Charles Allen Lechmere - new suspect?

[Fisherman]

The mutilations while superficial similar are quite different if one looks in real detail, the continual talk of 2, 3 or 4 flaps or panels of flesh being removed and proving a link, is interesting, and potentially important, but ultimately misleading

There is actually no detailed documentation available, as far as I am aware, to show that these generic descriptions (flaps or panels, which ever term one wishes to use) infact show any similarity at all.

I have discussed this with Fisherman at length and of course he does not give an inch, however there is nothing at present to show these items of flesh were even remotely alike, or were removed by a similar means.

Of course such a lack of data does not mean that they are not alike, just that generic descriptions do not give enough detail to make a comparison on.

Steve

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, 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

Skinning or flaying people is one thing, but removing solely the abdominal walls in sections is another, Columbo. To compare to these murders, you donīt need somebody who skinned a victim, you need somebody who took away the skin and subcutaneous tissue covering the inner organs of the abdominal cavity, leaving the rest of the skin on the body (if we look at Chapman and Jackson, Kelly had added damage).

[Fisherman]

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.

This is all-important! Finding one or two or three comparisons does not mean that the removal of an abdominal wall in sections is something that we should expect to happen - on the contrary. It would only show that it only happens in the fewest of cases, and is therefore incredibly, incredibly rare. And I am still waiting for anybody to show me such a case. As I said before, I found one (1) case only, where the rest of the circumstances were entirely different.

[Fisherman]

I may not have answered each and every one - especially not Kattrup - but I feel that much of what I would have said has been said by others.

I will add that I find the overall resistance to the idea of a shared identity both responsible (we cannot posit as facts what cannot be facts) and confusing (why would the murders NOT be of the same hand, considering the similarities?).

In the end, when we have two cases in the same city, where women have had their abdomens cut open from sternum to pubes and organs removed, that in itself should be regarded as very probably being the work of the same man. It applies here too; it is quite enough to make that call of probability.

In this case, we can also see that we have an addition of a very rare element, so there really cannot be any doubt about what call of probability we must make.

Those who dislike the idea can always take comfort in the fact that it cannot be said to be a conclusively proven thing - but it IS an overwhelming likelihood, nevertheless.

I am sometimes uncertain what people are arguing. Some seem to be arguing that the similaritites are not enough to make the call of probability that I am proposing, and I feel safe to say that they are wrong. Others seem to propose that we avoid to accept as a fact that the two series had one originator only, and I can understand that view. We cannot conclusively lay down that there was just the one killer, I agree with that. But a sound investigation should work from the presumption nevertheless. Leaving other doors ajar is always a good thing, but thatīs as far as I will stretch things.

[John G]

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.

What do you mean about killers were highly skilled with a knife? That is wild speculation on your part, at least as regards JtR, where the medical opinion was conflicting.

And I don't know why you keep going on about similarities between Kelly and Chapman. Kelly was subjected to a frenzied knife attack with no evidence of skill or design whatsoever. In fact,Dr Phillips' described the assault as "most wanton."

And as I've already noted, Dr Biggs, who unlike yourself is medically qualified, as already pointed out that there are often "startling similarities" between two unconnected dismemberment cases, which completely contradicts your argument!

But then again, I suppose ignoring the medical testimony, and expert forensic opinion, so undermines your argument that it's understandable.

And have you forgotten that the crime signatures were totally different?

[John G]

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

Excellent post, Steve, which Fish seems to have partly conceded in 241!

[John G]

I do not know whether it is unheard of in murder cases, - it may very well be - but it does seem to be a very practical approach when opening up a body in order to rummage around the insides.

We know that both Chapman and Kelly were definitely murdered, and, I agree, by the same hand.


I believe this is a misrepresentation of sorts. You clearly equate the technique and area involved, inducing the belief that they were very similar.

I fail to see clear similarities. The comparable cuts to Elizabeth Jackson were two, one encompassing the navel and left side of the external sexual organs, the other the right side of same extending down to the buttock.

I think such two cuts to be a rather different, and smaller, matter than the "large sections" of some undetermined but by implication larger number.

Particularly because the purpose of making the cuts in Chapman and Kelly cases seems clear: gaining access to the insides, so organs could be extracted.

The purpose of the cuts in Elizabeth Jackson seems less clear, since the body itself had been divided.

As mentioned, Chapman and Kelly were definitely murdered. They therefore fell prey to someone.

Jackson is not known to have been murdered. Arguably, she therefore cannot be said to have fallen prey to anyone.

I think it is a reasonable suggestion, but not as selfevident as you make it. The authorities at the time did not consider it so.

I disagree, since the torso cases are different and are spread over such a long period, bundling them all together and saying murder's the most probable suggestion for all of them is untenable.

I disagree. Someone murdered both Chapman and Kelly. There are some superficial similarities to Jackson in how her body was cut after death (the "flaps of skin"), but no clear indication that she was murdered, and the only organs missing were the intestines, which the Chapman/Kelly-murderer disregarded (I suggest they were only missing because nothing was holding them in after Jackson's body was divided up, so the dismemberer had to take them out).

Historically, the authorities believed that Jackson was not a victim of the Ripper.

I think it would be to prefer if it could be conceded that the case for murder is not as clear -cut as you make it out to be.


Particularly when discussing the cases as a whole - lumping them all together as "victims" is misleading. Some are more likely to be murder victims than others, I believe. Finding a dismembered torso does not necessarily mean anyone was murdered - though it does warrant further investigation.

I should add that I have been unable to find the lectures given by Hebbert (and Bond?) on some of the torso cases, I don't know if they are available online somewhere?

An excellent, well thought out post, which I completely agree with.

[John Wheat]

Like I said, I wish you a long, calm and joyful life. If ever you should take up the interest of ripperology and develop some sort of thinking related to it, I will gladly take up our discussions again. But it will take more than your assertion that I am wrong and you are right. It will take argument built under by knwoledge and an understanding of the case. There is no need whatsoever for you to agree with me, you are wyite welcome to disagree - but you need to be able to explain on what griunds you do so. As it stands, you emerge like a mixture of a ripperologist wannabee and a football hooligan. And I am not interested in the kind of debate such a thing would give rise to.

I said you're wrong because there is no evidence to suggest Lechmere is even in the running for being the Ripper. All he did was find a body. Big deal someone had to. You can't convict someone for finding a body. You come across as a complete buffoon who for whatever reason is keen to convict a clearly innocent man on utter bullshit.

[John Wheat]

What do you mean about killers were highly skilled with a knife? That is wild speculation on your part, at least as regards JtR, where the medical opinion was conflicting.

And I don't know why you keep going on about similarities between Kelly and Chapman. Kelly was subjected to a frenzied knife attack with no evidence of skill or design whatsoever. In fact,Dr Phillips' described the assault as "most wanton."

And as I've already noted, Dr Biggs, who unlike yourself is medically qualified, as already pointed out that there are often "startling similarities" between two unconnected dismemberment cases, which completely contradicts your argument!

But then again, I suppose ignoring the medical testimony, and expert forensic opinion, so undermines your argument that it's understandable.

And have you forgotten that the crime signatures were totally different?

I agree 100% John and as usual Fisherman is completely wrong.

[John Wheat]

I do not know whether it is unheard of in murder cases, - it may very well be - but it does seem to be a very practical approach when opening up a body in order to rummage around the insides.

We know that both Chapman and Kelly were definitely murdered, and, I agree, by the same hand.


I believe this is a misrepresentation of sorts. You clearly equate the technique and area involved, inducing the belief that they were very similar.

I fail to see clear similarities. The comparable cuts to Elizabeth Jackson were two, one encompassing the navel and left side of the external sexual organs, the other the right side of same extending down to the buttock.

I think such two cuts to be a rather different, and smaller, matter than the "large sections" of some undetermined but by implication larger number.

Particularly because the purpose of making the cuts in Chapman and Kelly cases seems clear: gaining access to the insides, so organs could be extracted.

The purpose of the cuts in Elizabeth Jackson seems less clear, since the body itself had been divided.

As mentioned, Chapman and Kelly were definitely murdered. They therefore fell prey to someone.

Jackson is not known to have been murdered. Arguably, she therefore cannot be said to have fallen prey to anyone.

I think it is a reasonable suggestion, but not as selfevident as you make it. The authorities at the time did not consider it so.

I disagree, since the torso cases are different and are spread over such a long period, bundling them all together and saying murder's the most probable suggestion for all of them is untenable.

I disagree. Someone murdered both Chapman and Kelly. There are some superficial similarities to Jackson in how her body was cut after death (the "flaps of skin"), but no clear indication that she was murdered, and the only organs missing were the intestines, which the Chapman/Kelly-murderer disregarded (I suggest they were only missing because nothing was holding them in after Jackson's body was divided up, so the dismemberer had to take them out).

Historically, the authorities believed that Jackson was not a victim of the Ripper.

I think it would be to prefer if it could be conceded that the case for murder is not as clear -cut as you make it out to be.


Particularly when discussing the cases as a whole - lumping them all together as "victims" is misleading. Some are more likely to be murder victims than others, I believe. Finding a dismembered torso does not necessarily mean anyone was murdered - though it does warrant further investigation.

I should add that I have been unable to find the lectures given by Hebbert (and Bond?) on some of the torso cases, I don't know if they are available online somewhere?

Hi Katrup

I largely agree with what you are saying. However the only sensible conclusion is that Jackson was murdered and in all likeliness by a different hand than Chapman or Kelly. However it suits some and there frankly **** pet theories to suggest that JTR and The Torso Killer were one and the same.

Cheers John

[John Wheat]

Like I said, I wish you a long, calm and joyful life. If ever you should take up the interest of ripperology and develop some sort of thinking related to it, I will gladly take up our discussions again. But it will take more than your assertion that I am wrong and you are right. It will take argument built under by knwoledge and an understanding of the case. There is no need whatsoever for you to agree with me, you are wyite welcome to disagree - but you need to be able to explain on what griunds you do so. As it stands, you emerge like a mixture of a ripperologist wannabee and a football hooligan. And I am not interested in the kind of debate such a thing would give rise to.

What knowledge you do have in Ripperology is twisted in some bizarre and perverse quest to convict Lechmere on nothing. And whenever anyone disagrees with your ludicrous theory you start hurling around second rate insults.

[harry]

I am aware of your claim regarding the blood evidence,Fisherman.I am also aw are of other claims regarding the blood evidence.One source puts clotting as from 3-15 minutes after death,and each case is of an individual character.
Mys elf,I w ould believe that the blood around the neck wounds of Nichols could still be of a fluid nature,after 7 minutes,and give an impression of ooze.

[Trevor Marriott]

Jerry

very true, I think it is clear that Jackson at least, and probably all the torso victims were murdered.


Steve

Where is it clear, and on what basis ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

John G: What do you mean about killers were highly skilled with a knife? That is wild speculation on your part, at least as regards JtR, where the medical opinion was conflicting.

I am referring to how Phillips said that the uterus and part of the bladder was taken out from Chapman "with one sweep of the knife". Clearly, this impressed Phillips a lot, and he reasoned that only a surgeon or a man with much anatomical skill could have done it.
I am quite aware that other doctors thought that little or no skill was evident in the Ripper murders, but this stands out.

And I don't know why you keep going on about similarities between Kelly and Chapman. Kelly was subjected to a frenzied knife attack with no evidence of skill or design whatsoever. In fact,Dr Phillips' described the assault as "most wanton."

They both had theor abdominal walls removed in large sections, John. That is a very clear similarity. There were also notches to the spinal column, but first and foremost, the removed abdominal walls is a very apparent similarity.
As for the frenzy you speak about, I think you should be careful to first speak about "wild speculation" on my part, only to then move on to speculating yourself. Kelly was much cut, but there may well have been method involoved to a very large degree anyway, making it something else than a frenzy.

And as I've already noted, Dr Biggs, who unlike yourself is medically qualified, as already pointed out that there are often "startling similarities" between two unconnected dismemberment cases, which completely contradicts your argument!

Forget about Biggs.

But then again, I suppose ignoring the medical testimony, and expert forensic opinion, so undermines your argument that it's understandable.

What I see is you trying to ignore a mountain of similarities inbetween the victims. When it comes to Biggs, there is nothing to ignore since he did not comment on the torso victims at all.

And have you forgotten that the crime signatures were totally different?

One cannot forget what one has never known. How would you describe the signatures, John? Please tell me.

[Fisherman]

...utter bullshit.

A self-declaration as good as any.