Lechmere Continuation Thread

[Harry D]

Since I know close to nothing about them, I'll let someone else start with this question:

Why do people think they're connected?

Best guess? Because they were a series of overlapping, post-mortem mutilation murders that displayed varying degrees of surgical skill.

[John G]

That would be a fine discussion. We've seem to have pumped the well dry as far as everything else. I don't much about the torso killings and would find that very enligtening to see if we can discuss and possibly link them.

Columbo

I disagree about the knife skills argument. The Torso victims indicate a perpetrator(s) who may have had the ability to cut up bodies in a reasonably skilled way, such as the sort of skill a hunter or butcher might have. However, there is no indication of anatomical knowledge, or the ability to skilfully remove human organs. In fact, it is my understanding that the "cut and slash" method is employed at abattoir when removing organs, so a butcher wouldn't be expected to have acquired such a skill.

In sharp contrast, Dr Phillips believed Chapman's killer had anatomical knowledge, and may have been an expert surgeon. In fact, based upon Dr Phillips' conclusions the police made enquiries at London Hospital, and identified three possible suspects. See also: http://www.casebook.org/press_report...l?printer=true (The Star interviewed Dr Phillips, and commented that he had always believed that Chapman's killer had "considerable surgical knowledge."

If anything, even more skill was demonstrated in the removal of Eddowes kidney and uterus-see, for example the opinion of Ian Calder and Philip Harrison (Marriott, 2013).

It's also worth pointing out that the Torso perpetrator(s) presumably operated under reasonable lighting conditions and no time pressures. In contrast, Chapman and Eddowes' killer worked on appallingly lighting conditions, and extreme time pressures.

Of course, regarding the Torso crimes, there is no proof that the same perpetrator was involved. In fact, I believe Debra A has pointed out that there were differences in the way the bodies were cut up into sections, although in two cases there were striking similarities. And Dr Biggs as stated that dismemberers tend to adopt similar strategies, so the end result can look very similar.

[John G]

Could I just point out that my favourite candidate for JtR, Francis Thompson, trained for 6 years as a surgeon? Just thought I'd mention it!

[Ginger]

I disagree about the knife skills argument. The Torso victims indicate a perpetrator(s) who may have had the ability to cut up bodies in a reasonably skilled way, such as the sort of skill a hunter or butcher might have. However, there is no indication of anatomical knowledge, or the ability to skilfully remove human organs. In fact, it is my understanding that the "cut and slash" method is employed at abattoir when removing organs, so a butcher wouldn't be expected to have acquired such a skill.

Perhaps more a quibble than anything, but a butcher at the abbatoir knows enough about anatomy to recognize and secure the liver and kidneys, as these were and are popular 'organ meats'. I would expect the same knowledge of a hunter of large animals, such as deer.

[Fisherman]

John G: I disagree about the knife skills argument. The Torso victims indicate a perpetrator(s) who may have had the ability to cut up bodies in a reasonably skilled way...

Not reasonably skilled - exceedingly skilled, John. This was not the average knifewielder.

...such as the sort of skill a hunter or butcher might have.

The hunter/butcher suggestions owe to how the joints were laid bare and the limbs disarticulated there. When it comes to the overall cutting, the incisions are very clean and with no fraying at all, apparently. That is not necessarily a trait that speaks of hunting or butchery.

However, there is no indication of anatomical knowledge, or the ability to skilfully remove human organs.

Dr Galloway and Dr Bond very much agreed over the Rainham case that the killer certainly had anatomical knowledge.

In fact, it is my understanding that the "cut and slash" method is employed at abattoir when removing organs, so a butcher wouldn't be expected to have acquired such a skill.

Organs were removed in the Torso cases as well as in the Ripper cases. In one of the Torso cases, the face and scalp were cut away in the shape of a mask, saving even the eyelashes.
That is not cut and slash. It is a very delicate cutting operation, showing great skill.

In sharp contrast, Dr Phillips believed Chapman's killer had anatomical knowledge...

There is no contrast - the Torso man was believed to have anatomical knowledge too.

... and may have been an expert surgeon.

As may the Torso man, according to Dr Galloways initial statements at the Rainham inquest.


If anything, even more skill was demonstrated in the removal of Eddowes kidney and uterus-see, for example the opinion of Ian Calder and Philip Harrison (Marriott, 2013).

Like I say, the Torso man had, according to Galloway, "a thorough knowledge of surgery". In Galloways opinion, the cutting work was "that of an expert".
Two of a kind, John.

It's also worth pointing out that the Torso perpetrator(s) presumably operated under reasonable lighting conditions and no time pressures. In contrast, Chapman and Eddowes' killer worked on appallingly lighting conditions, and extreme time pressures.

Yes, and the results are in accordance. The Torso cutting is made in straight angles, it is clean and accurate and totally neat, whereas the work done on the Ripper victims is much sloppier and cruder - owing to the haste and the lighting conditions.

Of course, regarding the Torso crimes, there is no proof that the same perpetrator was involved.

Nor is there so in the Ripper case. But in both cases, the police were of the opinion that they were dealing with one man only.

In fact, I believe Debra A has pointed out that there were differences in the way the bodies were cut up into sections, although in two cases there were striking similarities. And Dr Biggs as stated that dismemberers tend to adopt similar strategies, so the end result can look very similar.

Please try and keep Biggs out of it as much as possible. He never commented specifically on the errand/s.
The torso victims all had their joints laid bare and disarticulated - which is uncommon. They were all very cleanly cut - which is very uncommon in dismemberment cases. The remains were dumped both in the Thams and on land - which is very, very uncommon.

My own stance is that there can be very little doubt that the 1873, 1887, 1888 and 1889 torsos had the same originator. And that the 1873 torso and Mary Kelly were killed by the same man.

[John G]

John G: I disagree about the knife skills argument. The Torso victims indicate a perpetrator(s) who may have had the ability to cut up bodies in a reasonably skilled way...

Not reasonably skilled - exceedingly skilled, John. This was not the average knifewielder.

...such as the sort of skill a hunter or butcher might have.

The hunter/butcher suggestions owe to how the joints were laid bare and the limbs disarticulated there. When it comes to the overall cutting, the incisions are very clean and with no fraying at all, apparently. That is not necessarily a trait that speaks of hunting or butchery.

However, there is no indication of anatomical knowledge, or the ability to skilfully remove human organs.

Dr Galloway and Dr Bond very much agreed over the Rainham case that the killer certainly had anatomical knowledge.

In fact, it is my understanding that the "cut and slash" method is employed at abattoir when removing organs, so a butcher wouldn't be expected to have acquired such a skill.

Organs were removed in the Torso cases as well as in the Ripper cases. In one of the Torso cases, the face and scalp were cut away in the shape of a mask, saving even the eyelashes.
That is not cut and slash. It is a very delicate cutting operation, showing great skill.

In sharp contrast, Dr Phillips believed Chapman's killer had anatomical knowledge...

There is no contrast - the Torso man was believed to have anatomical knowledge too.

... and may have been an expert surgeon.

As may the Torso man, according to Dr Galloways initial statements at the Rainham inquest.


If anything, even more skill was demonstrated in the removal of Eddowes kidney and uterus-see, for example the opinion of Ian Calder and Philip Harrison (Marriott, 2013).

Like I say, the Torso man had, according to Galloway, "a thorough knowledge of surgery". In Galloways opinion, the cutting work was "that of an expert".
Two of a kind, John.

It's also worth pointing out that the Torso perpetrator(s) presumably operated under reasonable lighting conditions and no time pressures. In contrast, Chapman and Eddowes' killer worked on appallingly lighting conditions, and extreme time pressures.

Yes, and the results are in accordance. The Torso cutting is made in straight angles, it is clean and accurate and totally neat, whereas the work done on the Ripper victims is much sloppier and cruder - owing to the haste and the lighting conditions.

Of course, regarding the Torso crimes, there is no proof that the same perpetrator was involved.

Nor is there so in the Ripper case. But in both cases, the police were of the opinion that they were dealing with one man only.

In fact, I believe Debra A has pointed out that there were differences in the way the bodies were cut up into sections, although in two cases there were striking similarities. And Dr Biggs as stated that dismemberers tend to adopt similar strategies, so the end result can look very similar.

Please try and keep Biggs out of it as much as possible. He never commented specifically on the errand/s.
The torso victims all had their joints laid bare and disarticulated - which is uncommon. They were all very cleanly cut - which is very uncommon in dismemberment cases. The remains were dumped both in the Thams and on land - which is very, very uncommon.

My own stance is that there can be very little doubt that the 1873, 1887, 1888 and 1889 torsos had the same originator. And that the 1873 torso and Mary Kelly were killed by the same man.

But Dr Hebbert specifically stated that the perpetrator (s) of the Torso crimes was not a surgeon. And where's the evidence that he skilfully removed body organs? This would require a very different type of skill than that employed in the dismemberment of a body. And what about the radically different signatures between JtR and the Torso perpetrator (s)?

And as I noted before, as they were dismembered in different ways a different perpetrator is possible.

What's the evidence the Torso victims were murdered?

Dr Galloway examined the 1873 torso. He did initially conclude that the perpetrator was surgically experienced, but then changed his mind, arguing that he'd fallen into error because of the quality of the cutting work: he subsequently realised that the cutting work was not the kind of cutting a surgeon would do.

In respect of Rainham, Dr Galloway opined: " The body had been divided by someone who knew the structure of the human frame, but not necessarily a skilled anatomist.

And if you're arguing that the Torso perpetrator was a surgeon, how could Lechmere be responsible?

[Fisherman]

John G: But Dr Hebbert specifically stated that the perpetrator (s) of the Torso crimes was not a surgeon.

So there were medicos who were certain that the Torso man had large anatomical insights, and there were medicos who stated that he would be a surgeon, wheras oithers disagreed.
How does that differ from the views on the Ripper, John?

And where's the evidence that he skilfully removed body organs?

There was a lot missing from the Torso victims, and it is impossible to say in whch manner it was lost. We know that organs were removed by the Torso killer, like the heart and colon, for example. And we know that the medicos were all impressed with his knifework. So why would we not accept that he cut away organs with skill? And we know that he was able to cut the face and scalp away in the shape of a mask from one of his victims. That takes more than excising an organ!

This would require a very different type of skill than that employed in the dismemberment of a body. And what about the radically different signatures between JtR and the Torso perpetrator (s)?

What about them? Which are these signatures? A cut neck? Itīs there in both cases. A ripped up abdomen? It is there in both cases. The removal of both secually related and non-sexually related organs? It is there in both cases.

And as I noted before, as they were dismembered in different ways a different perpetrator is possible.

And as I told you, the similarities on quite rare matters are striking.

What's the evidence the Torso victims were murdered?

Whatīs the evidence they were not? One victim had her temple hit hard enough to kill. The police were very clear about their stance - they were murders.

Dr Galloway examined the 1873 torso. He did initially conclude that the perpetrator was surgically experienced, but then changed his mind, arguing that he'd fallen into error because of the quality of the cutting work: he subsequently realised that the cutting work was not the kind of cutting a surgeon would do.

Galloway examined the Rainham torso. Felix Kempster examined the 1873 torso. And cutting away the uterus, half of the vagina and two thirds of the bladder is nothing a surgeon would do either, but Phillips nevertheless concluded that the killer was a surgeon, and for the same reason as Galloway: the skilled knifework.

[Fisherman]

And if you're arguing that the Torso perpetrator was a surgeon, how could Lechmere be responsible?

I am not arguing that the Torso man was a surgeon. Nor do I argue that the Ripper was. But I AM arguing that both men had useful anatomical knowledge, and that they both were extremely skilled with the knife.

The same knife, as it were...

A question for you: Why do you suppose that the Torso man cut away the face and scalp in a mask from the 1873 victim? And why did he not hang onto such a laboriously produced thing, but threw it in the Thames instead, where it could easily be eaten by a fish?

[Columbo]

But Dr Hebbert specifically stated that the perpetrator (s) of the Torso crimes was not a surgeon. And where's the evidence that he skilfully removed body organs? This would require a very different type of skill than that employed in the dismemberment of a body. And what about the radically different signatures between JtR and the Torso perpetrator (s)?

And as I noted before, as they were dismembered in different ways a different perpetrator is possible.

What's the evidence the Torso victims were murdered?

Dr Galloway examined the 1873 torso. He did initially conclude that the perpetrator was surgically experienced, but then changed his mind, arguing that he'd fallen into error because of the quality of the cutting work: he subsequently realised that the cutting work was not the kind of cutting a surgeon would do.

In respect of Rainham, Dr Galloway opined: " The body had been divided by someone who knew the structure of the human frame, but not necessarily a skilled anatomist.

And if you're arguing that the Torso perpetrator was a surgeon, how could Lechmere be responsible?

Here's something wild I just thought of while reading these posts(which are terrific by the way). Given the efficiency and detail of what has been written here about the quality of the work done on the victims of the torso murders, isn't possible this could also have been a chef or cook of some sort? Chefs are very precise in their cutting of meats and they also would have a great amount of anatomical knowledge as far as separating bones and cartlidge and removing organs.

Columbo

[Fisherman]

Here's something wild I just thought of while reading these posts(which are terrific by the way). Given the efficiency and detail of what has been written here about the quality of the work done on the victims of the torso murders, isn't possible this could also have been a chef or cook of some sort? Chefs are very precise in their cutting of meats and they also would have a great amount of anatomical knowledge as far as separating bones and cartlidge and removing organs.

Columbo

Answer: yes. It cannot be ruled out.

[Pierre]

Answer: yes. It cannot be ruled out.

Hi Fisherman,

Yes, perhaps one could hypothesize that the killer was a psychopath. But that goes, then, for all hypothesized suspects. Is there any evidence, by the way, for Lechmere having been a psychopath?

There are some questions that I believe you are capable of answering, since you seem to be convinced that Lechmere was Jack the Ripper. Could you be so kind as to try and answer the following questions?

1. Why should Lechmere have started the killing spree in the particular time period of the C-5?

2. What was the motive of Lechmere?

3. Why did he kill on the 30th September of all nights?

4. Why did he do the last of the C-5 indoors?

5. Have you found any evidence at the other murder sites, confirming that Lechmere is a relevant hypothetical killer?

6. Why did the murders stop after Kelly?

7. Why did they start again 1889?

8. Why did the murders stop after McKenzie?

9. If Lechmere killed on his way to work, he should have been recognized. Why are there no witness sightings of Lechmere on the other nights?

10. Why should Lechmere have cut off womenīs noses?

11. Why should Lechmere have disembowelled the victims?

12. Was Lechmere right handed?

13. Why should Lechmere have wanted to leave (a) clue(s) to the police if you think he did?

14. Is it an established fact that Lechmere had a personal problem that could have functioned as a trigger for starting the killing spree?

15. What evidence is there that Lechmere was capable of doing the mutilations?

Thank you.

Pierre

[Columbo]

Hi Fisherman,

Yes, perhaps one could hypothesize that the killer was a psychopath. But that goes, then, for all hypothesized suspects. Is there any evidence, by the way, for Lechmere having been a psychopath?

There are some questions that I believe you are capable of answering, since you seem to be convinced that Lechmere was Jack the Ripper. Could you be so kind as to try and answer the following questions?

1. Why should Lechmere have started the killing spree in the particular time period of the C-5?

2. What was the motive of Lechmere?

3. Why did he kill on the 30th September of all nights?

4. Why did he do the last of the C-5 indoors?

5. Have you found any evidence at the other murder sites, confirming that Lechmere is a relevant hypothetical killer?

6. Why did the murders stop after Kelly?

7. Why did they start again 1889?

8. Why did the murders stop after McKenzie?

9. If Lechmere killed on his way to work, he should have been recognized. Why are there no witness sightings of Lechmere on the other nights?

10. Why should Lechmere have cut off womenīs noses?

11. Why should Lechmere have disembowelled the victims?

12. Was Lechmere right handed?

13. Why should Lechmere have wanted to leave (a) clue(s) to the police if you think he did?

14. Is it an established fact that Lechmere had a personal problem that could have functioned as a trigger for starting the killing spree?

15. What evidence is there that Lechmere was capable of doing the mutilations?

Thank you.

Pierre

Hi Pierre,
didn't you post this earlier on this thread? What do you think about the two sets of murders being committed by the same hand?

Columbo

[drstrange169]

>>I am not looking at what others say to establish what you mean. And you are not explaining yourself. I can only surmise that is because you have no explanation to give.<<

You asked a question, what does it matter who answers it, if you truly wanted to know the answer?

In this case you got a triple barrelled answer, Gut, Caligo O and I have all given the same answer independently. And yet still you complain.

Once again, you are showing your motive here at Casebook is to attack various individual members rather than talk seriously about information related to the case.

[drstrange169]

>>The pavement on the side opposite to the murder site, the northern one. I do not care about the picture you have put up. I was there, I walked down the street, and I saw the closing off. You were not. And you are willing to imply that I lie about it.
Look at the docu between 17.25 and 17.32, and you will see how the pavement is closed off and unaccessible. <<

First picture below is a screencapture of the aerial shot from 17:30.

The area I marked with a red circle indisputably shows a free space in the same postion as the shot I post previously.


>>Look at the passage where Andy and I arrive at the scene, between 18.42 and 18.45, where it is very clear that we are walking alongside a fencing off that allows us use of the southern pavement only.<<

Second Screen shot shows your arm, coincidently, pointing directly at the free space.

The area marked behind Andy Griffiths is the same area as the previous two shots and it shows that it was available whilst you were re-enacting the “encounter” sequence.

I understand that some parts were blocked, specfically the area opposite the body, but there was enough space on the opposite side to do an accurate recreation.

Interestingly, the free space seems to be close to where the Wool Warehouse enterance would have been. Which, of course, is exactly where Xmere claimed the enconter took place.


>>How do you suppose that the re-enactment should be done?<<

Properly or not at all. It’s a black and white issue, that's what responsable people do.

[Fisherman]

>>I am not looking at what others say to establish what you mean. And you are not explaining yourself. I can only surmise that is because you have no explanation to give.<<
You asked a question, what does it matter who answers it, if you truly wanted to know the answer?

In this case you got a triple barrelled answer, Gut, Caligo O and I have all given the same answer independently. And yet still you complain.

Once again, you are showing your motive here at Casebook is to attack various individual members rather than talk seriously about information related to the case.

This is an interesting post coming from somebody who calls me a falsifier, a liar, a deceiver etcetera.
Coming from that background to claim that my motive is to "attack various individual members" seems a bit rich to me.

What I would say that "various individual members" have asked a lot lately is why the Lechmere theory is met vith such a vicious attitude. You have done nothing at all to tone down that impression.

I remain exactly where I am: You have not answered the question I put to you. Nor has anybody else. You have instead exhibited an inability to tell very different questions apart, mistaking them for the same question. I am working from the presumption that this is what lies behind your reoccurring assurances that you have answered my question, something that is not true. Itīs either that, or you are consciously offering the wrong solution to the right question.

This is where you have landed the debate between the two of us. I have no intention whatsoever to prolong it, since you refuse to explain yourself. Listening to how you falsely claim that you HAVE explained yourself is something that deserves no further time and effort.