Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Framing Charles

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



  • 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.









    Comment


    • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

      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’.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

        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.


        Comment


        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
          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.

          Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
          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.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
            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."


            Comment


            • A carman who started work at 10am? Impossible!

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                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.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Fiver View Post
                  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.
                  Last edited by rjpalmer; 06-06-2021, 10:30 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                    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.
                    Thank you for the information. I haven't found a source that mentioned the former site of the Mill Yard Baptist Church. That makes it more similar to the St Philip´s Church apron - both surrounded by a fence, both churches, one under construction and the other under demolition.

                    I agree that the bloody chemise probably has nothing to do with the Pinchin Street Torso. If they were both parts of the same chemise, that probably would have been noted at the time. The St Philip´s Church apron is even less likely to have anything to do with the Pichin Street Torso, but Fisherman had provided no reason for accepting it while rejecting the Mill Yard Church chemise. Nor any reason why the killer would deliberately leave it on his way home. Nor acknowledged that St Philip´s Church would not have been on Charles Lechmere's way home.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                      Can you provide me with one example of the press probing the identity of a witness in the Ripper case? They just didn’t. So why on earth do you imagine they would have picked up the use of two names?
                      There is an example of the press probing the identity of a witness whose name and address were kept secret by the police.

                      "INFORMATION WHICH MAY BE IMPORTANT was given to the Leman-street police late yesterday afternoon by an Hungarian concerning this murder. This foreigner was well dressed, and had the appearance of being in the theatrical line. He could not speak a word of English, but came to the police-station accompanied by a friend, who acted as an interpreter. He gave his name and address, but the police have not disclosed them. A Star man, however, got wind of his call, and ran him to earth in Backchurch-lane." - 1 October 1888 Star




                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                        Thank you for the information. I haven't found a source that mentioned the former site of the Mill Yard Baptist Church. That makes it more similar to the St Philip´s Church apron - both surrounded by a fence, both churches, one under construction and the other under demolition.

                        I agree that the bloody chemise probably has nothing to do with the Pinchin Street Torso. If they were both parts of the same chemise, that probably would have been noted at the time. The St Philip´s Church apron is even less likely to have anything to do with the Pichin Street Torso, but Fisherman had provided no reason for accepting it while rejecting the Mill Yard Church chemise. Nor any reason why the killer would deliberately leave it on his way home. Nor acknowledged that St Philip´s Church would not have been on Charles Lechmere's way home.
                        Hi Fiver:

                        Things aren't quite as clear-cut as I wrote in my earlier post; accounts differ as to whether the clothing was a chemise or a bodice, so, despite my earlier misgivings, it is not entirely clear whether or not this clothing could have belonged to the victim.

                        the more detailed account appeared in a number of newspapers, including the Sheffield Daily Telegraph

                        Click image for larger version  Name:	image_21153.jpg Views:	3 Size:	59.8 KB ID:	759958

                        Click image for larger version

Name:	Pinchin 2.JPG
Views:	68
Size:	69.1 KB
ID:	759964


                        As you can see, in this account the clothing is described as a 'bodice.'

                        In the earlier reports it was described as a chemise.

                        Click image for larger version  Name:	Pinchin 3.JPG Views:	0 Size:	58.4 KB ID:	759961
                        Last edited by rjpalmer; 06-08-2021, 02:14 PM.

                        Comment


                        • The following webpage has what is claimed to be an image of the Mill Yard Baptist Church in 'Whitechapel,' but I can't vouch for it.

                          Mill Yard Baptist Church | Writing Hythe History (wordpress.com)

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                            Hi Fiver:

                            Things aren't quite as clear-cut as I wrote in my earlier post; accounts differ as to whether the clothing was a chemise or a bodice
                            Here was my thinking. The longer 'Telegraph' account contradicts itself.

                            It first refers to the bloody clothing as a bodice, but the workmen themselves called it a 'shift,' which was slightly naughty slang for underwear (the use of the word 'shift' by an actor in John Millington Synge's drama "Playboy of the Western World" led to a riot in Ireland--my, how times have changed), so they seem to have identified it as a chemise.

                            Thus, combining all three references to the garment, we have 2 to 1 in favor of a chemise, and the Pinchin Street victim was already wearing one.

                            Unfortunately, that's about the best we can do, and Inspector Reid doesn't mention it in his report.

                            RP

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

                              Here was my thinking. The longer 'Telegraph' account contradicts itself.

                              It first refers to the bloody clothing as a bodice, but the workmen themselves called it a 'shift,' which was slightly naughty slang for underwear (the use of the word 'shift' by an actor in John Millington Synge's drama "Playboy of the Western World" led to a riot in Ireland--my, how times have changed), so they seem to have identified it as a chemise.

                              Thus, combining all three references to the garment, we have 2 to 1 in favor of a chemise, and the Pinchin Street victim was already wearing one.

                              Unfortunately, that's about the best we can do, and Inspector Reid doesn't mention it in his report.

                              RP
                              Thanks for your research and for sharing it. If the blood on the undergarment was as fresh as claimed, that makes it unlikely to be associated with the Pinchin Street Torso.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                                RJ,

                                I think you’ll find that whether she had married Cross in the knowledge that John Lechmere was still alive or not, her second marriage was invalid. Ditto her third
                                RJ has already shown that, unless she knew John Lechmere was still alive, enough time had passed for her second marriage to be legal.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X