Framing Charles

[rjpalmer]

I should probably let it go, and the conversation has moved on, but I'd like to return to the Pinchin Street torso for a moment, because it seems I have been misunderstood and my point mischaracterized.

The head was removed some time after the legs and the edges of the cuts had not had time to blacken.

How else can Phillips’ observation be explained?

Perhaps he couldn’t tell the difference between dry, blackened flesh and moist (presumably) reddish flesh?

This wasn’t Phillip’s observation, it was Hebbert’s and Swanson’s, but Yes! this is what I have been saying all along. Despite efforts to dismiss or downgrade Swanson's September 10^th report, we are faced with the apparent fact that the victim's legs were indeed removed some days before the head was removed. Even simple observation made this obvious.

And this is precisely why I am suggesting that any claim that the woman was murdered by having her throat cut is not proven...not by a long shot.

Could she have had her throat cut?

Yes, but to accept this, we are to believe that the murderer cut her throat (and remember that in some cases the Ripper cut his victim’s throats clear down to the spinal column, with a clear attempt at decapitation), but nonetheless decided to leave her head attached for several days while cutting off the legs. When he finally got around to removing the head, he did not simply continue with the throat cut that he had started (which by now would have had similar signs of drying and blackening at the front edges of the throat, just as the legs did) but made an entirely new cut, further down, leaving no trace of the original throat cut, which otherwise would have left tell-tale signs of decomposition. If not, surely Hebbert would have noticed some sign of drying skin and blackened flesh where the throat was originally cut and bled?

Is it possible that entirely new cuts were made? Again, yes. But if such were the case (and here is the key point): there would be no remaining evidence that the victim's throat HAD been cut in the first place, beyond the victim having died from hemorrhaging. The entirety of the neck wound was described as 'moist and red.'

And this doesn’t contradict Phillips one iota, because he admitted there was no evidence that the cause of death was the throat being cut—it was ‘supposition.’

Wow!

Phillips put forward the possibility that the victim had bled out through the throat and the later cutting off of the head had obscured the throat cuts.

Again, I think it was you who claimed there was no similarity between the Pinchin Street injuries and the earlier ones.

In this case, it is Phillips who vindicates Christer. I’m afraid your rejection of Phillips’ opinion is not worth very much.

This comment appears to be missing or avoiding the point. Clearly it is Christer's theory that the two cases are connected, not mine, so the attempt at turning the tables is unwarranted.

If something is obscured, it is obscured. If the cuts that removed the head “obscured the throat cuts,” as Phillips suggested, and left the entirety of the neck ‘moist and red,’ as Hebbert described, how do we know there were any throat cuts to begin with? Answer: we don’t. It is solely an assumption based on the victim having bled to death. Phillips makes this clear. There was no sign of stomach or lung bleeding, so he assumed it must have been a throat wound—though he was honest enough to admit there was no direct evidence of this.

Is this so difficult to accept?

And with no evidence to show how the victim died, we are left with a theory---and this is what Phillips admitted. The victim’s throat having been cut was a “supposition and only a supposition."

Apparently some here want to disregard Phillip’s admitted uncertainty, in a race to place an alleged throat slashing at the doorstep of Lechmere’s mother. I merely point out the difficulties in accepting Phillip’s theory, based on Hebbert’s notes and Swanson’s report, coupled with simple logic.

And, as I noted, people can bleed to death from head wounds or from leg wounds. I have no idea why Phillips did not raise these possibilities. But considering that both the head and the legs were missing, just as any evidence of an earlier throat cut was missing, I maintain that any insinuation that this is ‘similar’ to a Ripper crime is strictly theoretical, and, in some degree, illogical, considering the pains the Ripper took to divide his victim’s spinal columns at the time he murdered them. Equally, we must acknowledge that he failed in those attempts.

By contrast, whoever was involved in the Pinchin Street case knew how to divide the spinal column, yet didn’t do so for several days, showing that his motivation was entirely different from the Ripper’s. Since it was done soon before dumping the body, the obvious implication is that it was done to destroy evidence: the victim’s identity, to be specific, which is the hallmark of a domestic killing. Even if the Ripper learned how to separate the spine between 1888 and September 1889, why didn’t he do so immediately? Why wait until just before dumping the body, leaving the throat red and moist? And several days after the legs had been cut off? Did the Ripper ever exhibit such patience when attacking his victim’s throats?

Are the questions I raised now understood?

This, along with all lack of relevant genital injuries, is why I believe Monro, Macnaghten, and others were skeptical that the Pinchin Street victim was the work of the 'Ripper.'

Uncertainty exists, of course, but the motivations appear to be different, and there is reasonable doubt that the victim was even a street ‘unfortunate.’

[harry]

There were four clear indications of identification that Cross gave ,a name,an address,a work situation,and last but not least,at the inquest exposed himself to body and features identification.What more was needed?.

[Abby Normal]

Abby!

Have I laboured in vain?

There are at least two other sound reasons why an innocent (of the murder) Lechmere might have been unwilling to disclose his proper name in court.


Gary

no! im just not very smart

[drstrange169]

>>He may have been known as Cross at Pickfords, but elsewhere he would have been known as Lechmere. ... CAL was a stickler for providing his full ‘real’ name - except when he appeared before coroners.<<

And what is the common denominator in the inquest appearances?

Pickfords!

He joined Pickfords at a time Thomas Cross was his step father.
Assuming the "boy accident" case was our man, being recognised by Pickfords people, not school people, not electoral, was a key factor at the inquest.
Since he appeared Mrs Nichols inquest in his Pickford uniform and would have needed Pickfords permission to attend, again Pickfords, not school, not electoral forms, was key to the issue.

As far as we know, based on the actual information available, there is nothing unusual him using the name Cross at the inquest.

If he was not known as Cross at Pickfords then there is an issue. But that's up to the accusers to prove and, to date, they haven't. It's all been smokescreens about schools and election forms, which have no proven relationship to the inquest.

[MrBarnett]

The line points to Charles lechmere's home because you chose the Pinchin Street torso while ignoring all the other Torso victims. You chose a Torso Killer victim without providing any evidence to show that they were also the Ripper. You chose to ignore the bloody rag found west of Pinchin street and on the same day. You chose to draw a line to the a bloody apron was discovered at the building site of St Philips Church the day after the Pinchin Street Torso was found. You chose to ignore that there is no evidence that the apron had any connection to the Torso killings. You chose to start your line from Pinchin Street, not from St Philips Church. You chose to ignore that the building site of St Philips Church covered an entire block, not a single point. You chose a single point on that line, ignoring dozens of other houses on that line. You chose to ignore that you don't have a line starting from Pinchin Street, you have a cone that "points" towards dozens of blocks and hundreds of houses. Your line points to Charles Lechmere because you chose to ignore all the lines that don't point to him.

A bloody rag was found west of Pinchin Street ‘on the same day?’ Really?

Tell me more.

[MrBarnett]

Its not about what you or others think about his actions, the fact is that whetever his motives were they were never challenged or commented on by the police or the coroner. So that shows everyone must have been satsified with whatever expolantion he gave if was ever asked for an explantion, and you and others 132 years later should accept that and stop creating a mystery where there is none to be created.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The mystery exists, Trevor. This guy who seems to have been somewhat anal about using his full name - Charles allen Lechmere - neglected to use it twice. On both occasions it was when he was involved in something unpleasant. I can understand why those of you who refuse to accept CAL as a suspect can’t bring yourself to acknowledge that he might have done so to hide his ID. Some of us, however, are able to look at the facts objectively and accept that as the most likely reason.

[MrBarnett]

Everyone is making assumptions, most especially Fisherman. I am quite willing to change my mind based on reasoning and evidence, but so far no one has refuted my assumptions about Charles Lechmere's work schedule.

Charles Lechemere worked for Pickford's at Broad Street Station. Trains ran on regular schedules, so a carman's shift would logically be tied to that. From what I can find, the standard for Pickford's was "Each team of horses takes out for delivery, and returns with, two loads of goods daily" and "a full three-horse-van carries between four and five tons". At the time, Pickford's appears to have transported goods for both businesses and individuals. There certainly would be regular bulk shipments to and from large firms, but even those wouldn't necessarily be the same size or be shipped every day. Smaller firms and individuals would be even more irregular in the size and frequency of their shipments.

The nearest Market appears to have been Spitalfield's Market (fruit, vegetables, flowers), though plenty of other things were available there as well. And there were plenty of business outside the Markets. A period source notes "All day long and all the year round there is a constant Fair going on in Whitechapel Road. It is held upon the broad pavement, which was benevolently intended, no doubt, for this purpose. Here are displayed all kinds of things; bits of second-hand furniture, such as the head of a wooden bed, whose griminess is perhaps exaggerated, in order that a purchaser may expect something extraordinarily cheap. Here are lids of pots and saucepans laid out, to show that in the warehouse, of which these things are specimens, will be found the principal parts of the utensils for sale; here are unexpected things, such as rows of skates, sold cheap in summer, light clothing in winter; workmen’s tools of every kind, including, perhaps, the burglarious jemmy; second-hand books – a miscellaneous collection, establishing the fact that the readers of books in Whitechapel – a feeble and scanty folk – read nothing at all except sermons and meditations among the tombs; second-hand boots and shoes; cutlery; hats and caps; rat-traps and mouse-traps and birdcages; flowers and seeds; skittles; and frames for photographs. Cheap- jacks have their carts beside the pavement; and with strident voice proclaim the goodness of their wares, which include in this district bloaters and dried haddocks, as well as crockery. And one is amazed, seeing how the open-air Fair goes on, why the shops are kept open at all.^"

The idea that Lechmere would have been delivering a single commodity is wildly unlikely when his van would have been carrying 4 to 5 tons of goods. Even if he was delivering to Spitalfields Market, it is unlikely that the entire cargo would go to a single vendor or consist of a single commodity. Then Lechemere would be expected to return to Broad Street Station with. Again, this would be wildly unlikely to have been picked up from one location, let alone be one commodity.

As noted, period standard for Pickford's appears to have been each van doing 2 sets of deliveries and returns. Lechmere might have had the occasional day where he only did one set of deliveries and returns, but it would be an exception and he'd probably have to work later on another day to make up for the lost wages.

And, as previously noted, a Pickford's van typically carried both a carman and a conductor, or book carrier.

It’s obvious you’re new to all of this. And like a lot of newbies, you’ve done a bit of Googling and consider yourself an expert.

[MrBarnett]

Agreed.



There a hundreds, if not thousands, of possibilities for what Lechmere carried on any particular day. Even if he delivered to a single location, like a market, odds are good he would be delivering multiple commodities and to multiple recipients. The only way that he would be delivering only horseflesh every day would be if he worked for a butcher, knacker, or cats meat man; not if he worked for Pickfords.

You are cleariy out of your depth. Please do some more research before wasting our time any further. Pickfords delivered tons of provincial horse flesh every week.

[Fiver]

What we need to know to work out CAL’s shift patterns is what he carried on his cart.

Agreed.

Here are two options:

He carried small parcels to numerous destinations, weaving through the clogged arteries of Victorian London. Multiple drop-offs and timings at the mercy of the traffic. He might be out and about all day doing that and it would have been a two man job.

He carried perishable goods to a single location (Smithfield/Billingsgate for example) where delivery was required in the early hours and where the unloading was largely done by the customer’s porters. One stop per journey and a bit of hanging about.

As you know, I favour horseflesh as being the commodity he carried and that would have been very similar to delivering fish or meat.

There a hundreds, if not thousands, of possibilities for what Lechmere carried on any particular day. Even if he delivered to a single location, like a market, odds are good he would be delivering multiple commodities and to multiple recipients. The only way that he would be delivering only horseflesh every day would be if he worked for a butcher, knacker, or cats meat man; not if he worked for Pickfords.

[Trevor Marriott]

It was extremely unusual for children at Essex Road school and/or their recorded parents to disclose a middle name. Does this indicate that CAL had a casual approach to his family’s names?

Its not about what you or others think about his actions, the fact is that whetever his motives were they were never challenged or commented on by the police or the coroner. So that shows everyone must have been satsified with whatever expolantion he gave if was ever asked for an explantion, and you and others 132 years later should accept that and stop creating a mystery where there is none to be created.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fiver]

I would not go there if I were you.

Lets go there. Was there anything unclear or incorrect in what I said?

[Fiver]

No, the line points to Charles Lechmeres home because the apron described was placed at St Philips Church.

The line points to Charles lechmere's home because you chose the Pinchin Street torso while ignoring all the other Torso victims. You chose a Torso Killer victim without providing any evidence to show that they were also the Ripper. You chose to ignore the bloody rag found west of Pinchin street and on the same day. You chose to draw a line to the a bloody apron was discovered at the building site of St Philips Church the day after the Pinchin Street Torso was found. You chose to ignore that there is no evidence that the apron had any connection to the Torso killings. You chose to start your line from Pinchin Street, not from St Philips Church. You chose to ignore that the building site of St Philips Church covered an entire block, not a single point. You chose a single point on that line, ignoring dozens of other houses on that line. You chose to ignore that you don't have a line starting from Pinchin Street, you have a cone that "points" towards dozens of blocks and hundreds of houses. Your line points to Charles Lechmere because you chose to ignore all the lines that don't point to him.

[Fiver]

Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions. (Based on Google)

What if Lechmere had only one location to deliver to?

Have you formed an opinion as to what commodity he might have been delivering?

Everyone is making assumptions, most especially Fisherman. I am quite willing to change my mind based on reasoning and evidence, but so far no one has refuted my assumptions about Charles Lechmere's work schedule.

Charles Lechemere worked for Pickford's at Broad Street Station. Trains ran on regular schedules, so a carman's shift would logically be tied to that. From what I can find, the standard for Pickford's was "Each team of horses takes out for delivery, and returns with, two loads of goods daily" and "a full three-horse-van carries between four and five tons". At the time, Pickford's appears to have transported goods for both businesses and individuals. There certainly would be regular bulk shipments to and from large firms, but even those wouldn't necessarily be the same size or be shipped every day. Smaller firms and individuals would be even more irregular in the size and frequency of their shipments.

The nearest Market appears to have been Spitalfield's Market (fruit, vegetables, flowers), though plenty of other things were available there as well. And there were plenty of business outside the Markets. A period source notes "All day long and all the year round there is a constant Fair going on in Whitechapel Road. It is held upon the broad pavement, which was benevolently intended, no doubt, for this purpose. Here are displayed all kinds of things; bits of second-hand furniture, such as the head of a wooden bed, whose griminess is perhaps exaggerated, in order that a purchaser may expect something extraordinarily cheap. Here are lids of pots and saucepans laid out, to show that in the warehouse, of which these things are specimens, will be found the principal parts of the utensils for sale; here are unexpected things, such as rows of skates, sold cheap in summer, light clothing in winter; workmen’s tools of every kind, including, perhaps, the burglarious jemmy; second-hand books – a miscellaneous collection, establishing the fact that the readers of books in Whitechapel – a feeble and scanty folk – read nothing at all except sermons and meditations among the tombs; second-hand boots and shoes; cutlery; hats and caps; rat-traps and mouse-traps and birdcages; flowers and seeds; skittles; and frames for photographs. Cheap- jacks have their carts beside the pavement; and with strident voice proclaim the goodness of their wares, which include in this district bloaters and dried haddocks, as well as crockery. And one is amazed, seeing how the open-air Fair goes on, why the shops are kept open at all.^"

The idea that Lechmere would have been delivering a single commodity is wildly unlikely when his van would have been carrying 4 to 5 tons of goods. Even if he was delivering to Spitalfields Market, it is unlikely that the entire cargo would go to a single vendor or consist of a single commodity. Then Lechemere would be expected to return to Broad Street Station with. Again, this would be wildly unlikely to have been picked up from one location, let alone be one commodity.

As noted, period standard for Pickford's appears to have been each van doing 2 sets of deliveries and returns. Lechmere might have had the occasional day where he only did one set of deliveries and returns, but it would be an exception and he'd probably have to work later on another day to make up for the lost wages.

And, as previously noted, a Pickford's van typically carried both a carman and a conductor, or book carrier.

[MrBarnett]

When CAL’s children were registered at their new school after the move to Doveton Street someone (their father/mother?) thought it necessary to record not only their middle names, but their father’s also.

Check it out to see how unusual that was.

It was extremely unusual for children at Essex Road school and/or their recorded parents to disclose a middle name. Does this indicate that CAL had a casual approach to his family’s names?

[MrBarnett]

When CAL’s children were registered at their new school after the move to Doveton Street someone (their father/mother?) thought it necessary to record not only their middle names, but their father’s also.

Check it out to see how unusual that was.