bottom of the shoulder blades) The second portion of the trunk included both breasts and the upper part of the abdomen as far as the intervertebral substance between the 3rd and 4th lumbar vertebrae. (the top of the hip bones) The third portion consisted of the pelvis from below the 3rd lumbar vertebra.

If the flaps included the genital parts, which they did, and the genital parts were part of the pelvic region, which they are, but the flaps also included the umbilicus which would have been in portion 2 of the torso not in portion 3 (pelvic) it must be they were removed prior to dissection. How can you get a continuous length flap covering two section of a dissected corpse. In other words, the lateral cut at the 3rd and 4th lumbar that divided that part of the trunk would also have divided the flap, making 4 parts, unless the flaps were taken before the dissection of the torso.

Wow, that is hard to write in words to get a point across! Does that make sense to you?

well, that is an excellent point


While the good doctor takes his cues from the vertebra, perhaps that is only a guide as regards the back - here he describes the second piece: "The ribs from the fourth downward were present ; the lower border showed a clearly defined skin margin from the back at the junction of the third and fourth lumbar vertebrae to a point an inch and a half above the umbilicus on the left side, and a point just below the umbilicus on the right side."

So I'm not sure it's certain that the navel was on the second piece?

But now I'm wondering what exactly is meant by "These flaps accurately fitted together in the mid-line, and laterally corresponded to the incisions in the two lower pieces of the trunk."

My understanding was that the midline=the center line of the chest upwards/downwards. Laterally=across the body, left/right.

But how can the flaps correspond to lateral incisions on the two lower pieces?

[jerryd]

well, that is an excellent point


While the good doctor takes his cues from the vertebra, perhaps that is only a guide as regards the back - here he describes the second piece: "The ribs from the fourth downward were present ; the lower border showed a clearly defined skin margin from the back at the junction of the third and fourth lumbar vertebrae to a point an inch and a half above the umbilicus on the left side, and a point just below the umbilicus on the right side."

So I'm not sure it's certain that the navel was on the second piece?

But now I'm wondering what exactly is meant by "These flaps accurately fitted together in the mid-line, and laterally corresponded to the incisions in the two lower pieces of the trunk."

My understanding was that the midline=the center line of the chest upwards/downwards. Laterally=across the body, left/right.

But how can the flaps correspond to lateral incisions on the two lower pieces?

Top and bottom. The top lateral cut was in portion 2 ("The ribs from the fourth downward were present ; the lower border showed a clearly defined skin margin from the back at the junction of the third and fourth lumbar vertebrae to a point an inch and a half above the umbilicus on the left side, and a point just below the umbilicus on the right side.") and the bottom lateral cut in portion 3.(around the inner thighs of the legs, so a cut around the genital area to remove the flaps) The legs must have still been attached to include part of the buttock in the flap.

It's important to remember one big thing here. These flaps may have been irregular or appeared different because Elizabeth was about 7 months pregnant. Imagine this dissection on a bloated belly, if you will. Also important to remember when we speak of this murder, there were actually two murders that night. Elizabeth and her 7 month old fetus.

[Kattrup]

Top and bottom.

Ah, ok. That was my original understanding, just started thinking about the plurals "incisions" and "lower pieces" too much!


So, point taken - the flaps were removed before dismembering. Thanks

[Columbo]

It is not unusual that a killer cuts the abdominal wall away from his victim/s...? Abdominal mutilations are totally rare to begin with. And when they occur, they will typically involve a cutting open of the abdomen (and organ retrieval at times), but they will NOT involve cutting the abdominal wall away in large sections, Columbo. Where did you get that from? Do you have any examples? I have been searching high and low for such cases, but I fail to find them.

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

[jerryd]

Ah, ok. That was my original understanding, just started thinking about the plurals "incisions" and "lower pieces" too much!


So, point taken - the flaps were removed before dismembering. Thanks

If I am correct in that reasoning, then the question becomes, why would an accidental death (abortion for example) become such a spectacle? Why would this person take the time to mutilate the corpse before dissecting it, if the sole purpose was for body disposal?

[Columbo]

Hi Columbo


This is frustrating. Ive seen this mistake a thousand times on here. whats the MO in both series?

we know the probable MO in the ripper case. Ruse as being a customer, getting victim to secluded spot, sudden attack, possible strangulation-incapacitating the victim, cutting throat.

we don't know the MO the torso used, so how can you say different MO?

And if your getting MO and sig mixed up, as apparently many on here do-the sig is virtually the same-post mortem mutilation and removal of body parts.

The APPARENT difference in MO could simply be a function of availability of a bolt hole.

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

[Dane_F]

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

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.