Framing Charles

[Fisherman]

Just a refreshener before we start thinking that Lechmere must have been known as Cross at Pickfords.

Lechmere said he had worked for Pickfords for twenty years when he testified at the inquest of Polly Nichols.

This means that he would have been hired at around 1868. The Broad Street station where we know Lechmere worked as a carman at the time of the Nichols murder opened for business on May 18, 1868. It therefore seems to fit with the possibility that this was where he had worked all along, although we cannot know for sure.

Charles was born in 1849. In 1858, his mother married Thomas Cross, a policeman.

On the 16th of January 1859, the year after, Charles and his sister were baptized. They were given the name Lechmere, in spite of how the siblings mother was (bigamously) married to Thomas Cross.

In 1861, the census of that year recorded all the members of the family by the name of Cross, Charles included. It may well be that the informant was Thomas Cross. If this was the case, what is proven is not that all the members of the family called themselves Cross. What is proven is that Thomas Cross chose to call his family members by his name as he passed on information to the census takers.

In 1869, Thomas Cross died.

In July of 1870, Charles married Elizabeth Bostock. He signed the marriage certificate "Charles Lechmere".

Much as none of this prevents Charles from having called himself Cross at work, how does it prove - or even make it likely - that he did so? He was baptized Lechmere nine years before he was hired by Pickfords, he signed himself Lechmere when marrying two years after having started working for Pickfords and he went on to fill out every form from the authorities with that name and to answer every question from the authorities about his identity with the same Lechmere name, with the one exception of the Polly Nichols murder inquest.

Having this information at hand does not allow for claiming as a fact that he was known as Charles Cross at Pickfords. On the contrary, the likelier thing is that he was known as Lechmere there. And once more, what I have to do is to point out the possibilities. It is up to those who think that they can deny these possibilities to prove that he was known as Cross at his work.

It remains an anomaly when somebody who otherwise always presented himself as Charles Lechmere to the authorities suddenly decided that he was Charles Cross instead when witnessing at a murder inquest. As has been pointed out, it is a very clear example of what an anomaly is - an exception to the rule.

[Trevor Marriott]

It remains an anomaly when somebody who otherwise always presented himself as Charles Lechmere to the authorities suddenly decided that he was Charles Cross instead when witnessing at a murder inquest. As has been pointed out, it is a very clear example of what an anomaly is - an exception to the rule.

But that does not make him a killer.

The authorities at the inquest would have been aware of this anomaly, and it seems were happy with whatever explantion he gave to explain this, which he clearly did, although we do not have anything to show what explantion was given.

If they were happy with it you should be and therefore it removes one of you reasons for suspecting him to be a killer.

The rest of your suspicions are nothing more than speculative

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

But that does not make him a killer.

Not on its own, no - but it adds to the case against him.

The authorities at the inquest would have been aware of this anomaly, and it seems were happy with whatever explantion he gave to explain this, which he clearly did, although we do not have anything to show what explantion was given.

No, there is no reason at all to assume that the authorities were aware of his name change. Once the authorities had two names for one person, they noted them both in their reports. And understandably so - the name Cross was not the one he was registered by, and so it would not help to find him in the future. The relevance of this is seen in how it was not until in the early years of this century that he was identified.
In case you are unaware of it, the reason the police and inquest asks for a name is to enable them to link the person asked to an established identity. If this was not so, there would be no reason at all to ask for it.

If they were happy with it you should be and therefore it removes one of you reasons for suspecting him to be a killer.

No, Trevor, even if they WERE happy with it - and the abundantly clear indication is that they did not have a clue about it - it would not keep me happy. I would still say that changing your names in combination with a case of deathly violence where you may be the culprit is something that does not look good at all.

The rest of your suspicions are nothing more than speculative

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Once again: every theory that is not proven is based on speculation. And it is not as if speculation is something bad. The Spitalfields victims were all killed along streets where Lechmere would logically have passed en route to work, and so saying that this is in line with him being the culprit and speculating that he was is sound and logical. The same goes for all the other inclusions in the theory - they are speculation, but sound speculation based on the facts.

There was a time when you were a copper, Trevor. During that time, you will on many occasions have suspected various people of being the culprit you looked for. The suspicions you harboured were - hopefully - not taken out of thin air. They should, if you did your job well, have been sound speculation.

Now, forget about how the inquest would have been aware of the name Lechmere until you can prove it. It is unsound speculation until then. Think about it as another of those many unlucky "coincidences" connected to Lechmere - while in scores of other cases there are two names mentioned, telling us that these people used aliases while they were registered by other names, how unlucky is it not that the authorities "forgot" to take down one of the two names the carman had so graciously supplied them with ...

[rjpalmer]

Should we even bother to consider Swanson’s opinion?

Strangely, I'm with Fish on this one--at least halfway. Swanson's statement was written on the 10th, and is obviously based on a conversation with the police surgeons (who he mentions, though not by name); he was informed that the trunk was 'too full of blood' for hemorrhaging to have been the cause of death. It could have been a head wound, he writes, but it was impossible to say, because the head was missing.

But, as Fish rightly notes, the autopsy hadn't even been performed yet (it would be the following day, the 11th) and this belief was obviously revised.

What wasn't revised is what was noticed immediately, and what is stated explicitly in Hebbert's notes: the neck wound was moist and red, while the legs wounds were black and dry.

Thus, there is little or no reason to doubt Swanson's conclusion that "dismemberment had taken place at an earlier period than the head for the raw flesh [of the legs] had from continued exposure dried on the surface which presented a blackened appearance."

He even writes on the 10th that neck still had "blood oozing from it."

But here is where we part company. We know from Fisherman's other writings that he doesn't care for the idea of blood oozing from a body for many minutes, let alone hours and days, yet here we are to believe that the Pinchin Street victim's neck had been slit four or five days earlier and her head removed, yet the wound was still moist, red, and even oozing blood when discovered, despite the fact that the rest of the body is obviously decomposed, patched with green spots, and the hips so far gone that they have even dried out and turned black.

A miracle of almost biblical proportions: a neck wound that remains fresh and oozes blood for nearly a week.

Phillip's had the good grace to admit that his throat cutting theory was just that: a theory. If there had been conclusive evidence for it, it would have been a fact.

As I already stated, there are modern forensic papers outlining case of people who bled to death from head wounds, so that possibility does not contradict Hebbert's report.

I am also finding it remarkably easy to find cases in Victorian Britain of murder victims bleeding to death from cuts to their femoral artery. Had this been the case with the Pinchin Street victim we would not know it, for her legs, like her head, were missing.

My conclusion? Any suggestion that the victim was an East End 'unfortunate' who died from having her throat cut is not made out. Her shapely and well-groomed hands were unaccustomed to the rigors of mangling and charring, and her breasts appeared to have never suckled an infant.

[rjpalmer]

A few femoral artery cases:

A fight between Irishmen in Leeds in 1863: "In a moment the prisoner rose up and with the knife in his hand stabbed the deceased in the femoral artery... carried home, he died in five or six minutes."



Two Irish brothers spar in Roscommon in 1879; one brother is stabbed in the femoral artery, producing "immediate death."




A gamekeeper in Kerry in 1887 is shot in the leg; his femoral artery is severed and he bleeds out in 2 or 3 hours.




Death from hemorrhaging does not have to involve the throat. The legs will suffice, but in the Pinchin case, the legs were missing. We don't know.

[Fisherman]

Strangely, I'm with Fish on this one--at least halfway. Swanson's statement was written on the 10th, and is obviously based on a conversation with the police surgeons (who he mentions, though not by name); he was informed that the trunk was 'too full of blood' for hemorrhaging to have been the cause of death. It could have been a head wound, he writes, but it was impossible to say, because the head was missing.

But, as Fish rightly notes, the autopsy hadn't even been performed yet (it would be the following day, the 11th) and this belief was obviously revised.

What wasn't revised is what was noticed immediately, and what is stated explicitly in Hebbert's notes: the neck wound was moist and red, while the legs wounds were black and dry.

Thus, there is little or no reason to doubt Swanson's conclusion that "dismemberment had taken place at an earlier period than the head for the raw flesh [of the legs] had from continued exposure dried on the surface which presented a blackened appearance."

He even writes on the 10th that neck still had "blood oozing from it."

But here is where we part company. We know from Fisherman's other writings that he doesn't care for the idea of blood oozing from a body for many minutes, let alone hours and days, yet here we are to believe that the Pinchin Street victim's neck had been slit four or five days earlier and her head removed, yet the wound was still moist, red, and even oozing blood when discovered, despite the fact that the rest of the body is obviously decomposed, patched with green spots, and the hips so far gone that they have even dried out and turned black.

A miracle of almost biblical proportions: a neck wound that remains fresh and oozes blood for nearly a week.

Phillip's had the good grace to admit that his throat cutting theory was just that: a theory. If there had been conclusive evidence for it, it would have been a fact.

As I already stated, there are modern forensic papers outlining case of people who bled to death from head wounds, so that possibility does not contradict Hebbert's report.

I am also finding it remarkably easy to find cases in Victorian Britain of murder victims bleeding to death from cuts to their femoral artery. Had this been the case with the Pinchin Street victim we would not know it, for her legs, like her head, were missing.

My conclusion? Any suggestion that the victim was an East End 'unfortunate' who died from having her throat cut is not made out. Her shapely and well-groomed hands were unaccustomed to the rigors of mangling and charring, and her breasts appeared to have never suckled an infant.

Again, even if the woman was no prostitute - and there are seasoned prostitutes with well shaped hands and groomed nails, just as there are those with such commodities who only just enroll in prostitution - there is absolutely no reason to think that the killer was only able to kill unfortunates or that he must have had that agenda.

As for bleeding times, it is not I who say that a woman with the kind of damage Nichols had would likely bleed out in three to five muntes, it is two renowned forensic pathology professors, so it is them you must convince that you are the better judge of matters medical, not me.

[Trevor Marriott]

Once again: every theory that is not proven is based on speculation. And it is not as if speculation is something bad. The Spitalfields victims were all killed along streets where Lechmere would logically have passed en route to work, and so saying that this is in line with him being the culprit and speculating that he was is sound and logical. The same goes for all the other inclusions in the theory - they are speculation, but sound speculation based on the facts.

There was a time when you were a copper, Trevor. During that time, you will on many occasions have suspected various people of being the culprit you looked for. The suspicions you harboured were - hopefully - not taken out of thin air. They should, if you did your job well, have been sound speculation.

Now, forget about how the inquest would have been aware of the name Lechmere until you can prove it. It is unsound speculation until then. Think about it as another of those many unlucky "coincidences" connected to Lechmere - while in scores of other cases there are two names mentioned, telling us that these people used aliases while they were registered by other names, how unlucky is it not that the authorities "forgot" to take down one of the two names the carman had so graciously supplied them with ...

Crimes are not solved on coicidences.

The fact that there was no mention made by the authorities of challenging this anomaly proves that there was nothing sinister when giving his evidence

Do you not think that with the police sitting in on the inquest they would have not sat up and took notice if he gave a different name to that which appeared on his statement, and the same applies to the coroner. There is no mention of anything sinster in his testimony or anything sinister when he was formally exmamined at the inquest.

There is no evidence of any suspicion against by the police at the time, or in any police documents or memoirs therefater.

You have well and truly burnt your bridges with your claims which are without foundation. There is no way back for you, other than to make a public statement accepting Lechmere should now be exonertated from any further suspicion

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Again, even if the woman was no prostitute - and there are seasoned prostitutes with well shaped hands and groomed nails, just as there are those with such commodities who only just enroll in prostitution - there is absolutely no reason to think that the killer was only able to kill unfortunates or that he must have had that agenda.

As for bleeding times, it is not I who say that a woman with the kind of damage Nichols had would likely bleed out in three to five muntes, it is two renowned forensic pathology professors, so it is them you must convince that you are the better judge of matters medical, not me.

A body can have differing bleed out times for your benefit and others I have posted below a series of specific questions I posed to Dr Biggs a modern day forensic pathologist in relation to the Nichols murder

Q. I would like to talk about another victim Polly Nichols she was found murdered with her throat cut and some minor abdominal mutilations. It has been suggested that the person who found the body could have been her killer, as it was reported that blood was still flowing from the throat wound, and the body was still warm 30 minutes later when the doctor examined the body at the scene. Could a body with these injuries bleed from a neck wound for more than twenty minutes?

A. I think it is certainly possible that ‘bleeding’ could go on for a period of twenty minutes, although I would make a distinction between ‘post mortem leakage of blood from the body’ and actual ‘bleeding’ that occurred during life. The flow of blood is likely to have slowed to a trickle by this time as the pressure inside the vessels would have dissipated and the volume of blood remaining available to leak out would have become very little.

In many cases, the majority of the blood found at the scene may have seeped out of the veins. This can happen under the influence of gravity, and therefore, is not dependent on a beating heart (i.e. blood can continue to seep out for quite some time after death). As long as there is still blood throughout the body it can theoretically still leak out under gravity, so there could be a period of several minutes where blood continues to flow after an injury (including after death... it is not unusual for a body that has been dead for some time to ‘bleed’ from a knife wound when you start moving it).

This is likely to be minimal (almost negligible) in nature, as the majority of the blood that could come out would have done so much sooner. If a witness discovered a body that was still bleeding relatively profusely, then the injuries are likely to have been inflicted more recently than 20 minutes previously... but if the 20 minute period is critical in ruling out / in certain suspects, then I wouldn’t dismiss the possibility of some continued blood loss at this time, as I think, it would be possible. (I base this on my own observations of seeing blood leak out of bodies when I have been present at murder scenes some hours after death. This is why I am open to many things being ‘possible’, even though I can’t state categorically what ‘would’ or ‘would not’ have happened in an individual case.)

Q. To what extent would the position of the neck have had an impact on bleeding from such a wound?

A. The position of the neck could potentially influence the rate of flow of blood in that it could either ‘hold open’ or ‘squeeze shut’ various vascular injuries. In practice, if the neck was injured almost to the point of decapitation, then there might be little in the way of a ‘clamping’ effect possible no matter how the neck is angled. In simple terms, nasty neck wounds can bleed a lot (but don’t always). Blood can leak out after death (and for quite some time). You can’t tell anything about the time of injury/death by assessing the blood loss at the scene.

The short answer is that ‘a lot’ of blood would be lost from neck wounds such as this..., but the exact volume could vary greatly depending upon individual circumstances. In terms of time, there would be an initial rush of blood, but the victim’s blood pressure would rapidly subside (in a matter of seconds if the blood loss is particularly profuse) so that the rate of flow would become considerably less relatively soon after injury. After the circulation has stopped, it will be down to gravity to continue the blood loss, and clearly, this will depend on position/angle and so on.

Sometimes a wound will be ‘propped open’ by the position of the body, whereas in other cases the wound may be ‘squeezed shut’ by the weight of the body.
Things like vessel spasm and rapid clotting can be surprisingly good at staunching the flow of blood from even very catastrophic injuries. Even if a person is lying such that their injury is gaping open and is ‘down’ in terms of gravitational direction, this does not necessarily mean that blood will continue to flow out until the body is ‘empty’. Things like collapsing vessels and valve effects can prevent this passive flow, and there are lots of ‘corners’ for the blood to go around (it is spread around lots of long thin tubes, not sitting in a large container) before it finds its way out of the injury... so it might end up ‘trapped’ within the body. I have certainly seen cases with multiple large knife wounds and copious blood at the scene, where a significant proportion of the victim’s blood has remained within the vessels to allow me to obtain good samples for toxicological analysis later in the mortuary.

Getting back to the specific case in question, if the body were lying motionless on the ground with significant open neck wounds, then I would imagine that at least a few hundred millilitres (and probably considerably more) could flow out passively and that this would happen within an initial couple of minutes. If this doesn’t sound like a lot, remember that a little blood can look like an awful lot when it is spilt onto the pavement. For the reasons mentioned above, it would be possible that a lot less blood would be apparent at the scene. It is also possible that a continued slow trickle could go on for many minutes after death if the wound/gravity conditions were right, ending up with even a few litres of blood being present in extreme circumstances.

I did an autopsy last week, where the body had been transported a great distance to the mortuary, and death had occurred almost 24 hours before my examination... and yet the injuries continued to ‘bleed’ relatively profusely for quite some time. So much so that we struggled to get a ‘clean’ photograph as the blood flooded back as quickly as we could wipe it away! This is why I have been cautious about commenting on ‘maximum’ timings and quantities of blood loss.

Q. Would the wounds to the stomach have an impact on how long it took for her to bleed out?

A. Severe abdominal wounds would ‘contribute’ to the rapidity of bleeding to death, but this effect could range from almost negligible (if the neck wounds were so bad that death would have been very quick, and the abdominal wounds didn’t hit anything major) to be very great (if the neck wounds miraculously missed all the major vessels, and the abdominal wounds pranged something big).

There is nothing about blood flow from a wound that will help estimate the time of death. Dried blood on the skin can indicate the position of the body relative to the direction of gravity, but that’s about it.

Basically your theory is shot to pieces in more ways than one and a definate non starter, but fair play to you who has continued to stand by what you belive to be the truth

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

Is English your second language? Or are you just unfamiliar with American English? Here in the States, the transportation of goods by vehicle is called "shipping", regardless of what vehicle or vehicles were used. Shipping refers to road transport of goods, rail transport of goods, air transport of goods, and water transport of goods.

hi fiver
i live in the states, english is my first language and I have also been in the business. shipping refers to long distance transport of goods, usually to a collection point or warehouse via plane, ship, train or truck. Delivery refers to the the shorter distance transport, usually to end customer via small truck or van. or in lechs time, a cart. Lech was in the delivery business. not that its really germaine, but since you were being rather snide to gary i thought id point that out to you.

[Abby Normal]

RJ why couldnt lech have initiated contact with polly in commercial road and then they went to bucks row?

[Michael W Richards]

Do you believe Polly’s killer was interrupted?

I think the evidence....being the fact that she still was barely alive when found, and the fact that her killer chose a particularly vulnerable spot to attack, vis a vis people walking by...and the fact that she does have abdominal injuries that happened after her throat cut....supports that as a working thesis.

[Michael W Richards]

Best we not forget that the murder of Polly and Annie are almost identical, the only significant difference being the degree to which her abdominal mutilations were made. Now, if one is talking about degrees of difference you need look no further than public displays of murder with mutilations vs private de-engineering of the human form, and clandestine disposal of the remains.

[rjpalmer]

RJ why couldnt lech have initiated contact with polly in commercial road and then they went to bucks row?

A good question. In theory, it could have happened, of course, though I suspect you mean Whitechapel Road.

But I rather suspect that Fish is resistant to the clumsy idea of Lechmere straying from his own route to work, and then bringing a prostitute back to this same route, only to murder her at the exact time that he would have been there anyway, given the 4.00 a.m. ETA in Broad Street. He wants Lechmere murdering women near his route, but not on it.

Instead, he prefers to have Nichols at that exact spot by sheer circumstance; she had gone there with another man, and Lechmere just happened to come along while she was still lingering at the gate, only moments after this unknown client had buttoned up his trousers after a knee-trembler, before leaving.

The weakness of this idea is readily apparent. It places an unknown punter in Bucks Row with Polly Nichols at 3.30-3.40. This is why I am astonished that Fisherman is willing to go there. The unknown punter is clearly a better suspect than Lechmere, because Lechmere had a plausible reason for being there--he was headed to work--while this unknown punter clearly had no legitimate reason; he's in a backstreet with a drunken woman at 3.30 in the morning. How could he be up to anything other than no good?

And since the blood evidence is not precise enough to differentiate between which of the two men killed Polly, we return to exactly the same spot we were before the Lechmerians took the field of battle: the 'Ripper' killed Nichols and then fled when he heard Lechmere's distant footsteps approach. Or maybe he heard another noise and had already departed a few minutes earlier.

That's how I see it.

P.S. Years ago, there was a gentleman named Peter Birchwood who sometimes posted on this site, and who was mainly known for his investigation of the Maybrick Diary. He was a very sharp customer, so his ideas are worth considering, and he suggested that Charles Cross needed to be looked into, on the principle that the person who finds the body is sometimes the killer. It was just a throwaway suggestion, made around 2002, but I don't think he ever took it further, nor anyone ever took it too seriously, nor do I know if Birchwood knew 'Cross' was 'Lechmere.' The post used to be in the archives, but I think it was lost during the first of the two big crashes, but I always remembered it, because I followed Birchwood and his ideas. Cheers.

[Abby Normal]

A good question. In theory, it could have happened, of course, though I suspect you mean Whitechapel Road.

But I rather suspect that Fish is resistant to the clumsy idea of Lechmere straying from his own route to work, and then bringing a prostitute back to this same route, only to murder her at the exact time that he would have been there anyway, given the 4.00 a.m. ETA in Broad Street. He wants Lechmere murdering women near his route, but not on it.

Instead, he prefers to have Nichols at that exact spot by sheer circumstance; she had gone there with another man, and Lechmere just happened to come along while she was still lingering at the gate, only moments after this unknown client had buttoned up his trousers after a knee-trembler, before leaving.

The weakness of this idea is readily apparent. It places an unknown punter in Bucks Row with Polly Nichols at 3.30-3.40. This is why I am astonished that Fisherman is willing to go there. The unknown punter is clearly a better suspect than Lechmere, because Lechmere had a plausible reason for being there--he was headed to work--while this unknown punter clearly had no legitimate reason; he's in a backstreet with a drunken woman at 3.30 in the morning. How could he be up to anything other than no good?

And since the blood evidence is not precise enough to differentiate between which of the two men killed Polly, we return to exactly the same spot we were before the Lechmerians took the field of battle: the 'Ripper' killed Nichols and then fled when he heard Lechmere's distant footsteps approach. Or maybe he heard another noise and had already departed a few minutes earlier.

That's how I see it.

P.S. Years ago, there was a gentleman named Peter Birchwood who sometimes posted on this site, and who was mainly known for his investigation of the Maybrick Diary. He was a very sharp customer, so his ideas are worth considering, and he suggested that Charles Cross needed to be looked into, on the principle that the person who finds the body is sometimes the killer. It was just a throwaway suggestion, made around 2002, but I don't think he ever took it further, nor anyone ever took it too seriously, nor do I know if Birchwood knew 'Cross' was 'Lechmere.' The post used to be in the archives, but I think it was lost during the first of the two big crashes, but I always remembered it, because I followed Birchwood and his ideas. Cheers.

ok thanks for clarification and yes I meant whitechapel road. for me it dosnt really matter where and how he met polly initially. she may have been resting/sleeping in bucks row, or still actively wandering around the area still looking for a punter. if he knew that prostitutes were more likely to be found in whitechapel road maybe he went there first and met her, and perhaps let her lead them into bucks road. There are any number of scenarios. and I think more than likley if he was the ripper he would be leaving home early-enough time to do a little hunting and the deeds. although ive always had sneaking suspicians that if lech was the killer he may have been actually off on the morning/s he killed.

and i agree of course with mr birchwoods idea that many times the person who "finds" the body is the killer. Its actually a well known fact, and in lechs case, especially intriguing as hes actually seen lurking around the body. I have never known of a case where this happened with an innocent "witness." just seems a tad odd to me.and yes suspicious.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Ok, here's a thought. Bear in mind I'm not a Letchmereian.

When trying to tie Chuck to the double, we look at his visiting Ma, despite it being an odd hour, or his meeting up with drinking buddies, after visiting his mum, or anything that connects him to his mum's house. What about, mother Letchmere visited him and the kids at Doveton St, and he walked her home? I mean, he would, late night, in that area. That way, you can plausibly place him in the area, at that time of night. It also allows for the absence of the time, because how long might he claim to stay at his mum's? When might he get home? Who would forensically ask?

Pure speculation, but so is his visiting his mum, out drinking with old pals, murdering and heading to work when he shouldn't be there and anything else that night.

Ties up some loose ends there. Walks Ma home, puts him the area at the right time, nips off for a couple of quick murders, covers his familiar stomping ground, heads home later than usual, no questions asked.

You want to place Charles near Berner St at that time, on that day, I'd go for walking mother home.