Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Framing Charles

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

    hi frank
    its really much simpler than all that really. lech could felt surprised and kind of trapped when he heard paul arrive, and or froze for a second, before simply staying there and acting like he was an innocent bystander as well. ive seen it happen.
    Hi Abby,

    If you’d read my post again, you’d note that I reacted to Christer’s suggestion that Lechmere thought something like “I guess I could get out of here, but hey, let´s wait and see what happens", as that would be very much in line with how psychopaths think. So, this would mean that Lechmere didn’t feel either surprised nor kind of trapped, but it would, instead, mean that he chose to stay & bluff it out even though he guessed he could have gotten away.

    Furthermore, what you say about what you’ve seen happen isn’t really the same as the situation we’re discussing here or, at least, not beyond a basic level. In that sense, I don’t think it’s really much simpler, as you suggest.

    After all, Paul wasn’t coming around a corner some 30 or 40 meters away from Lechmere, he entered the street some 120 meters away and we know that Neil heard Thain at that distance. Not only that, but also every next step that Paul took would sound a little louder than the former. Plus, of course, a mugger in our day & age isn’t the same as a serial killer in an era where they’d hang you for even one murder. And, in the end, the mugger sent you to get help, so that he had time to get away, which is also clearly different than what we’re discussing here.

    While I very much agree with the basic thing you say (that criminals can stay instead of get the hell out of there), my stance is that Lechmere could only have felt that he had no other option but to stay put & bluff it out, if he felt he no longer had enough time to get away. But in my opinion that would not have been with Paul still at the end of the street. The closer Paul would get, the bigger the chance that Lechmere would feel he couldn't get away. But, on the other hand, the closer Paul would get, the more unbelievable the story would get as far as I'm concerned. After all, Lechmere the killer would have every reason to listen for sounds while he was “working” on Nichols and the sound of Paul's footsteps would only get louder.

    and re dahmer.. the poor kid was unfortunately very incoherent and could barely talk to the cops,let alone remember where dahmer lived, and dahmer could habe just stayed away, yet he didnt flee the situation also.
    We have to agree to disagree on this, because it’s certainly not a given that Dahmer knew that the boy wouldn’t be able to talk coherently or remember where Dahmer lived once under medical care and once the drugs were out of his system. In fact, Sinthasomphone was coherent/conscious enough to escape Dahmer’s apartment in the first place.
    "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
    Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Astatine211 View Post
      Unless some new information gets discovered or revealed in the near future, I'm certain there's a connection between Jack and the Thames Torso Murders. I'm unsure what the connection is specifically, but the nature of the Pinchin Street and Whitehall Torso proves to me they're of relevance to the JtR case. After reading some more in depth newspaper analysis of the torso murders, what I can say is the killer wanted the body parts to be found, the were placed in predetermined locations where they would most certainly be found. The route the murdered had to take to place the Whitehall Torso in the Scotland Yard construction site vault without detection was extremely complicated and they had to scale many walls.

      What stood out to me was that police were certain the Whitehall Torso was moved via the work of two people due to the height of the walls that had to be climbed. What this shows is that the Thames Torso Murderer had an accomplice.

      John Cleary / John Arnold who predicted the Pinchin Street Torso three days before the murder specified the murder would be by Jack the Ripper. Now if he got this information by overhearing two people discussing it this would further suggest the Torso Murders were carried out by two people. Another coincidence I want to add to this is the site of the Pinchin Street Torso and the Lipski graffiti above it links directly with the once instance which was the only suggestion of JtR having an accomplice, the Schwartz story which involves two people.

      If we could know the truth of this case, it would not surprise me if Jack was part of a duo partnership which was the Thames Torso Murderer and committed the other crimes by himself with the other person maybe acting as the occasional lookout. It would not surprise me if the accomplice was an older person who acted as a mentor somewhat to Jack.

      Now since this is a thread about Lechmere and not the TTM I would like to say in my opinion, out of all the likely suspects, which to me includes Lechmere, he would probably be the suspect most likely to have an accomplice due to the fact he was obviously sane enough to live a normal life for 32 years after the murders (which funnily enough is also my biggest issue with him being JtR, if he had died in 1891 or 1892 he would most likely be my top suspect). What I would suggest is looking into Lechmere's connections with the police. His father in law was a police constable and Lechmere's use of the Cross name could be to signal this relation. Especially since Detective inspector Reid did stress that the Hanbury Street murder took place at the exact same time as the changing of police which is how Jack avoided detection, suggesting insider knowledge.
      hi AST
      interesting post! FYI-jerry dunlop is the go to man on this type scenario and has done alot of interesting research along these lines.
      "Is all that we see or seem
      but a dream within a dream?"

      -Edgar Allan Poe


      "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
      quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

      -Frederick G. Abberline

      Comment


      • After reading through this thread, I have to say Lechmere as a suspect is out for me!
        Best Regards,

        Tristan

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
          is there any evidence or testimony that anyone was seen around the immediate area of nichols body around the time lech "found" her other than the police walking there beats and Paul? i beleive there was the three slaughterman, but were cleared correct?

          so then where is this phantom ripper?

          imho there is the possibility that lech disturbed the killer who scampered off with no one seeing him, just trying to see if there was anyone else seen around at the time.
          I have always been amused by the idea of how different posters out here have different men rounding the schoolhouse as Lechmere made his way into Bucks Row; It was Druitt who trotted round the corner, it was Kosminski, it was Tumblety, it was Barnett, Levy, Carroll, Van Gogh, it was Stephen, it was William Gull, it was Walter Sickert.

          The fact is we do not have anybody on record as rounding the schoolhouse. Or leaving Bucks Row. But we DO have a man present there who fit the bleeding time, who had logical pathways that would take him past all the Spitalfields sites, who had links to St Georges and who passed near Mitre Square for many years when going to work, who refused to help prop Nichols up, who gave an alias to the police and inquest, who disagreed with the police over what he said and did on the murder night...

          In short, somebody who makes for a red hot suspect. But why care about that when we can dream up people rounding the schoolhouse, blood-dripping knife in hand? Surely, a man who has a legit reason to be in place cannot possibly be a killer? That would be soooo unfair!!

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

            Stride was killed about 3 blocks away from where Lechmere's mother lived, which is hardly "a lame stone´s throw away". Stride was killed a block off of Lechmere's most likely route to his mothers and about 2 1/2 hours before Lechmere normally left for work.


            Do you know where Charles Lechmere´s mother lived?

            Are you aware that Stride was killed on a Saturday night, when Lechmere likely did not work?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
              >>‘Alias’ is a loaded term. It suggests an attempt to conceal identity.
              in this case we have a man using his stepfather’s name. Very different story. <<



              I was going to say that, but I double checked there meaning and it can apply to innocent names like Lechmere's.
              Whoa there!!! You are supporting ... MY take?

              Whatever happened?

              I do not like wordings being used that imply something that should not be implied. One example would be how I dislike it being said that Hutchinson "lurked" outside Millers Court. That does not help to make a fair case.

              But using an alias is not something that has this hue. Many people do so, often for non nefarious reasons. So I see no problems with it.

              The problem I see is if we disallow various thing when discussing Lechmere. On the other site, I was banned for saying that Lechmere was found in Bucks Row, standing close to the freshly killed body of Polly Nichols.

              These are no good implications, admittedly. Neither is using an alias when speaking to the police, an alias you otherwise do not use in authority contacts.

              But when that is what happened, we MUST be able to point it out, regardless of how it may sound damning. Whan looking for a killer is is the damning sounding things we should look for, although we must keep the door ajar for alternative explanations.

              Personally, I know I can leave the task of finding alternative innocent explanations to my fellow posters, but that does not mean that I do not consider them.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
                >>HOW ON EARTH CAN THE SUGGESTED BUT UNSUBSTANTIATED ALTERNATIVE KILLER BE AS OR MORE LIKELY TO BE THE CULPRIT IN THE NICHOLS MURDER THAN CHARLES LECHMERE???<<

                Because the alternative killer/killers will have done it, of course!

                It is truly a bizarre notion that the perpetrator/s can only be someone we know about. And that the only facts about the case are the one's we already know about.

                It exactly that kind of distorted thinking that constantly dogs serious research.
                Yes, the idea that a killer must be someone we know off is a bizarre one.

                Lucky, then, that I don´t ascribe to such a thing. And unlucky that you should imply that I do.

                What I am ACTUALLY saying is that when we have somebody like Lechmere, who has a lot of circumstantial evidence pointing in his way, then we should not reason that it is somwhow likelier that the killere was somebody else, someone we cannot place at the site in any shape of form but nevertheless prioritize.

                The mere fact that Lechmere was in place at a stage when Nichols would still go on to bleed for many minutes makes him a person of interest. And as long as no other candidate can be shown to have been the killer, that status is changed into suspect status once we look further into him.

                So it is not a question of Lechmere being a very good suspect on account of having been in place. It is a question of him being so on very good grounds after having weighed the evidence together. Which is exactly as it should be. I think you may agree about that.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                  You are the one claiming that a bloody apron found the next day had anything to do with the Pinchin Street torso.
                  Correction: I am the one claiming that a bloodied apron was found at St Phillips church the day after the body was found in Pinchin Street, and I am also the one claiming that if we draw a line from the dumping site through St Phillips church, we end up at the doorstep of Charles Lechmere.

                  That is what I claim.

                  I also claim that it would be a (further) monumental coincidence if this was all a total coincidence; if the apron was unconnected to the dumping and if the line cut through the arch/St Phillips/Lechmeres home with no connection to the cases whatsoever.

                  You are the one accepting that this was all a fluke. As was the placing of the other apron in Goulston Street, also corresponding with where Lechmere lived. As was how Lechmere happened to stumble on Nichols when she was still bleeding. As was how he declined to help prop her up. As was how her wounds were covered. As was how Lechmere disagreed with the police. As was how a Torso body was dumped in Lechmere´s old home street. As was how Paul never saw Lechmere in front of himself. As was how victims in both series had their abdominal walls removed. And so on and so on and so on.

                  Coincidences. All of them. Each and every one.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                    As for how long it can take for blood to clot, lets look at the Pinchin Street Torso inquest.

                    "On moving the body I found that there was a little blood underneath where the neck had lain. It was small in quantity and not clotted. The blood had oozed from the cut surface of the neck." - Surgeon Clarke

                    That observation was made about half an hour after the headless torso was found by PC Pennett.
                    Blood left in the body will not clot for the longest time. It is only when it exits the body that it will clot. So all we can tell from the Pinchin Street body is that the legs were severed before the head was, and long enough before the find to have dried up at the surface, whereas the head was taken off at a later stage.

                    In the Whitehall case, an arm was found in the Thames. It had a ligature around it. When the ligature was loosened, black blood - unclotted, of course - seeped out.

                    The head could well have been taken off the Pinchin Street victim right before it was dumped. It can´t even be ruled out that it was taken off at the site, as far as I understand. Either way, you need to realize how these things work before you try to use them in a way that cannot be used.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by drstrange169 View Post
                      >> ... you couldnt get any more physically linked to a victim than lech ... <<

                      You certainly could.

                      According to Christer, Richardson was alone with a victim prior to discovery holding a knife in his hand!!!

                      Nothing Cross does tops that.
                      It is proven that Nichols bled for many minutes after Lechmere left the body. That alone tells him very much apart from Richardson. And so does Phillips´estimation.

                      Besides, I am not the one saying that Richardson held a knife in his hand. I think he may well not have. You see, I don´t believe all I am told by witnesses, least of all witnesses who change their stories.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                        Thank you for finding and sharing this. Did the police make any connection between this "coarse apron" and the Pinchin Street torso?
                        What do you think, Fiver?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                          hi fiver
                          having read fishes book, i know the answer-no they did not.
                          They did not come out and say that they coupled the matters - but how could they not make the reflection...?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                            You have this backwards. Lechmere suggested "they should give her a prop". Paul refused.

                            You need to read more than the DT. And you need to read Lechmere´s own testimony.

                            Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, and Kelly were at least as much on Paul's way to work as they were on Lechmere's way to wok.
                            Pauls way to work was Foster Street - Corbett´s Court. How do you fit Tabram, Chapman and Kelly into that route?

                            How does a discussion sink into these kinds of antics. Any answer to that one?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by FrankO View Post
                              Hi Abby,

                              If you’d read my post again, you’d note that I reacted to Christer’s suggestion that Lechmere thought something like “I guess I could get out of here, but hey, let´s wait and see what happens", as that would be very much in line with how psychopaths think. So, this would mean that Lechmere didn’t feel either surprised nor kind of trapped, but it would, instead, mean that he chose to stay & bluff it out even though he guessed he could have gotten away.

                              Furthermore, what you say about what you’ve seen happen isn’t really the same as the situation we’re discussing here or, at least, not beyond a basic level. In that sense, I don’t think it’s really much simpler, as you suggest.

                              After all, Paul wasn’t coming around a corner some 30 or 40 meters away from Lechmere, he entered the street some 120 meters away and we know that Neil heard Thain at that distance. Not only that, but also every next step that Paul took would sound a little louder than the former. Plus, of course, a mugger in our day & age isn’t the same as a serial killer in an era where they’d hang you for even one murder. And, in the end, the mugger sent you to get help, so that he had time to get away, which is also clearly different than what we’re discussing here.

                              While I very much agree with the basic thing you say (that criminals can stay instead of get the hell out of there), my stance is that Lechmere could only have felt that he had no other option but to stay put & bluff it out, if he felt he no longer had enough time to get away. But in my opinion that would not have been with Paul still at the end of the street. The closer Paul would get, the bigger the chance that Lechmere would feel he couldn't get away. But, on the other hand, the closer Paul would get, the more unbelievable the story would get as far as I'm concerned. After all, Lechmere the killer would have every reason to listen for sounds while he was “working” on Nichols and the sound of Paul's footsteps would only get louder.


                              We have to agree to disagree on this, because it’s certainly not a given that Dahmer knew that the boy wouldn’t be able to talk coherently or remember where Dahmer lived once under medical care and once the drugs were out of his system. In fact, Sinthasomphone was coherent/conscious enough to escape Dahmer’s apartment in the first place.
                              Hi Frank!

                              I am as convinced as I have always been that a psychopathic killer may actually choose to stay put at a murder site, Frank. I don´t think that we can establish with exactitude what happened in Bucks Row, but I think we can look away from whether or not Lechmere would have head Paul from 130 yards or from 100 or 75 or so on. If Lechmere was the killer, he used time to cover the wounds of Nichols, time that he could have used to make good his escape, and so the implication is that he actively took the decision to stay put.
                              Having looked at various psychopaths and how they differ from the rest of us, it is not something that has me baffled in any way. And it does not represent any obstacle at all in my world. I respect that you are of another view, though.

                              Comment


                              • Click image for larger version  Name:	5D3138B3-C223-4AA6-8062-88BE557800B0.jpeg Views:	0 Size:	238.6 KB ID:	757013
                                Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                                Do you know where Charles Lechmere´s mother lived?

                                Are you aware that Stride was killed on a Saturday night, when Lechmere likely did not work?
                                Sunday wasn’t a universal day of rest for carmen. However, this case from 1904 suggests that the LNWR (Pickfords acted as their carrier) did not deliver cats meat to consignees on a Sunday.

                                I hope the clipping is legible - and useful (you need to click on it). It’s from the Biggleswade Chronicle of 29/5/1904.
                                Last edited by MrBarnett; 05-03-2021, 08:29 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X