Cutting Point

[Fisherman]

Playing devils advocate here, could the cut in the abdomen have been from cutting the chemise from top to bottom to remove it from the body?

Inspector Charles Pinhorn-

The chemise was entire, although at first site it had the appearance of being in pieces, as it had been cut open from top to bottom. The arm holes were cut right up to the neck. There was no name on the garment or lettering of any kind.

Could? Yes. But I think it is not the likeliest solution. Just as you say, the arm holes were cut while it was said that the opened up front was due to tearing. We do not know exactly what the chemise looked like, but if it was there was a buttoned opening at the top, as you suggest, then that opening would have lent itself well to tearing - you grab the cloth at each side of the opening and tear, and the structure of the fabric will make the tear go straight down.
But there were likely no such openings at the arm holes, and so that can explain why he cut there.

Anyways, if we assume that he DID cut both the armholes and the front of the chemise, the he cut the armholes with the edge of the knife pointing away from the body while he would have used the edge downwards against the flesh as he cut the front to produce the shallow cut in the victim. There is no evidence that there were cuts on the shoulders, which there woud have been if he used the same cutting technique there. That raises the question why he would have cut in different ways at these places.

Furthermore, there was no testimony to tell us that the cut sides of the front were bloodied, and they would have been if the killer cut through the garment into the chest and abdomen of the victim. It would have pushed the chemise into the wound.

Finally, it is an awkward exercise to cut cloth that is not stretched, especially if the surface you cut against is soft and uneven. That indicates that if the front was cut, then the killer would likely have cut away from the body, stretching the chemise as he proceeded.

But the answer to your initial question must nevertheless be yes - it could have happened that way, I guess. Although it would predispose one unbroken, clean cut, and that would be hard to produce through cloth.

[MrBarnett]

Christer,

I hope you don’t mind if I fire off a series of small questions. As I went through the book, I underlined anything I felt needed clarification or deserved to be challenged.

The first is your statement that Dr Killeen claimed that Tabram’s groin was part of the ‘main focus’ of the attack. If he did indeed make that claim, then we really do need to consider whether his evidence is credible.

There were nine wounds in Tabram’s throat and just one somewhere near the groin area, weren’t there? It would surely be more accurate to say his focus was not on the groin if only one of 39 wounds was to that area.

So, my questions are:

Did Killeen even express an opinion on the killer’s ‘focus’? Did he use the somewhat loaded words ‘breasts, belly and groin’?

Gary

[Fisherman]

Christer,

I hope you don’t mind if I fire off a series of small questions. As I went through the book, I underlined anything I felt needed clarification or deserved to be challenged.

The first is your statement that Dr Killeen claimed that Tabram’s groin was part of the ‘main focus’ of the attack. If he did indeed make that claim, then we really do need to consider whether his evidence is credible.

There were nine wounds in Tabram’s throat and just one somewhere near the groin area, weren’t there? It would surely be more accurate to say his focus was not on the groin if only one of 39 wounds was to that area.

So, my questions are:

Did Kilkeen even express an opinion on the killer’s ‘focus’? Did he use the somewhat loaded words ‘breasts, belly and groin’?

Gary

Youīll have to give me some time for that one, Gary!

[MrBarnett]

Youīll have to give me some time for that one, Gary!

Take as much time as you like. :-)

That question arises out of my particular interest in Killeen/Tabram.

I find it difficult enough to see Tabram as the first in the WM series, even more so as a bridge/development between the 1873 torso and Nichols.

Apologies in advance if my subsequent questions/responses are delayed - other things are claiming my attention at the moment

[Fisherman]

Okay, Gary - the claim is made in a number of instances on Casebook, for example in the presentation of Tabram:

"According to Killeen, the focus of the wounds were the breasts, belly, and groin area. In his opinion, all but one of the wounds were inflicted by a right-handed attacker, and all but one seemed to have been the result of an "ordinary pen-knife." There was, however, one wound on the sternum which appeared to have been inflicted by a dagger or bayonet (thereby leading police to believe that a sailor was the perpetrator)."

The problem is that we do not have a full account for the 39 wounds and that leaves the field open for speculation, of course. As I understand it, there may well have been more than one wound in the groin area. And as such, can we rule out that Killeen could have mentioned the groin area as part of the focus even if there was just the one cut to it? I donīt think so. It may be a case of the trunk having taken 30 wounds and the neck 9, and so the trunk - consisting of the breasts, belly and lower abdomen/groin - wins the day.

The material we have to work with are paper reports like this one from the East London Observer:

"the left lung was penetrated in five places, and the right lung in two places [...] The heart was... penetrated in one place. [...] The liver was healthy, but was penetrated in five places; the spleen was perfectly healthy, and was penetrated in two places; both the kidneys were perfectly healthy; the stomach was also perfectly healthy, but was penetrated in six places; the intestines were healthy, and so were all the other organs. The lower portion of the body was penetrated in one place, the wound being three inches in length and one in depth. [...]
I don't think that all the wounds were inflicted with the same instrument, because there was one wound on the breast bone which did not correspond with the other wounds on the body. The instrument with which the wounds were inflicted, would most probably be an ordinary knife, but a knife would not cause such a wound as that on the breast bone. That wound I should think would have been inflicted with some form of dagger."

This involves 22 wounds. 17 are missing.

Then we have the Morning Advertiser, where your stabs to the throat occur:

"There were no fewer than nine in the throat and 17 in the breast. [Killeen] had since made a post-mortem examination, and found the left lung penetrated in five places and the right lung in two places. The heart had been penetrated, but only in one place [...]. The liver was healthy, but penetrated in five places, and the spleen was penetrated in two places. The stomach was healthy, but penetrated in six places. In witness's opinion the wounds were not inflicted with the same instrument, there being a deep wound in the breast from some long, strong instrument, while most of the others were done apparently by a penknife. The large wound could be caused by a sword bayonet or dagger."

The left lung took five hits, and that is in the chest. The right took two. The heart took one. The spleen is in the chest, and took two hits. So there we have 10 of the 17 claimed chest wounds accounted for, leaving 7 wounds unaccounted for. Letīs assume they did. not hit any organ and thus they were not described in detail.

Anyway, we now have 17 chest wounds, 5 liver wounds (no chest wounds), 6 stomach wounds (no chest wounds), and that cut to the lower abdomen. 17+5+6+1=29, meaning that if we add the claimed 9 throat wounds, we end up with 38. So there is at least room for one more wound to the groin, if we accept these figures.

There is a picture of Tabram, and on it, there are no visible throat cuts as far as I can see. The attack involved cutting to the front of the trunk, and so the nine wounds should be at the front too. Where are they? Of course, due to how Tabram was a large woman, not all the throat is visible. But one would have expected to see at least a few of the stabs.

Do we know the source for the claim of nine throat wounds? I think the wording is the same in these reports "There were no fewer than nine in the throat..." and so it seems a news agency may lay behind it.

The wounds to Tabramīs body have always been a source of confusion, but your question is a fair one. And I am aware of your interest in Killeen and his abilities.

[Fisherman]

Take as much time as you like. :-)

That question arises out of my particular interest in Killeen/Tabram.

I find it difficult enough to see Tabram as the first in the WM series, even more so as a bridge/development between the 1873 torso and Nichols.

Apologies in advance if my subsequent questions/responses are delayed - other things are claiming my attention at the moment

I agree about how Tabram can be seen as the odd one out. The 1873 murder is a very composed and mature one, going by the looks of it, and so it can seem odd that Tabram was such a seemingly different and messy affair. To me, the choice of weapon tells us that whoever killed her did not come prepared to eviscerate and/or make intricate cuts to the body. Therefore, I tend to think that this murder was unplanned. I reason that Lechmere may well have been a user of prostitutes, as so many serial killers are, and that the murder was likely a spur-of-the-moment matter. Then, when the press reports came thick and fast, it may be that Lechmere decided to take his business to the streets, in order to get more attention/invoke more fear.
This is of course a suggestion only, but that is where I end up when I try to understand what happened to Tabram. It does not mean that I categorically rule out other solutions, far from it.

Iīm glad to hear you are giving me some little rest now. I will try to answer the rest of your points when they arrive, but just like you, I am tied up in other matters too!

[MrBarnett]

I agree about how Tabram can be seen as the odd one out. The 1873 murder is a very composed and mature one, going by the looks of it, and so it can seem odd that Tabram was such a seemingly different and messy affair. To me, the choice of weapon tells us that whoever killed her did not come prepared to eviscerate and/or make intricate cuts to the body. Therefore, I tend to think that this murder was unplanned. I reason that Lechmere may well have been a user of prostitutes, as so many serial killers are, and that the murder was likely a spur-of-the-moment matter. Then, when the press reports came thick and fast, it may be that Lechmere decided to take his business to the streets, in order to get more attention/invoke more fear.
This is of course a suggestion only, but that is where I end up when I try to understand what happened to Tabram. It does not mean that I categorically rule out other solutions, far from it.

Iīm glad to hear you are giving me some little rest now. I will try to answer the rest of your points when they arrive, but just like you, I am tied up in other matters too!

This isn’t a question, just an observation that will probably turn into a question at a later date. Your categorisation of the 1873 murder as a ‘mature’ one, inasmuch as it would require a bolthole, skills and tools (?), seems reasonable.

At that time Lechmere was a 23-year-old East End Carman.

[Fisherman]

This isn’t a question, just an observation that will probably turn into a question at a later date. Your categorisation of the 1873 murder as a ‘mature’ one, inasmuch as it would require a bolthole, skills and tools (?), seems reasonable.

At that time Lechmere was a 23-year-old East End Carman.

Yes. And so we are faced with the question what is likelier: that a 23-year old could not have killed the 1873 victim or that two killers who were both skilled and exact cutters in London just happened to emulate the two ”lids” present in the wax models on display in the anatomical museums. I know how I answer that one.
There will always be things that may seem out of line or odd to some extent in the comparison between the two series. But to me, there will be explanations to these matters, sometimes perhaps very trivial ones. But there cannot be as many and odd similarities as there is out of pure coincidence.

[Fisherman]

Hereīs the story of Ed Kemperīs exploits when he was 23 and a half:

"On May 7, 1972, Kemper was driving in Berkley, California when he picked up two 18-year-old hitchhiking students from Fresno State University, Mary Ann Pesce, and Anita Mary Luchessa, with the pretense of taking them to Stanford University. After driving for an hour, he managed to reach a secluded wooded area near Alameda, California, with which he was familiar from his work at the Highway Department, without alerting his passengers that he had changed directions from where they wanted to go. It was there that he handcuffed Pesce and locked Luchessa in the trunk, then stabbed and strangled Pesce to death, subsequently killing Luchessa in a similar manner.Kemper later confessed that while handcuffing Pesce, he "brushed the back of [his] hand against one of her breasts and it embarrassed [him]", adding that he said, "'Whoops, I'm sorry' or something like that" after grazing her breast, despite murdering her minutes later.

Kemper put both of the women's bodies in the trunk of his Ford Galaxie and returned to his apartment. He was stopped on the way by a police officer for having a broken taillight, but the officer did not detect the corpses in the car.Kemper's roommate was not at home, so he took the bodies into his apartment, where he photographed and had sexual intercourse with the naked corpses before dismembering them. He then put the body parts into plastic bags, which he later abandoned near Loma Prieta Mountain. Before disposing of Pesce's and Luchessa's severed heads in a ravine, Kemper engaged in irrumatio with both of them. In August of that year, Pesce's skull was found on Loma Prieta Mountain. An extensive search failed to turn up the rest of Pesce's remains or a trace of Luchessa."

These are very "mature" murders too, just like the 1873 one. A double homicide, using handcuffs, including photographing the bodies, then dismembering, packing up and getting rid of them in a cool and calculating manner, also involving a sequence where the killers car was stopped by the police without him losing his wits.

Itīs the kind of crime where we would predispose an older killer, but Kemper was the exact same age as Lechmere would have been in 1873, when the torso murder was committed.

[Abby Normal]

Hereīs the story of Ed Kemperīs exploits when he was 23 and a half:

"On May 7, 1972, Kemper was driving in Berkley, California when he picked up two 18-year-old hitchhiking students from Fresno State University, Mary Ann Pesce, and Anita Mary Luchessa, with the pretense of taking them to Stanford University. After driving for an hour, he managed to reach a secluded wooded area near Alameda, California, with which he was familiar from his work at the Highway Department, without alerting his passengers that he had changed directions from where they wanted to go. It was there that he handcuffed Pesce and locked Luchessa in the trunk, then stabbed and strangled Pesce to death, subsequently killing Luchessa in a similar manner.Kemper later confessed that while handcuffing Pesce, he "brushed the back of [his] hand against one of her breasts and it embarrassed [him]", adding that he said, "'Whoops, I'm sorry' or something like that" after grazing her breast, despite murdering her minutes later.

Kemper put both of the women's bodies in the trunk of his Ford Galaxie and returned to his apartment. He was stopped on the way by a police officer for having a broken taillight, but the officer did not detect the corpses in the car.Kemper's roommate was not at home, so he took the bodies into his apartment, where he photographed and had sexual intercourse with the naked corpses before dismembering them. He then put the body parts into plastic bags, which he later abandoned near Loma Prieta Mountain. Before disposing of Pesce's and Luchessa's severed heads in a ravine, Kemper engaged in irrumatio with both of them. In August of that year, Pesce's skull was found on Loma Prieta Mountain. An extensive search failed to turn up the rest of Pesce's remains or a trace of Luchessa."

These are very "mature" murders too, just like the 1873 one. A double homicide, using handcuffs, including photographing the bodies, then dismembering, packing up and getting rid of them in a cool and calculating manner, also involving a sequence where the killers car was stopped by the police without him losing his wits.

Itīs the kind of crime where we would predispose an older killer, but Kemper was the exact same age as Lechmere would have been in 1873, when the torso murder was committed.

it also involved rusing the victims, much like i suspect torsoman did to his. imho 23 years old is no problem in this regard.

[MrBarnett]

As I indicated in my post, it’s the skill, bolt hole and tools that I question.

[Fisherman]

As I indicated in my post, it’s the skill, bolt hole and tools that I question.

I do not see any of those things as impossible in any way, Gary. Cutting skills can quickly be aquired and there is no need for him to have had a bolthole and a saw of his own, he may have used premises owned by somebody else, or he may have used some abandoned place. He mayeven have had a bolthole of his own, the point being that we simply don’ t know.

As I hinted at before, many things like this one can be brought forward as unlikely, to a smaller or lesser degree (he would have run, he would not kill en route to work). Even if we regard it as some sort of fact that something is ”unlikely”, that does not mean that it represents an unsurmountable obstacle. And it does not clear anybody of suspicion unless it is so unlikely as to clear away any accusations.

If, for example, Charles Lechmere made extra money on the side by helping out in the butchery business and if he had access to somebody else’ s premises where there was a saw, then that would sound trivial to me. For example. There may be other solutions to these matters too. Perhaps the solution is not even trivial, but nevertheless there.

[MrBarnett]

I do not see any of those things as impossible in any way, Gary. Cutting skills can quickly be aquired and there is no need for him to have had a bolthole and a saw of his own, he may have used premises owned by somebody else, or he may have used some abandoned place. He mayeven have had a bolthole of his own, the point being that we simply don’ t know.

As I hinted at before, many things like this one can be brought forward as unlikely, to a smaller or lesser degree (he would have run, he would not kill en route to work). Even if we regard it as some sort of fact that something is ”unlikely”, that does not mean that it represents an unsurmountable obstacle. And it does not clear anybody of suspicion unless it is so unlikely as to clear away any accusations.

If, for example, Charles Lechmere made extra money on the side by helping out in the butchery business and if he had access to somebody else’ s premises where there was a saw, then that would sound trivial to me. For example. There may be other solutions to these matters too. Perhaps the solution is not even trivial, but nevertheless there.

I agree these issues are not insurmountable, but there’s no evidence that CAL had any connection to the butchery trade. I make a distinction here between skilled butchery and rough knackering - or even more so between skilled butchery and the retailing of horse flesh for cats meat. But it may be that at the end of his shift at Pickfords he did a stint of fine butchery in a premises that he had to himself.

Another issue, of course, is the location of the torso dumps across the other side of a very large city - miles away from where he lived and worked. How might that have worked? He was a carman, you may say, he had transport. But the impression I get reading press reports of Pickfords drivers is that they were on very strict timetables. They were notorious for driving at breakneck speed and getting into accidents and altercations with other road users. I doubt that a driver picking up meat from Broad Street and delivering it to Smithfield, say, would have had the time to collect a body from his bolt hole (most likely in the East End) and drop it off in west London. That said, if his route was in westerly direction and involved multiple drop-offs, their might be more opportunity to fit in a surreptitious pick-up of body parts to be disposed of along his route.

And to return to Tabram, the more I imagine the development of a skilled torso killer into the Ripper, the more of a bump in the road she becomes. The skill, the fascination with the inner workings of the female anatomy displayed by the torso killer and the Ripper are absent in her case. That a skilled killer might not have had the right tools to hand and/or that her killing was motivated by rage rather than his usual pathological curiosity might explain the situation. But that means we’re adding her to his tally on the basis of time, location and type of victim alone.

[Fisherman]

I agree these issues are not insurmountable, but there’s no evidence that CAL had any connection to the butchery trade. I make a distinction here between skilled butchery and rough knackering - or even more so between skilled butchery and the retailing of horse flesh for cats meat. But it may be that at the end of his shift at Pickfords he did a stint of fine butchery in a premises that he had to himself.

There is a significant amount of similarities of a very rare nature between the series. There is the fact that eviscerators are very, very rare as such. The question we are faced with is whether it is likelier that two such men, doing the same rare things to their victims, surfaced simultaneously in late victorian London, or that a 23 year old man could have had access to a bolthole and a saw, and be able to cut in a way that made people think he was an expert. In that vein, we may need to ponder how the men who chased the lowly drifter Danny Rolling worked from the assumption that he probably had surgical experience. Thatīs not to say Rolling and Lechmere were the same or did the same things, but it is nevertheless worth understanding.

Another issue, of course, is the location of the torso dumps across the other side of a very large city - miles away from where he lived and worked. How might that have worked? He was a carman, you may say, he had transport. But the impression I get reading press reports of Pickfords drivers is that they were on very strict timetables. They were notorious for driving at breakneck speed and getting into accidents and altercations with other road users. I doubt that a driver picking up meat from Broad Street and delivering it to Smithfield, say, would have had the time to collect a body from his bolt hole (most likely in the East End) and drop it off in west London. That said, if his route was in westerly direction and involved multiple drop-offs, their might be more opportunity to fit in a surreptitious pick-up of body parts to be disposed of along his route.

I must give the same answer as always: What is unlikelier? Lechmere had the practical skills aquired to drive a cart, and he was in the cart-driving business. Few men would have been more likely to know how to take care of the dumping issue by way of a cart. Whether or not he had the opportunity is written in the stars. But once again, these matters are not insurmountable in any way, are they?

And to return to Tabram, the more I imagine the development of a skilled torso killer into the Ripper, the more of a bump in the road she becomes. The skill, the fascination with the inner workings of the female anatomy displayed by the torso killer and the Ripper are absent in her case. That a skilled killer might not have had the right tools to hand and/or that her killing was motivated by rage rather than his usual pathological curiosity might explain the situation. But that means we’re adding her to his tally on the basis of time, location and type of victim alone.

Letīs add the silence of the deed, the thrown up clothing, the displaying of the body, the possible tampering with her breathing (clenched fists), the blow to her head and a cut to the lower abdomen, Gary. Taken together, yes, those are the factors that make Tabram fit the frame. None of us can say whether she was the victim of the Whitechapel killer or not, but I chose to add her to the victims I described because I find her interesting and a possible bridge between bolthole cutting and street ditto.
Would she be the first victim I dropped from the list if I had to drop a victim at all? Probably, yes. But on balance, I do think she belongs.

[Fisherman]

I think it is time now to start one of the threads I named earlier: Framing Charles. Iīll put it in the suspects material.