Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Framing Charles

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

    Lechmere’s logical routes ran roughly parallel to the main E/W thoroughfare through the East End: Mile End Road, Whitechapel Road/High Street, Aldgate, and ultimately connected with Commercial Street.

    The killer did not compulsively take his victims to Lechmere’s routes, he took them, or went with them, to quiet spots just off the major routes where the prostitutes touted for business.

    As I’ve said before George Yard, Miller’s Court and Mitre Square were NOT on his logical routes. If he had been obsessed with killing on his route, he would not have killed in those places.

    By your reckoning Pearly Poll took her soldier to a spot on Lechmere’s route - as probably did hundreds of other prostitutes on thousands of occasions.

    Lechmere’s routes ran through areas where prostitutes took their clients. It’s as simple as that.




    And Charles Lechmere was found alone with one of the Ripper victims at a moment in time when she would go on to bleed for many a minute. It is as simple as that too, but you seem to forget it all the time...?

    Comment


    • #92
      Mr Barnett:

      "As I’ve said before George Yard, Miller’s Court and Mitre Square were NOT on his logical routes. If he had been obsessed with killing on his route, he would not have killed in those places."

      Only, I am not saying that he was obsessed with killing directly on his routes. I am saying that the four Whitechapel murders happened on or alongside those routes, all of them in places that would be completely logical for him to pass.

      That wonīt go away, I' m afraid.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

        Yes, Gary, that is very true: a short cut predisposes that there is a longer alternative. But there may be more than one short cut from a route A-B. Surely that is something you are aware of?

        How about I offer you to take a smoke on a piece pipe? If Dorset Street by way of being a few seconds longer, scarier and winding was a no-no for Charles Lechmere, how about this:

        If Charles walked Hanbury Street to Commercial Street and took a left there, with the aim to search out Brushfield Street (but avoid Dorset Street), he would be walking down the street where Kelly was known to sell her favors as per Dew for a stretch of around a hundred yards or so. Regardless of which way he chose, he had to traverse Commercial Street.
        Would you be happy to allow for the two meeting in Commercial Street and Kelly saying "Iīve got a room in the next street, dear"?

        At the end of the day, any police force checking out a suspect and finding that he or she traversed the exact area where the murders they are investigating occurred - and at roughly the relevant hours - would be stoked to find such a thing out. I doubt that they would go into the finer points of winding stree and dangerous locations in such a case. A correlation is a correlation, and few correlations can be clearer than this one.
        Yes, Lechmere’s routes took him through areas where prostitution was rife. Ask yourself this question, if another killer of lodging house unfortunates had been hunting for prey in the early hours, how likely is it that he would have committed his crimes near to Lechmere’s routes? The more southerly route tracked the Mile End to Aldgate thoroughfare and the northerly route only becomes relevant when it hits the heart of Spitalfields - doss house unfortunate central.





        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
          See the above. I would just like to add that a PC approaching the murder site and meeting a calmly walking carman as he simultaneously hears somebody yell "Murder!" may well detain that carman regardless of his composure.
          I have noted on many occasions that people speculate that Lechmere would have left the site if he was the killer. I have also noted on other occasions that others disagree, reasoning that he may well have stayed in place. It is therefore not an issue that can decide the case in either way, other than on a personal level: if you think it is impossible, you think it impossible.
          But I donīt.
          I’m everso humbly sorry for the disturbance I seem to have caused, Christer. Two things before I’m going to leave you alone, though.

          1. The quote below made me - incorrectly, I now realize - think that you, for some reason or another, had changed your view in the sense that you now believe that Lechmere heard Paul entering Buck’s Row and immediately decided to cut her throat. If I had known this isn’t the case, then I wouldn’t have written what I wrote. But there you go.

          Here's the quote, taken from your O.P. on the "Every second counts" thread:
          In the book, I suggest that Nichols bled for a minimum of nine minutes. I am reasoning that Lechmere cut her throat as he first heard Robert Paul entering Bucks Row. After that, it took a minute for Paul to reach the murder spot.


          2. On the one hand you believe Lechmere was the non-panicking, quick thinking, manipulating psychopath, who thought he was able to fool Paul & whoever might have come along later down the line (Mizen, other police officers, inquest) and did so, but, on the other, you believe he wouldn’t have been able to think he would escape if he had, relatively, quite a bit of time to do so and decided to do just that? That he wasn’t able to think enough on his feet to decide when to run, when to stop & check around a corner, look for a place to hide in order to avoid encountering at least a PC? That he couldn't have come up with the idea to lay down his knife along the way without attracting attention or anybody seeing it? That’s really beyond me, but there you go, again.
          "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
          Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
            It is therefore not an issue that can decide the case in either way, other than on a personal level: if you think it is impossible, you think it impossible.
            By the way, I don't think it's impossible. I just think he would only have done so when he felt he really had no other option. Like with Dahmer. If he had stayed in his appartment when the cops were taking the naked boy with them, he could be rather sure the police would come knocking on his door shortly. So, we only differ in opinion in that regard: at what point would Lechmere have felt he had no other choice?
            Last edited by FrankO; 03-26-2021, 09:09 AM.
            "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
            Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

              Yes, Lechmere’s routes took him through areas where prostitution was rife. Ask yourself this question, if another killer of lodging house unfortunates had been hunting for prey in the early hours, how likely is it that he would have committed his crimes near to Lechmere’s routes?

              The more southerly route tracked the Mile End to Aldgate thoroughfare and the northerly route only becomes relevant when it hits the heart of Spitalfields - doss house unfortunate central.
              I cannot say in exact numbers how likely that would be, Gary. Obviously, the more aike Lechmere this alternative killer was, the more likely he would be to do the same things in the same places. And I have been saying so all along. IF another carman wioth a murderus disposition lived near Lechmere and worked in the same general area, then yes, he would be a better bid than somebody who didnīt.

              But it all rests on conjecture. We have no other such example at hand. And even if we did, he would not have been found with a freshly killed woman at a time when she would still go on to bleed for many minutes, he would not be known to have used an alias with the police in combination with an inquest into the death of a Ripper victim, he would not be known to have given another version of what was said and done than the serving PC on a murder beat etcetera.

              And there is more to consider. Yes, the area Lechmere walked to work was one where there was street prostitution present, and so yes, just as you say, if the killer lived in that area, it would make sense if he killed in it too (although I am often told that Lechmere would never have defecated on his own doorstep...).
              But it was not as if Whitechapel was the ONLY area with prostitution, was it? I managed to find a distribution for the prostitutes of London as per the police on the net. The material is from 1858, but it should go to make an important point nevertheless.

              Here is a list from that year of where the prostitutes were to be found in London:

              Westminster: 469, St Jamesīs: 208, ST Marylebone: 428, Holborn: 511, Covent Garden: 428, Finsbury: 225, Whitechapel: 811, Stepney: 1015, Lambeth: 657, Soutwark: 661, Islington: 441, Camberwell: 222, Greenwich: 570, Hampstead: 311, Kensington: 97, Wandsworth: 187, a total of 7261, meaning that less than 12 per cent of the prostitutes were plying their trade in Whitechapel.
              The material is from ”Victorian London” (www.victorianlondon.org)

              The question that arises should be obvious: If we work from the presumption that somebody else than Lechmere was the person who killed prostitutes (sorry, Hallie R...) in 1888, then why did he do so in Whitechapel? There were heaps of other possibilities. correct?

              It is not until we look upon things like this that we may see why Lechmere is a red hot suspect. Not only is he linked to a murder spot in a fashion that VERY much allows for him being the killer, there is also the fact that if we want to suggest an alternative killer, then why did he choose the exact district Lechmere traversed every working day in the early morning hours? Why did he not kill in the districts where the other 88 per cent of the prostitutes worked?

              Once again, when we have a red hot suspect and check him against the geography, the logical outcome of a perfect fit is not to go "There would potentially have been others around in that area who could also be the killer". It is "Wow, he fits!"

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by FrankO View Post
                I’m everso humbly sorry for the disturbance I seem to have caused, Christer. Two things before I’m going to leave you alone, though.

                1. The quote below made me - incorrectly, I now realize - think that you, for some reason or another, had changed your view in the sense that you now believe that Lechmere heard Paul entering Buck’s Row and immediately decided to cut her throat. If I had known this isn’t the case, then I wouldn’t have written what I wrote. But there you go.

                Here's the quote, taken from your O.P. on the "Every second counts" thread:
                In the book, I suggest that Nichols bled for a minimum of nine minutes. I am reasoning that Lechmere cut her throat as he first heard Robert Paul entering Bucks Row. After that, it took a minute for Paul to reach the murder spot.


                2. On the one hand you believe Lechmere was the non-panicking, quick thinking, manipulating psychopath, who thought he was able to fool Paul & whoever might have come along later down the line (Mizen, other police officers, inquest) and did so, but, on the other, you believe he wouldn’t have been able to think he would escape if he had, relatively, quite a bit of time to do so and decided to do just that? That he wasn’t able to think enough on his feet to decide when to run, when to stop & check around a corner, look for a place to hide in order to avoid encountering at least a PC? That he couldn't have come up with the idea to lay down his knife along the way without attracting attention or anybody seeing it? That’s really beyond me, but there you go, again.
                I can see how itīs frustrating if, as you say, it is beyond you to comprehend how such a thing can be true. Given that stance, there is no way you are ever going to personally accept the possibility that he did, right?

                And thatīs fine, Frank. I think it is a misconception and I think it disregards what we know of psychopathic serial killers, but if I am allowed to feel strongly about something, then sure as hell, you have the same prerogative.

                I think it makes a world of sense that he chose to stay put. It is in perfect line with how I believe psychopathy works; it appeals to a psychopaths illusions of grandeur, of his compulsive need to lie and cheat and to his propensity to play games.

                If Iīm wrong, then Iīm wrong, but the many things that point in favor of Lechmere being the culprit, the long bleeding on record, the geographical correlations, the alias he used, the disagreement with Mizen over what was said, the pulled down dress, the refusal to help prop Nichols up, the timely arrival of Robert Paul... It all adds up, and in my world, it will not all be an ocean of coincidences. In my world, it is clear circumstantial evidence of guilt.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by FrankO View Post
                  By the way, I don't think it's impossible. I just think he would only have done so when he felt he really had no other option. Like with Dahmer. If he had stayed in his appartment when the cops were taking the naked boy with them, he could be rather sure the police would come knocking on his door shortly. So, we only differ in opinion in that regard: at what point would Lechmere have felt he had no other choice?
                  Point taken on that score, Frank. We are just on very different points on the scale.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                    I can see how itīs frustrating if, as you say, it is beyond you to comprehend how such a thing can be true.
                    If I may, Christer, just for the record: what’s beyond me is not to comprehend how such a thing can be true (but you know that by now). What’s beyond me is how you suggest that one man would think he would be able to get away by staying at the crime scene, but this very same man wouldn’t or couldn’t think he would be able to get away by not staying at the crime scene if knew he had relatively much time to do so. Even though both options had their own, unforeseeable risks. I know you believe that Lechmere wouldn't have thought it would have been time enough, but bear with me, as this is something I feel strongly about.

                    Yes, as you suggest, ‘my’ Lechmere could have walked into an approaching PC at the very moment Paul would scream “Bloody murder!” and be detained by him. That would certainly be true if ‘my’ Lechmere couldn’t or wouldn’t listen for sounds, look around corners to check, run any stretch at all, look for places to hide, in short, use his head & ability to stay calm, but instead just ‘calmly walked away and kept walking until he possibly met a PC’, as you seem to suggest.

                    ‘Your’ Lechmere, however, together with Paul, could have walked into the arms of beat PC Neil before they ever passed Thomas Street. And for all Lechmere knew, this beat PC could also have entered Buck’s Row from Baker’s Row. The moment Lechmere decided to stay, there would be no way he could know that they wouldn’t walk into Neil. And if they would have met Neil, he couldn’t have used the lie you suggest he used with Mizen and would, therefore, be in the same sort of situation as ‘my’ Lechmere. The difference between ‘your’ Lechmere and ‘mine’, the way I see it, however, is that ‘mine’ had more control over not meeting a PC who could do him harm and could at least get rid of his knife. ‘Your’ Lechmere could only hope he wouldn’t walk into Neil and every second he stayed longer at the crime scene would bring Neil closer.

                    So, there you have it. I've gotten the last thing off my chest that I wanted to say. For now, anyway.
                    "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
                    Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by FrankO View Post

                      If I may, Christer, just for the record: what’s beyond me is not to comprehend how such a thing can be true (but you know that by now). What’s beyond me is how you suggest that one man would think he would be able to get away by staying at the crime scene, but this very same man wouldn’t or couldn’t think he would be able to get away by not staying at the crime scene if knew he had relatively much time to do so. Even though both options had their own, unforeseeable risks. I know you believe that Lechmere wouldn't have thought it would have been time enough, but bear with me, as this is something I feel strongly about.

                      Yes, as you suggest, ‘my’ Lechmere could have walked into an approaching PC at the very moment Paul would scream “Bloody murder!” and be detained by him. That would certainly be true if ‘my’ Lechmere couldn’t or wouldn’t listen for sounds, look around corners to check, run any stretch at all, look for places to hide, in short, use his head & ability to stay calm, but instead just ‘calmly walked away and kept walking until he possibly met a PC’, as you seem to suggest.

                      ‘Your’ Lechmere, however, together with Paul, could have walked into the arms of beat PC Neil before they ever passed Thomas Street. And for all Lechmere knew, this beat PC could also have entered Buck’s Row from Baker’s Row. The moment Lechmere decided to stay, there would be no way he could know that they wouldn’t walk into Neil. And if they would have met Neil, he couldn’t have used the lie you suggest he used with Mizen and would, therefore, be in the same sort of situation as ‘my’ Lechmere. The difference between ‘your’ Lechmere and ‘mine’, the way I see it, however, is that ‘mine’ had more control over not meeting a PC who could do him harm and could at least get rid of his knife. ‘Your’ Lechmere could only hope he wouldn’t walk into Neil and every second he stayed longer at the crime scene would bring Neil closer.

                      So, there you have it. I've gotten the last thing off my chest that I wanted to say. For now, anyway.

                      I am not saying that he did not think he would be able to get away by legging it out of Bucks Row. I am not even suggesting that he didnīt think he would be able to calmly walk away. I cannot decide for him in retrospect how he would reason. I keep pressing the point that we will be dealing with a psychopath here, and they do not think, panic, weigh risks and such things they way you and me do. "I guess I could get out of here, but hey, letīs wait and see what happens" is something that would be very much in line with how they think, and so I wonīt make any calls for him. If he was the killer, he chose to stay, and to what degree it was governed by rational thinking (the way we define it) is impossible to say.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                        You also ascribe to the idea that "there were hundreds of people" who lived or passed the area where Tabram was found, as if that in any way would clear Charles Lechmere. In actual fact, it is immaterial. What the police checks for when looking for a serial offender is whether their suspect can be geographically linked to the string of murders, not whether there were others living or passing there.
                        If the police have a suspect, they will check if they are geographically linked to the murders. But the hypothetical Mr X has provided no evidence to put Charles Lechmere on the suspect list. He is one of hundreds of people who live in the area of the murders. Nothing at the crime scenes points to Charles Lechmere or anyone else. as a suspect.

                        Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                        Let me try and clarify what we are dealing with here!

                        Get out a map of London. Get a nail and hammer it down at 22 Doveton Street. Then tie a piece of string to the nail. Pull the string out far enough to reach Pickfords at Broad Street. Then tie a pencil to the string in that end.
                        You have now mapped Lechmeres working trek, as the bird flies. Now, put the pencil against the map and, using the string, make a circle with 22 Doveton Street as the centre.
                        Once you have made that circle, you have established the area Lechmereīs morning trek could cover, depending on which direction he walked in.
                        This circle does not establish the area Lechmereīs morning trek could cover. Most points within that circle could only be reached by Lechmere walking away from his place of work and then backtracking. Nobody who had to walk to work at 4am would do that. If we want to check possible routes Lechmere might have taken to work, we just need a line between 22 Doveton Street and the Broad Street Station. Then, since he would have to walk, not fly, we would look at the streets closest to this straight line.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                          If the police have a suspect, they will check if they are geographically linked to the murders. But the hypothetical Mr X has provided no evidence to put Charles Lechmere on the suspect list. He is one of hundreds of people who live in the area of the murders. Nothing at the crime scenes points to Charles Lechmere or anyone else. as a suspect.

                          He was found in Bucks Row by Nichols’ s side close in time to her death. That inevitably makes him a person of interest, and if no other killer is ID:d his routes will be checked.

                          This circle does not establish the area Lechmereīs morning trek could cover. Most points within that circle could only be reached by Lechmere walking away from his place of work and then backtracking. Nobody who had to walk to work at 4am would do that. If we want to check possible routes Lechmere might have taken to work, we just need a line between 22 Doveton Street and the Broad Street Station. Then, since he would have to walk, not fly, we would look at the streets closest to this straight line.
                          We must always look upon a suspect as an unwritten page geographically when checking him out. It is not as if Lechmere can be partially exonerated by having his work at Broad Street. It instead points to him as a useful suspect when found out.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                            It is a very elaborate list of measures Mr X takes to frame Charles Lechmere, is it not? I think everybody out here would say that the scenario is completely and utterly unlikely.
                            Don't be so hard on yourself, Fish. Even I concede that your case is not entirely without merit.
                            "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).

                            Comment


                            • Fish, I've just tried to message you for details of the Lechmere book but your message box is full to capacity. What's it called please? Apologies if this is off topic but it seemed the best alternative.
                              "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                                hi fiver. actually thousands of people. but how many of them was also seen alone near a freshly killed ripper victim. how many of them are also physically linked to any of the victims like lech? how many of them also have work routes or close family that would bring them near the murder sites at the right time? i would venture not many, if any. no the geographic evidence is pretty strong imho.

                                what might be an interesting excercise is to take other witnesses who could have been the killer of other victims, see where they worked and had close family, and see how geographically they compare to lech in this regard. for example: crow, richardson, cadosh, schwartz, barnett, hutch, bowyer etc.
                                Lechmere is not physically linked to any of the victims. Lechmere's actions are no more suspicious than anyone else who admitted to finding one of the victims.

                                For geographical "evidence", let's look at Robert Paul. Martha Tabram's body was found a couple blocks from Paul's route to work, just like Lechmere. Polly Nichols was found on Paul's route to work. Annie Chapman was found on Paul's route to work.Catherine Eddowes was murdered closer to Paul's place of work than to Lechmere's place of work. Mark Kelly was murdered about a block from where Robert Paul worked.

                                And that's without knowing where 30 Forster Street is on a modern map or anywhere else Robert Paul or members of his family lived.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X