Lechmere Continuation Thread

[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]

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?

[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? It´s 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?

What´s 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.

[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: 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.

[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.

[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!

[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.

[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]

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

Why do people think they're connected?

Columbo

I don't!

[Columbo]

Believe me - we can...

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

Why do people think they're connected?

Columbo

[Fisherman]

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

Believe me - we can...

[Columbo]

Columbo: I'd like to visit that one day. I noticed in the docu how well kept and nice that neighborhood seemed. I could be very wrong about that of course!

You are not wrong, the neighbourhood is not bad at all. Perhaps more interesting is how there is material pointing to how Bucks Row was very neat and clean in 1888 too, far from the descriptions of for example Dorset Street.

I really don't see any problem with the locations, etc with the docu. The most important thing about that entire scene was your timed walk. As long as that was presented accurately and not flubbed with in the final edits then you've made your point.

Mmmm. But points well made are not what some look for.

I've only seen one of the murder sites filmed as they were in 1888 and that was Hanbury Street (the famous James Mason clip). Even documentaries that proport to "re-create" the sites digitally with accurate lighting etc are not accurate in the least and never will be, unless they can be physically constructed with actual blueprints and other pictorial sources from the day.

I´ve seen the sites for a number of decades, and some of them have been very atmospheric, like Durward Street and Mitre Square. The spots are under constant reconstruction, though, so the genuine feel will be gone in the future. Sorry, but there you are!
There are many streets that offer Victorian atmosphere nevertheless, but none of them are Ripper murder streets.

I recall Trevor Marriotts docu and he visited the sites, basically saying " there's nothing like seeing an actual location and getting a feel for the surroundings". I'm paraphrasing of course. But the truth of the matter is it's not possible to do that except maybe with Buck's Row and that's very sketchy too. I believe Mitre's Square is a close second but the renovations to that make it almost un-recognizable from the contemporary pics. The sites are gone and there's almost nothing to glean from them except distance and walking times.

What remains is how you are able to take in how small the area was, but otherwise, I agree by and large; the sites are no longer as representative as they used to be.

Anyway, I agree. Let's move on to something more interesting.

How about the post I made on the knife skills involved in both the Ripper and the Torso series?

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

[Fisherman]

Columbo: I'd like to visit that one day. I noticed in the docu how well kept and nice that neighborhood seemed. I could be very wrong about that of course!

You are not wrong, the neighbourhood is not bad at all. Perhaps more interesting is how there is material pointing to how Bucks Row was very neat and clean in 1888 too, far from the descriptions of for example Dorset Street.

I really don't see any problem with the locations, etc with the docu. The most important thing about that entire scene was your timed walk. As long as that was presented accurately and not flubbed with in the final edits then you've made your point.

Mmmm. But points well made are not what some look for.

I've only seen one of the murder sites filmed as they were in 1888 and that was Hanbury Street (the famous James Mason clip). Even documentaries that proport to "re-create" the sites digitally with accurate lighting etc are not accurate in the least and never will be, unless they can be physically constructed with actual blueprints and other pictorial sources from the day.

I´ve seen the sites for a number of decades, and some of them have been very atmospheric, like Durward Street and Mitre Square. The spots are under constant reconstruction, though, so the genuine feel will be gone in the future. Sorry, but there you are!
There are many streets that offer Victorian atmosphere nevertheless, but none of them are Ripper murder streets.

I recall Trevor Marriotts docu and he visited the sites, basically saying " there's nothing like seeing an actual location and getting a feel for the surroundings". I'm paraphrasing of course. But the truth of the matter is it's not possible to do that except maybe with Buck's Row and that's very sketchy too. I believe Mitre's Square is a close second but the renovations to that make it almost un-recognizable from the contemporary pics. The sites are gone and there's almost nothing to glean from them except distance and walking times.

What remains is how you are able to take in how small the area was, but otherwise, I agree by and large; the sites are no longer as representative as they used to be.

Anyway, I agree. Let's move on to something more interesting.

How about the post I made on the knife skills involved in both the Ripper and the Torso series?

[Columbo]

But it does not depict the stretch where Nichols was found. It does show, however, the gate into the biklding site, made by fencing. Everything but the southern pavement was out of bounds up there - which is where the murder spot lay.

I'd like to visit that one day. I noticed in the docu how well kept and nice that neighborhood seemed. I could be very wrong about that of course!

I really don't see any problem with the locations, etc with the docu. The most important thing about that entire scene was your timed walk. As long as that was presented accurately and not flubbed with in the final edits then you've made your point.

I've only seen one of the murder sites filmed as they were in 1888 and that was Hanbury Street (the famous James Mason clip). Even documentaries that proport to "re-create" the sites digitally with accurate lighting etc are not accurate in the least and never will be, unless they can be physically constructed with actual blueprints and other pictorial sources from the day.

I recall Trevor Marriotts docu and he visited the sites, basically saying " there's nothing like seeing an actual location and getting a feel for the surroundings". I'm paraphrasing of course. But the truth of the matter is it's not possible to do that except maybe with Buck's Row and that's very sketchy too. I believe Mitre's Square is a close second but the renovations to that make it almost un-recognizable from the contemporary pics. The sites are gone and there's almost nothing to glean from them except distance and walking times.

Anyway, I agree. Let's move on to something more interesting.

Columbo