Framing Charles

[rjpalmer]

This bloodstained undergarment was found a couple hours after the Pichin Street Torso. Hooper Street is west of Backchurch Lane. Unlike the bloody apron that was found at St Philip´s Church, somebody at the time thought the Hooper Street garment might be related to the Pinchin Street Torso.

This was a strange and unsettling discovery, but there are several problems with it being related to the Pinchin Street case, so perhaps that's why Fisherman has rejected it.

First off, to be nit-picky, it evidently wasn't actually found on Hooper street, but in an enclosed lot just south of it--the former site of the Mill Yard Baptist Church, which had been demolished. The site was surrounded by a tall fence, so entry wasn't automatic, and the clothing was apparently thrown over the fence or shoved through a gap.

One problem is that it was discovered, as you say, at around 7.30 a.m. on the 10th.

But on the 11th, Inspector Reid wrote a report, stating that he had asked the inspector of local dust bin collectors to be on the look-out for any bloody clothing. Oddly, he doesn't mention this relevant discovery at all, though he does mention bloody clothing being found in Batty Street, but dismissed it as related to a pregnancy.

It's possible that a separate report was written about the discovery in the Millyard Passage, but if so, no record of it remains.

But the biggest mark against this having anything to do with the Pinchin Street affair is that is was a chemise. The Pinchin Street victim was still wearing her chemise, and it had been cut open.

So whoever this bloody chemise belonged to, it apparently wasn't the Pinchin Street victim, unless she was wearing two.

I suppose it's possible, since many women were homeless they might wear all their available clothing at once, but it does make one wonder under what circumstance both would be blood-stained, but only one of them cut open, and the other one left intact.

It doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense.

[Fiver]

And claiming that I only base my theory on that factor is just false. But hey, we do what we can, right?

You "forgot":

- the blood evidence
- the covered up wounds
- the name change
- the timing aspect
- the fact that Paul never mentioned seeing or hearing Lechmere in front of himself
- the refusal to help prop Nichols up
- the disagreement with Mizen
- the links to the Torso series

If it wasn´t for that, I may have been charitable and said "Nice try!". But in all honesty, it really is nothing of the sort, is it?

Guess it is time to stop answering your posts again, until you start being a bit more honest.

- the "blood evidence" has already been refuted. If people bled out as fast as you claim, PC Neil is the best suspect.
- Robert Paul testified he pulled down Nichols clothing.
- The name change is odd, but it was first used in 1876, over a decade before the Ripper killings.
- The timing aspect makes very unlikely that Lechmere killed Tabram, Chapman, Stride, Eddowes, or the Pichin Street Torso
- Paul testified to seeing Lechmere in front of him
- helping to prop Nichols up would have been a perfect way to explain any blood in Lechmere's clothes.
- Paul and Lechmere both disgareed with Mizen. That does not make either man more likely to be the Ripper.
- there are no links to the Torso killings and that was clearly a different killer than the Ripper.

[Scott Nelson]

A carman who started work at 10am? Impossible!

[Fiver]

Your whole presence out here is lined with incorrect statements, I´m afraid. I need only to remind you of how you claimed that Lechmeres mother lived in Pinchin Street at the time of the Stride murder, for example.

So now we went there. I hope you enjoyed it.

Nice attempt at dodging the question. I have made mistakes, but I have also corrected them. Where Charle's Lechmere's mother was living had nothing to do with the points I was making back in Post #277.

"I do have some knowledge of shipping/receiving, as well as information about period technology and Charles Lechmere's work at Pickfords. So while I do not know for certain, I can make some educated guesses.

Shifts in shipping would have standardized starting times. They normally do today and few if any carmen would have telephones, so management would not be able to call and reschedule. Variable shifts make it harder for management to plan schedules. They're even harder on the workers and even Ebenezer Scrooge might be smart enough to realize variable shifts results in sleep-deprived workers who are more likely to make mistakes in deliveries or get in accidents, neither of which help the company. Charles Lechmere worked at the Broad Street Station, where Pickfords would be receiving shipments that arrived on regularly scheduled trains. Charles Lechford had a fair amount of seniority, with over twenty years of experience at Pickford's.

Unless someone can provide evidence that Pickfords used variable shifts, the most logical assumption is that Pickfords would have used standard starting times for shifts. After over 20 years, Lechmere would have found the shift that was the best, or perhaps least bad, shift for him and would be unlikely to change it. Lechmere also probably got Sundays off, due to seniority, and would be unlikely to change it.

Workers sometimes trade shifts, but it does not happen often. Far more likely is for workers with the same shift to trade days off.

A carman killing on the way to work has very little slack time and no excuse for showing up to work with fresh bloodstains on his clothing. If Charles Lechmere was the Ripper we'd expect all of the killings to be between 3:30am and 3:45am on work days and 3:30am or later on his days off. That makes it wildly unlikely that Charles Lechmere killed Chapman, Stride, Eddowes. or the Pinchin Street Torso.

The variable part of shipping/receiving is when a shift is finished, which can change significantly based on how much needed to be delivered and how well the delivery list was organized. Starting work at 4am means Charles Lechmere would probably finish his deliveries 8 to 10 hours later, though an unusually slow day might take only 6 hours and an unusually busy one might take 11 hours. Mrs Lechmere would not expect her husband to be home at the same time twice in a row and arriving home as early as 11am or as late as 4pm would be possible. A killer carman would have hours of slack after work, not the 10 or 15 minutes squeezed into his trip to work. Plus fresh blood stains could be explained as being unlucky enough to get stuck transporting improperly wrapped meat.

If we're looking for a killer carman to pin the Ripper crimes on, we should look for one who started work at 4pm, not 4am."

So to repeat - Was there anything unclear or incorrect in what I said in Post #277? So far, neither you nor your enthusiastic supporter have responded to Post #277 with evidence or reasoning.

That said, I have found an error in my estimates. According to Pickford's workers in the 29 June 1891 Standard, they were working "fourteen to eighteen hours per day". Correcting for that, I'll update my last 2 paragraphs.

"The variable part of shipping/receiving is when a shift is finished, which can change significantly based on how much needed to be delivered and how well the delivery list was organized. Starting work at 4am means Charles Lechmere would finish his deliveries 14 to 18 hours later. Mrs Lechmere would not expect her husband to be home at the same time twice in a row and arriving home as early as 7pm or as late as 11pm would be possible. A killer carman would have hours of slack after work, not the 10 or 15 minutes squeezed into his trip to work. Plus fresh blood stains could be explained as being unlucky enough to get stuck transporting improperly wrapped meat.

If we're looking for a killer carman to pin the Ripper crimes on, we should look for one who started work at 10am, not 4am."

[Fiver]

At which time he would have to operate in broad daylight. At which time, his wife would in all probability know when he got off and should be expected home.

According to Pickford's workers contemplating a strike in 1891, "At present they had to work fourteen to eighteen hours a day with no allowance for overtime". (29 June 1891 Standard).

That would put Charles Lechmere's shifts ending sometime between 6pm and 10pm. With a 4 hour variance in shifts, Mrs Lechmere would have no idea when her husband was supposed to get home. If he went straight home after work without stopping for a pint with the lads, Lechmere might have occasionally gotten home before sunset.

The trek to work in the morning offered him dark streets with few people on them and he would likely be able to creep out at any which time he preferred.

Serial killers are to a very high degree opportunistic. Leaving home some little time before he needed to and venturing into the dark maze of Spitalfields would provide an opportunistic killer with prime hunting grounds in secure lighting conditions.

The way I see it, the morning trek was as good as it got for him.

Charles Lechmere appears to have taken 35 to 40 minutes to walk to work. The only way he would have enough time to commit a Ripper murder would be to leave for work at least 15 minutes early. Which would be a premeditated plan, not an opportunistic act. And it would be odd for Lechmere to leave early - shifts start at set times.

[Fiver]

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

Tell me more.

I already told everyone back in Post #175.

"The first bit of evidence was a bloodstained undergarment found at half-past seven in a vacant yard in Hooper-street, 500 yards away. It had been thrust through a hole in the fence, and it was turned over to the police. The stains on this, as on the chemise, were old and dried." - New York Herald, London edition, 11 September 1889

This bloodstained undergarment was found a couple hours after the Pichin Street Torso. Hooper Street is west of Backchurch Lane. Unlike the bloody apron that was found at St Philip´s Church, somebody at the time thought the Hooper Street garment might be related to the Pinchin Street Torso.

rjpalmer provided info on the bloody apron that was found at St Philip´s Church in Post #176. It was found at noon on the day after the Pinchin Street Torso was discovered.

The discovery found on Hooper Street was the same type of garment found on the corpse. It was found far sooner and far closer to the Pinchin Street remains. But Fisherman isn't drawing any lines through the Hooper Street garment because that doesn't fit his theory.

[MrBarnett]

In 1888, a young chap who went by the name of Aaron Abrahams was summoned for having an unmuzzled dog. When approached by PC Borer, though, he gave his name as Aaron Kosminski. Things got a bit confusing when the young man’s brother said his name was Abrahams, not Kosminski.

However, the young man cleared the matter up by saying that his brother was wrong; although they found it more convenient to use the name Abrahams in London, the family name was actually Kosminski. His proper name of Kosminski is the one that appears in the court records, of course.

Of course that should have read ‘In 1889’.

[MrBarnett]

In 1888, a young chap who went by the name of Aaron Abrahams was summoned for having an unmuzzled dog. When approached by PC Borer, though, he gave his name as Aaron Kosminski. Things got a bit confusing when the young man’s brother said his name was Abrahams, not Kosminski.

However, the young man cleared the matter up by saying that his brother was wrong; although they found it more convenient to use the name Abrahams in London, the family name was actually Kosminski. His proper name of Kosminski is the one that appears in the court records, of course.

[MrBarnett]

As I already acknowledged in my previous post, this a separate issue.

Adams/Slack was not a witness; he was the subject of the inquest. He was one of the dead bodies, and a death certificate would need to be filled out, so his “legal” name was relevant to the inquiry. The widow might also have wanted his commonly understood name broadcast in the newspapers, to alert distant relatives and friends, who may have been confused by the name he had used at work--‘W. A. Slack.’

Whether Adams/Slack would have felt obliged to give both his names had he survived and merely given evidence at the inquest is unknowable, so we must look at other case studies to answer that particular question.

The relevance of the Adams/Slack case study was simply to show that a man’s name in all existing documentation (marriage license, children’s school registrations, census returns, etc.) does not necessarily tell us the name he casually used in other aspects of his life, which, in Adam’s case, was the name of his stepfather. This was relevant to this thread, because we were asked to draw certain conclusions about Lechmere's use of 'Lechmere' in similar documents.

But if ‘Slack’ always used the name 'Slack' at work, but 'Adams' outside of work, why couldn't the same be true of 'Cross'?

If we want to discuss the second question—whether such men would feel obliged to give both names in court—we might want to turn to “Charles Taylor” of Ryde, who evidently felt no such compulsion.

But, as I said earlier, I will leave others to draw their own conclusions. I am satisfied.

Why offer that example? It’s very different from the Lechmere case. Taylor had lived pretty much all his life with his stepfather and was working in his well known local business when the incident he witnessed took place. He presumably drove carts across the IOW with the name Taylor emblazoned across them.

Was his biological father the scion of a notable family?’
Might he have had reason to be proud of the name Jones?

If anyone had suggested that Lechmere’s ommission of his proper name was a unique event, then this example would be worth presenting. As it is, it’s rather pathetic.

[rjpalmer]

What the heck is going on?

Well, it seems to me that in the Adams/Slack case it was felt appropriate that the name issue should be clarified in court.

Is that right?

The deceased’s wife thought it was somehow wrong that his unofficial name should be used, so she volunteered the information about his ‘proper’ name.

As I already acknowledged in my previous post, this a separate issue.

Adams/Slack was not a witness; he was the subject of the inquest. He was one of the dead bodies, and a death certificate would need to be filled out, so his “legal” name was relevant to the inquiry. The widow might also have wanted his commonly understood name broadcast in the newspapers, to alert distant relatives and friends, who may have been confused by the name he had used at work--‘W. A. Slack.’

Whether Adams/Slack would have felt obliged to give both his names had he survived and merely given evidence at the inquest is unknowable, so we must look at other case studies to answer that particular question.

The relevance of the Adams/Slack case study was simply to show that a man’s name in all existing documentation (marriage license, children’s school registrations, census returns, etc.) does not necessarily tell us the name he casually used in other aspects of his life, which, in Adam’s case, was the name of his stepfather. This was relevant to this thread, because we were asked to draw certain conclusions about Lechmere's use of 'Lechmere' in similar documents.

But if ‘Slack’ always used the name 'Slack' at work, but 'Adams' outside of work, why couldn't the same be true of 'Cross'?

If we want to discuss the second question—whether such men would feel obliged to give both names in court—we might want to turn to “Charles Taylor” of Ryde, who evidently felt no such compulsion.

But, as I said earlier, I will leave others to draw their own conclusions. I am satisfied.

[Joshua Rogan]

This well known photo allegedly shows a Pickfords van loaded with fuel for Capt Scott’s Terra Nova at the West India Docks in 1910.

What other commodities do we imagine would have carried alongside marine fuel?

A pianola?

[MrBarnett]

Oates?

Very appropriate for a cereal killer.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

This well known photo allegedly shows a Pickfords van loaded with fuel for Capt Scott’s Terra Nova at the West India Docks in 1910.

What other commodities do we imagine would have carried alongside marine fuel?

Oates?

[MrBarnett]

This well known photo allegedly shows a Pickfords van loaded with fuel for Capt Scott’s Terra Nova at the West India Docks in 1910.

What other commodities do we imagine would have carried alongside marine fuel?

[MrBarnett]

I see you have chosen insults instead of attempting to refute anything I said. 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.

Your source is an article that appeared in All The Year Round in 1863 and which describes Pickfords activities at Camden. Their relationship with the LNWR was going through a sticky patch at that time and they moved from Camden around 1864.

Pickfords were universal carriers, meaning they carried just about anything: consumer goods, foodstuffs, minerals, building materials, fuel...and more besides.

Do you really believe the few facts and figures you have gleaned about their activities in Camden in 1863 are valid for whatever loads CAL was carrying in 1888?

Broad Street and Liverpool Street next door were major hubs for butchers meat, fish and cats meat. Deliveries from there would have gone to Smithfield, Billingsgate and Harrison, Barber and a handful of other horseflesh wholesalers.