Same motive = same killer

[Fisherman]

I think it would tickle me slightly more to know that the house where he had lived with his policeman stepfather (named Cross) was still there. And that he was dumping the body pretty much on what had doubtless been one of the streets his mother had warned him about as a boy (Frederick Street).

I'll message Ed to see if he ever got to the bottom of the problem, but for me there's little doubt about which part of Thomas Street the family were living in in 1861.

Well, the reason for dumping the torso in Pinchin Street, if Charles Lechmere was the killer, can be reasoned about in absurdum.
He could have done so to "get the better of the street", if he resented living there.
He could have taunted the police by tipping them off about where he had once lived.
He could have wanted to give his mother a shock, realizing that she had more than once lived in that street.
He could simply have been practical and used his extensive knowledge about the area.
And so on. In eternity.

The only thing we can say with any certainty at all is that the dumper of the Pinchin Street torso chose a street where Charles Lechmere had grown up, and that this was an almighty coincidence, given the number of streets available to him.
Moreover, it was an even almightier coincidence, considering that it provides a second anchoring point for a Ripper suspect who is already firmly anchored to these cases by way of having found (or killed and lied about it) Polly Nichols.

How many such coincidences - or anchoring points - does it take to get you interested? It took one for me. Youīve got two now.

[jerryd]

I have - and as I would always expect when Jerry is involved, it is openminded and interesting. An alley well worth taking a closer look at, therefore, but until anything a bit more substantial than relatively close possible distances between people and dumping places surfaces, to me, the sound of the alarm clock is only a faint one.
Any amount of added decibels will of course alter that, and Iīm glad Jerry is the one looking for them.
The suggested route over Albert Bridge is clearly an option, but there were other options open to Wildbore to reach the building site that would not have taken him any longer to walk, I find. And wisely, Jerry only says that it is a very possible route. Quite so.

Christer,

First off, thanks for the kind words. Just to address a couple of points you make here, though.

"...but until anything a bit more substantial than relatively close possible distances between people and dumping places surfaces, to me, the sound of the alarm clock is only a faint one..."

Frederick Wildbore (similar to Lechmere) was the man that found the torso. My ideas on him are not only about locations, although they play a big part in this I think you would agree. In the four linked torso cases (1887-1889) one must ask some very important questions. i.e Why did they start/end when they did? In the Rainham case, why were some parts deposited near Battersea and then others up north in Regents Canal? Then you look at who may have had opportunity during those years and where did they live and work. I admit that Lechmere fits a lot of these criteria. With the exception of the access to the Whitehall vault in which Wildbore not only worked there during the relevant time but he also admitted he had no trouble getting to the vault.

In summary, the murder series began in May 1887. Construction of New Scotland yard began in 1887. The series ended in September of 1889. Construction of New Scotland Yard ended 1890. Wildbore lived at a location that his possible route to work took him by major known body part finds. His employer's office was located on the Regents Canal slightly downriver from the finding of the limbs from the Rainham torso. Wildbore was in the vault doing work the week before the discovery. He kept his tools in that same vault rather than the safer storage locker. He saw the package previously before he called attention to it a day later. Nobody else seems to have seen the package there even though they were in the very spot with light.

So, I think there is more to Wildbore than just being relatively close to locations. I didn't mean to turn this into a Wildbore thread. Just wanted to address what you said. Great thread by the way!

[MrBarnett]

Well, the reason for dumping the torso in Pinchin Street, if Charles Lechmere was the killer, can be reasoned about in absurdum.
He could have done so to "get the better of the street", if he resented living there.
He could have taunted the police by tipping them off about where he had once lived.
He could have wanted to give his mother a shock, realizing that she had more than once lived in that street.
He could simply have been practical and used his extensive knowledge about the area.
And so on. In eternity.

The only thing we can say with any certainty at all is that the dumper of the Pinchin Street torso chose a street where Charles Lechmere had grown up, and that this was an almighty coincidence, given the number of streets available to him.
Moreover, it was an even almightier coincidence, considering that it provides a second anchoring point for a Ripper suspect who is already firmly anchored to these cases by way of having found (or killed and lied about it) Polly Nichols.

How many such coincidences - or anchoring points - does it take to get you interested? It took one for me. Youīve got two now.

I've been interested for years, Christer. I especially relish new discoveries, such as the details of Ma's upbringing and the incident involving a Pickford's carman named Charles Cross running over a small child in 1876. Fascinating!

[Elamarna]

That does not have anything at all to do with the issue. Backyards, doorways, cellar vaults, abandoned buildings, park shrubberies, lavatories - the killer could have chosen any place for his dumping of the body, and he was certainly not restrained to railway arches only!

The maths therefore stand - it was a one in perhaps ten thousand chance.

I think you may find the maths are out.

If he had only lived in one street, and a torso was dumped in that street it would be one in ten thousand (if that were the number of streets in total). However he lived at more than one address in London.
Therefore the odds on a body being dumped in a street he lived in are the total divide by the number of streets he lived in. I am sure you will know that number.
It's considerable less than one in ten thousand.

I still say coincidence, sure that does not surprise you.


Steve

[Sam Flynn]

Regardless of how many people lived in close enough vicinity to be able to reach the site on foot, carrying a sack with a torso in it

I get the feeling that some mode of transport might have been involved, because a torso with its arms attached is rather bulky, and wouldn't exactly be an easy load. Given that the victim was said to be "stout", we might be looking at something like a 25kg (4 stone) dead weight - not the kind of thing one could nonchalantly carry in a sack slung over the shoulders.

But when that somewhere becomes Pinchin Street, we suddenly have two such matters tied to Charles Lechmere.

At the time, though, Cross himself was living about a mile and a half to the north of Pinchin Street, wasn't he? Perhaps his mother was the torso killer

[Sam Flynn]

How many streets had railway tracks running over them, with convenient arches beneath? Very handy for someone who wanted to drop off a piece of incriminating evidence without being seen.

That does not have anything at all to do with the issue.

I rather think it does. Railway archways are dark and deeply recessed, and anyone up to no good inside them would be invisible from most lines of sight on the adjoining roads.

Backyards, doorways, cellar vaults, abandoned buildings, park shrubberies, lavatories - the killer could have chosen any place for his dumping of the body, and he was certainly not restrained to railway arches only!

You're right about the abandoned buildings, for the same reason that I believe I'm right about the railway arches - plenty of opportunity to get up to no good whilst minimising one's chances of being seen.

The rest are more risky, as they tend to be more out in the open and/or visible from adjoining houses, streets and other public rights of way. Fewer people tend to wander down dark railway arches, especially in the dead of night.

[Michael W Richards]

Fewer people tend to wander down dark railway arches, especially in the dead of night.

I think even fewer Sam if they know that at the other end of the archway there is a dead end.....see room 13.

[Sam Flynn]

I think even fewer Sam if they know that at the other end of the archway there is a dead end

Indeed, Mike.

[Fisherman]

Christer,

First off, thanks for the kind words. Just to address a couple of points you make here, though.

"...but until anything a bit more substantial than relatively close possible distances between people and dumping places surfaces, to me, the sound of the alarm clock is only a faint one..."

Frederick Wildbore (similar to Lechmere) was the man that found the torso. My ideas on him are not only about locations, although they play a big part in this I think you would agree. In the four linked torso cases (1887-1889) one must ask some very important questions. i.e Why did they start/end when they did? In the Rainham case, why were some parts deposited near Battersea and then others up north in Regents Canal? Then you look at who may have had opportunity during those years and where did they live and work. I admit that Lechmere fits a lot of these criteria. With the exception of the access to the Whitehall vault in which Wildbore not only worked there during the relevant time but he also admitted he had no trouble getting to the vault.

In summary, the murder series began in May 1887. Construction of New Scotland yard began in 1887. The series ended in September of 1889. Construction of New Scotland Yard ended 1890. Wildbore lived at a location that his possible route to work took him by major known body part finds. His employer's office was located on the Regents Canal slightly downriver from the finding of the limbs from the Rainham torso. Wildbore was in the vault doing work the week before the discovery. He kept his tools in that same vault rather than the safer storage locker. He saw the package previously before he called attention to it a day later. Nobody else seems to have seen the package there even though they were in the very spot with light.

So, I think there is more to Wildbore than just being relatively close to locations. I didn't mean to turn this into a Wildbore thread. Just wanted to address what you said. Great thread by the way!

You are of course right, and I was of course being a bit too quick in my judgment. The possible connection you point to is interesting, and it will be even more interesting to hear of any developments!

[Fisherman]

I've been interested for years, Christer. I especially relish new discoveries, such as the details of Ma's upbringing and the incident involving a Pickford's carman named Charles Cross running over a small child in 1876. Fascinating!

I know that you are interested, Gary. And I know that in Ripperology, very little is about receiving flowers and medals. I only wish there was more of encouragement and less of disparaging out here at times (and I am not speaking specifically about you here - far from it).

[Fisherman]

I think you may find the maths are out.

If he had only lived in one street, and a torso was dumped in that street it would be one in ten thousand (if that were the number of streets in total). However he lived at more than one address in London.
Therefore the odds on a body being dumped in a street he lived in are the total divide by the number of streets he lived in. I am sure you will know that number.
It's considerable less than one in ten thousand.

I still say coincidence, sure that does not surprise you.


Steve

I know that he lived in more than one street in London, Steve. Actually, I think I know it better than most! But I did not say that it was a one in a ten thousand chance that the killer dumped the torso ina street where he had lived. I said that it was a one in ten thousand chance that he would dump it specifically in Pinchin Street.

There are of course surrounding implications, just as you lead on, but that is another matter. And even if we DO weigh them in, we will end up with a very tiny chance that Lechmere would have had a torso dumped on one of his old addresses. VERY tiny, that is![/QUOTE]

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: I get the feeling that some mode of transport might have been involved, because a torso with its arms attached is rather bulky, and wouldn't exactly be an easy load. Given that the victim was said to be "stout", we might be looking at something like a 25kg (4 stone) dead weight - not the kind of thing one could nonchalantly carry in a sack slung over the shoulders.

The problem with that is that there were no wheelmarks nearby, and none of the men sleeping rough in the vaults had heard anything.
Twentyfive kilograms is heavy, but I can merrily fling it over my shoulder and carry it for miles.

At the time, though, Cross himself was living about a mile and a half to the north of Pinchin Street, wasn't he? Perhaps his mother was the torso killer

I donīt think so, Gareth. But her Cable Street lodgings may have been empty due to how her husband was taken seriously ill and died that autumn/winter.
Guesss who just may have minded the premises for her if this was the case?

[Joshua Rogan]

Given that the victim was said to be "stout", we might be looking at something like a 25kg (4 stone) dead weight - not the kind of thing one could nonchalantly carry in a sack slung over the shoulders.

67lb according to the autopsy. Which is 4 3/4 stone, or 30kg

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: I rather think it does. Railway archways are dark and deeply recessed, and anyone up to no good inside them would be invisible from most lines of sight on the adjoining roads.You're right about the abandoned buildings, for the same reason that I believe I'm right about the railway arches - plenty of opportunity to get up to no good whilst minimising one's chances of being seen.

Maybe I should add the parks, the squares, the backyards, the courts, the docks, the piers, the workyards, the magazine buildings - and make it a one in twenty thousand chance instead?

You must try and focus on the important matter here - a torso was found in a street Charles Lechmere had longstanding relations to. And Charles Lechmere was the man who allegedly found - but may equally have killed - the "first victim" in the Ripper series.

Itīs not as if the Pinchin Street location can be seen as just any location in that context, you know.

The rest are more risky, as they tend to be more out in the open and/or visible from adjoining houses, streets and other public rights of way. Fewer people tend to wander down dark railway arches, especially in the dead of night.

As I said, try and keep focused on the material point.

[Fisherman]

67lb according to the autopsy. Which is 4 3/4 stone, or 30kg

I can carry that too, no probs. And waterside labourers did so for many hours on end down at the docks in 1888.
The real problem for the killer in this respect would be the risk of being seen while carrying the sack around. Which is why I think we need to accept it was not carried any longer than necessary.
Apparently, that point "just happened" to coincide with the old address of the carman. Another one of them freak coincidences surrounding him.