Framing Charles

[Fisherman]

Lets look at those locations.

Yes, let´s!

George Yard buildings is about a block off from Whitechapel Road. That is one of many ways Charles Lechemere could have gone to work, and a block off is hardly "right beside". Nothing about the location points at Charles Lechmere.

Whitechapel Road is not one of the two shortest routes from Doveton Street to Pickfords on Broad Street - but Old Montague Street is. And the murder site is a short stones throw away from the Old Montague Street/Wentworth Street route. Therefore, the location is in total line with one of the two shortest and most logical routes to work for Charles Lechmere.

Hanbury Street is another one of many ways Charles Lechmere could have gone to work, but he was at work long before she was killed. Nothing about the location points at Charles Lechmere.

One of the many ways? The two shortest routes are Hanbury Street and Old Montague Street. To suggest he used longer routes is not logical, I´m afraid. So the location of Chapmans death is exactly in line with Lechmere´s logical morning routes. Plus, of course, your assertion that Chapman was not even dead as he passed is your take only. The police and the Home Office thought differently back then, and they were in all probability correct to do so. It is fine to have a hunch, but to elevate it into fact is not equally fine. You may want to honor that.

In 1881, Lechmere´s mother and daughter lived at 23 Pinchin Street, several blocks from where Stride was killed. In 1891, Lechmere´s mother and daughter lived at 18 St George Street, over 4 miles from where Stride was killed. In neither case is this "right next to" where they lived. Nothing about either location points at Charles Lechmere.

In 1888, when Stride was killed, Maria Louisa and Lechmere´s daughter lived at 1 Mary Ann Street. Maybe we should make use of the relevant address and time instead of other times and addresses?

Lechmere worked at Pickfords, which is over four miles from Mitre Square, not in "close proximity". It's much closer to Lechmere's home which is about 2 miles away. Nothing about the location points at Charles Lechmere.

Eeeeh - Mitre Square was around 500 yards or so removed from Pickfords in Broad Street, not four miles. The location is situated more or less along the old working trek Lechmere made from James Street to Broad Street, and so it is closely linked to his paths.

The Ghouston Street Garffito was found about 1 1/2 miles from where Charles Lechmere lived. Nothing about the location points at Charles Lechmere.

The Goulston Street grafitto is of no interest here. But the Goulston Street rag was found in a norteasternly direction from Mitre Square, in a more or less direct line up towards Doveton Street. And believe it or not, but that is also in line with how Lechmere could have dropped the apron on his way home. West, northwest, southwest, south, east, southeast, northwest or north won´t do, but northeast does. Eminently so.

Millers Court is a couple blocks off of one of the many routes Charles Lechmere could have gone to work. Nothing about the location points at Charles Lechmere.

The fact that it is placed on his shortest route to work tells us that Lechmere fits the bill here too - as he does in all the four Whitechapel murders.

The Pinchin Street Torso was found on a street Lechermere's mother used live on. Nothing proves the apron was related. Nothing about either location points at Charles Lechmere.

A street his mother AND himself used to live in. A street and an area that was always very closely linked to the Lechmere family. If the rag was not related, then it is another of a heap of odd coincidences all pointing to Lechmere. You seem to have missed out on it, but the rag was found directly on the straight line we may draw from the railway arch to 22 Doveton Street. The placement very much suggests the possibility that Lechmere was the person who dumped the body and then the rag on his route from Pinchin Street to 22 Doveton Street. Not to you, of course.

To you, nothing about any of the locations suggest that Lechmere was involved. And that´s fine; if you want to claim that water is not wet and never was, then that is your absolute prerogative. But you may find yourself in a lonely spot when doing so. Just saying.

[Fisherman]

Touché, though my main argument is psychology is not a subject to 'bet the mortgage on' which in fairness we agree on. I only said about not hanging around because its proven he 'vanished into thin air' after the killings (If your correct, then not Bucks Row of course)

Always good to chat with you Fish

Well, it was never as if he was going to try and pull the same stunt again after Bucks Row, was it? Such a performance can only be given one time. And so, he probably had to avoid all sorts of attention after Nichols.

To be fair, though, the phrasing "vanished into thin air" is not necessarily so much indicative of any vanishing on behalf of Lechmere as it is of the police´s ability to find their man. There were people in the vicinity of all the Ripper murder sites, and one of them may - or may not - have been Lechmere. Some psychopathic killers enjoy staying in close connection with their murder spots. The policeman who was chatted up by a man who wanted to know what had happened at a murder spot in a Duesseldorf street back in the 1920:s had no idea that the inquisitive man was Peter Kürten - the actual killer himself, having a laugh.

On balance, I think Lechmere steered clear of getting to close to his murder spots, given the risk that he would be recognized by somebody who knew he had played a part in Bucks Row, but you never know!

[Fiver]

First of all, I would like to know if you have read the book.

Dozens of books have been printed where the author is certain they have found who the Ripper was. Who has time to read them all?

First of all, commenting on how Mr X tried to frame Charles Lechmere, you say that he will have been a man "of very tiny brain". Now, Mr X distributed his dead bodies along Charles Lechmere´s logical working trek (4 of them), close to his mothers and daughters house on a Saturday night (1 of them) and close by his working place (1 of them). Can you tell me how that speaks of a tiny brain? And can you tell me how he could have placed the bodies in a manner that would be more indicative of a link to Charles Lechmere?

Only one of the murders occurred on Charles Lechmere's known route to work. We only know this much because he choose to contact the police and give evidence. That's enough to put him at the same level of suspect as anyone else who found one of the bodies.

None of the other murder locations show any link to Charles Lechmere or anyone else. Hundreds of people lived near these locations. Hundreds of people passed by the locations.

I know that you use the term "tiny brain" in combination with the Tabram murder, at which stage there was still no suspicion against Lechmere, but it is nevertheless an example of a body placed exactly along the logical working trek of Charles Lechmere, and in retrospect, it allows us to see the connection.

The body was found a block off of a route that Charles Lechmere might have taken to work, not "exactly along the logical working trek of Charles Lechmere". Nothing about the location ties the murder to Charles Lechmere or anyone else. The only time that location ties a murder to someone is if the body is dug up in their basement or backyard.

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.

I don't have to clear Charles Lechmere - there is no evidence against him. No criminal has ever been convicted based on geographical profiling because it identifies probable areas the serial criminal might live, not any individual living in the area. Lechmere was one of hundreds of people who lived in the area.

[Abby Normal]

Dozens of books have been printed where the author is certain they have found who the Ripper was. Who has time to read them all?



Only one of the murders occurred on Charles Lechmere's known route to work. We only know this much because he choose to contact the police and give evidence. That's enough to put him at the same level of suspect as anyone else who found one of the bodies.

None of the other murder locations show any link to Charles Lechmere or anyone else. Hundreds of people lived near these locations. Hundreds of people passed by the locations.



The body was found a block off of a route that Charles Lechmere might have taken to work, not "exactly along the logical working trek of Charles Lechmere". Nothing about the location ties the murder to Charles Lechmere or anyone else. The only time that location ties a murder to someone is if the body is dug up in their basement or backyard.



I don't have to clear Charles Lechmere - there is no evidence against him. No criminal has ever been convicted based on geographical profiling because it identifies probable areas the serial criminal might live, not any individual living in the area. Lechmere was one of hundreds of people who lived in the area.

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.

[Fisherman]

Dozens of books have been printed where the author is certain they have found who the Ripper was. Who has time to read them all?



Only one of the murders occurred on Charles Lechmere's known route to work. We only know this much because he choose to contact the police and give evidence. That's enough to put him at the same level of suspect as anyone else who found one of the bodies.

None of the other murder locations show any link to Charles Lechmere or anyone else. Hundreds of people lived near these locations. Hundreds of people passed by the locations.



The body was found a block off of a route that Charles Lechmere might have taken to work, not "exactly along the logical working trek of Charles Lechmere". Nothing about the location ties the murder to Charles Lechmere or anyone else. The only time that location ties a murder to someone is if the body is dug up in their basement or backyard.



I don't have to clear Charles Lechmere - there is no evidence against him. No criminal has ever been convicted based on geographical profiling because it identifies probable areas the serial criminal might live, not any individual living in the area. Lechmere was one of hundreds of people who lived in the area.

You can either accept that the two closest routes from Bucks Row to Broad Street are also the two logical routes, or you can suggest any other route as more logical - and tell me just how it works. Once you accept that the Hanbury Street route and the Old Montague Street route were the logical choices for him, you are faced with the fact that the four Whitechapel murders all happened along these routes. And that means that these routes very clearly suggest a link.

So it’ s either accepting logic or reinventing it. If you can move Mitre Square four miles away from Broad Street, I don’ t rule out that you can achieve many things.

[MrBarnett]

A street his mother AND himself used to live in. A street and an area that was always very closely linked to the Lechmere family. If the rag was not related, then it is another of a heap of odd coincidences all pointing to Lechmere. You seem to have missed out on it, but the rag was found directly on the straight line we may draw from the railway arch to 22 Doveton Street. The placement very much suggests the possibility that Lechmere was the person who dumped the body and then the rag on his route from Pinchin Street to 22 Doveton Street. Not to you, of course.

To you, nothing about any of the locations suggest that Lechmere was involved. And that´s fine; if you want to claim that water is not wet and never was, then that is your absolute prerogative. But you may find yourself in a lonely spot when doing so. Just saying.

Fish,

How is Dorset Street on his way to work? From Hanbury Street the route along Brushfield Street would have been shorter and safer.

Is it your idea that the killer encountered the victims where their bodies were found? Isn’t it more likely that he encountered them on major thoroughfares: Whitechapel Road/High Street/Commercial Street?

Gary

[Trevor Marriott]

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 exercise 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.

What you and Fish cant seem to understand is that if a person is murdered in a public street at night and the body left. Someone has to find that body, and just because they do that does not make them a suspect. Nichols body would have been found sooner or later by someone else making their way to work, and this misguided belief fish has been peddling and supported by you has absolutely no corroboration which point to him being her killer or the killer of anyone else.

With regards to the highly coveted geographic profile does it need an expert to deduce using all that expensive technology that the killer either lived in and around Whitechapel or came into Whitechapel to kill and then left.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Fish,

How is Dorset Street on his way to work? From Hanbury Street the route along Brushfield Street would have been shorter and safer.

Is it your idea that the killer encountered the victims where their bodies were found? Isn’t it more likely that he encountered them on major thoroughfares: Whitechapel Road/High Street/Commercial Street?

Gary

How is Dorset Street on his way to work? It is on his way to work after having taken a left turn from Hanbury Street. If he did not take a left turn from Hanbury Street, he would not get to his work, but instead pass north of it.

The same applies for the Old Montague Street route - it would have made him pass to the south of his work if he did not take a right turn from it.

It´s another matter that he could have used more than one left/right turn from these streets. I cannot say that he must only have used Dorset Street. But I can say that it offered a short cut to Pickfords and so it becomes logical for him to pass through it.

Actually, one of the strenghts of my suggestion that Lechmere killed en route to work is that there were two equally short and fast treks, the Hanbury Street one and the Old Montague street one. And the strength I speak of lies in how he worked right inbetween where these two routes took people. Which is why he had to veer off them at some stage.
If he had worked further to the north, the Old Montague Street route would not be a logical choice. If he worked further to the south, the Hanbury Street route would not be a logical choice. It is only if you actually work inbetween the two routes that they both become logical choices.

We can go on forever debating whether he would or would not have used other streets than the ones he trekked on to find prostitution. Basically, what I reason is that he employed his working trek to find his victims, and so it would be advantageous to him if he did not have to make detours. Given that, I have an answer for your question: although the streets you mention would arguably have had more prostitutes on them, it is of course only if he actually ventured there that he would be likely to encounter prostitutes in them. If he instead only preyed on prostitutes (or women, sorry Hallie R) who had wandered into the streets he used for his morning trek, then it is there and there only that he would meet them.
If it had been a case of no prostitutes ever visiting George Yard, Bucks Row, Hanbury Street and Dorset Street, my argument would of course not work. But this was never so. And the fact that the murder spots are lined up along his treks suggests to me that he may well have found his victims along those very paths.

Think of it like this: He walked these streets on a daily basis. He moved to Doveton Street in mid June. By the time Tabram was killed, he would have made his morning trek around fifty times. Most likely, even if he did not stray from that trek, he would have seen many a prostitute along the road. And so why would he feel that he needed to make a detour to find prey? They would be there, right along his trek, anyway. And they would be available in far more secluded locations, meaning that he stood a lot better chance to chat them up unnoticed, instead of having to mingle with heaps of punters. To me, that makes a whole lot of sense.

[Fisherman]

What you and Fish cant seem to understand is that if a person is murdered in a public street at night and the body left. Someone has to find that body, and just because they do that does not make them a suspect. Nichols body would have been found sooner or later by someone else making their way to work, and this misguided belief fish has been peddling and supported by you has absolutely no corroboration which point to him being her killer or the killer of anyone else.

With regards to the highly coveted geographic profile does it need an expert to deduce using all that expensive technology that the killer either lived in and around Whitechapel or came into Whitechapel to kill and then left.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Here´s the ten million question, Trevor: If somebody found her stone cold and lying in a pool of coagulated blood, would he or she be equally likely to be the killer as the man who found her when she was still quite warm and as she still would go on to bleed for many a minute?

Before you understand the difference between these two types of "finders" of dead bodies you would do better not to comment.

[MrBarnett]

How is Dorset Street on his way to work? It is on his way to work after having taken a left turn from Hanbury Street. If he did not take a left turn from Hanbury Street, he would not get to his work, but instead pass north of it.

The same applies for the Old Montague Street route - it would have made him pass to the south of his work if he did not take a right turn from it.

It´s another matter that he could have used more than one left/right turn from these streets. I cannot say that he must only have used Dorset Street. But I can say that it offered a short cut to Pickfords and so it becomes logical for him to pass it.

Actually, one of the strenghts of my suggestion that Lechmere killed en route to work is that there were two equally short and fast treks, the Hanbury Street one and the Old Montague street one. And that strength lies in how he actually worked right inbetween where these two routes took people. Which is why he had to veer off them at some stage.
If he had worked further to the north, the Old Montague Street route would not be a logical choice. If he worked further to the south, the Hanbury Street route would not be a logical choice. It is only if you actually work inbetween the two routes that they both become logical choices.

We can go on forever debating whether he would or would not have used other streets than the ones he trekked on to find prostitution. Basically, what I reason is that he employed his working trek to find his victims, and so it would be advantageous to him if he did not have to make detours. Given that, I have an answer for your question: although the streets you mention would arguably have had more prostitutes on them, it is of course only if he actually ventured there that he would be likely to encounter prostitutes in them. If he instead only preyed on prostitutes who had wandered into the streets he used for his morning trek, then it is there and there only that he would meet them.
If it had been a case of no prostitutes ever visiting George Yard, Bucks Row, Hanbury Street and Dorset Street, my argument would of course not work. But this was never so. And the fact that the murder spots are lined up along his treks suggests to me that he may well have found his victims along those very paths.

The Dorset Street route is slightly longer than the Brushfield Street one. Safer Brushfield Street presented itself to a traveller from Hanbury Street before Dorset Street.

Did Lechmere think to himself, ‘Ah, here’s Brushfield Street, this is my shortest route to work and at this time in the morning there will be a few market people there, but I think I’ll walk a little further and take a longer route through infamous Dorset Street?’

Kelly had been soliciting earlier in the evening in Commercial Street. If she was still looking for business is it more likely that she would be standing around in Dorset Street waiting for someone to pass by or parading up and down Commercial Street as it started to get busy? Which was her logical trek?

[MrBarnett]

Tabram had allegedly been with a soldier in George Yard earlier in the evening. If she was still looking to earn money, why wouldn’t she have walked the few yards to Whitechapel High Street where there were more potential customers?

Henry Tomkins was very quick to point out that there were plenty of dubious women to be found in the Whitechapel Road. Of course there were. Prostitutes have logical ‘treks’ (beats) too. Commercial Street and Whitechapel Road/High Street for instance.

[MrBarnett]

All we know for sure about Lechmere’s work route and starting time comes from the extraordinary morning of the Nichols murder. We don’t know his shift patterns or the days of the week he worked. We don’t even know how long he had worked at Broad Street.

Was it his job to carry goods from the same train arriving at the same time at Broad Street every morning? If so, how many of the murders fit his logical trek time based upon the one day we have evidence of?

There was a Scotch Meat and Fish Express that arrived at Broad Street each morning carrying fresh produce from Scotland, for instance. A driver whose regular job it was to carry the fish or meat on to Billingsgate or Smithfield would have been expected to be at his post at the same time each morning. Does a regular fixed start time fit with the times of the murders?

[Fisherman]

The Dorset Street route is slightly longer than the Brushfield Street one. Safer Brushfield Street presented itself to a traveller from Hanbury Street before Dorset Street.

Did Lechmere think to himself, ‘Ah, here’s Brushfield Street, this is my shortest route to work and at this time in the morning there will be a few market people there, but I think I’ll walk a little further and take a longer route through infamous Dorset Street?’

Kelly had been soliciting earlier in the evening in Commercial Street. If she was still looking for business is it more likely that she would be standing around in Dorset Street waiting for someone to pass by or parading up and down Commercial Street as it started to get busy? Which was her logical trek?

It is quite possible that Lechmere could have used both Brushfield Street and Dorset Street. Both of them present logical pathways from his home to his work.

Of course, there is the possibility that he never set foot in Dorset Street. Similarly, he may never have set foot in Brushfield Street. That, however, does not detract from how Dorset Street would have been a completely logical route for him to use, does it? What he thought to himself is something we cannot possibly know. As I pointed out in my last post, we may be looking at somebody who did not seek out the company of other people, market people included, because he wanted to keep what he did and where he did it under wraps.

If Mary Kelly went out in the small hours to look for business, then Commercial Street would have been a logical choice. But what if she did not get that far, Gary? What if she never even got out of Dorset Street? What if she met a carman there, en route to work, who was interested in her services?

There can be no "he must have "or she must have" decisions. What we have is a man who was found next to a murder victim who would go on to bleed for many, many minutes after he left her, and three other murder victims who fell prey in spots that must be described as perfectly logical choices for him to do his morning treks on. We either accept that such a thing makes for a good suspect or we don´t.

[Fisherman]

Tabram had allegedly been with a soldier in George Yard earlier in the evening. If she was still looking to earn money, why wouldn’t she have walked the few yards to Whitechapel High Street where there were more potential customers?

Henry Tomkins was very quick to point out that there were plenty of dubious women to be found in the Whitechapel Road. Of course there were. Prostitutes have logical ‘treks’ (beats) too. Commercial Street and Whitechapel Road/High Street for instance.

I will give you an answer that mirrors what I said about Kelly in my last post: what if Tabram exited George Yard buildings as Lechmere passed on Old Montague Street, and the two joined up there?
Yes, Commercial Street and Whitechapel Road had prostitution on offer. But they were not the ony streets to offer that commodity, were they? What was it Mrs Long said about Hanbury Street? She saw lots of couples like the one she claimed to have seen outside 29 Hanbury Street, that´s what she said. And John Richardson had a few things to say about it too. Tabram took her customer to George Yard, telling us that this was a place prostitutes frequented. Did all the punters there come from Whitechapel Road or Commercial Road? There was reasonably prostitution to be had in all of that area, and as I said before, there is good reason to assume that a killer on the prowl for prey would not necessarily choose to look for it in areas where he could be seen contacting women.

If we are to say that we only allow for hiom to have picked up his victims in Whitechapel Road or Commercial Road because statistics tell us that there was more prostitution there, the. we may just as well say there was never any serial killer at large, because they are statistical anomalies in themselves.

If it had been a case of all prostitutes using only the two streets you name, it would have been another case. But that was never so, was it?

[Fisherman]

All we know for sure about Lechmere’s work route and starting time comes from the extraordinary morning of the Nichols murder. We don’t know his shift patterns or the days of the week he worked. We don’t even know how long he had worked at Broad Street.

Actually, we also know for absolutely certain that the four Whitechapel murders took place along what were the logical routes to work for Lechmere after Bucks Row.

Was it his job to carry goods from the same train arriving at the same time at Broad Street every morning? If so, how many of the murders fit his logical trek time based upon the one day we have evidence of?

There was a Scotch Meat and Fish Express that arrived at Broad Street each morning carrying fresh produce from Scotland, for instance. A driver whose regular job it was to carry the fish or meat on to Billingsgate or Smithfield would have been expected to be at his post at the same time each morning. Does a regular fixed start time fit with the times of the murders?

Can we place him at 29 Hanbury Street at around 3-4 AM on the 8:th of September, can we place him at George Yard at the same time on the 7:th, do we know that he was in Dorset Street at that approcimate time on the 9:th of November?

Do you have to ask?

There are other relevant questions to ask: Is it likely and logical that this man, who we know for a fact was at the murder site in Bucks Row all alone at the approximate time of the murder of Polly Nichols, walked the Hanbury Street and Old Montague Street routes to work, meaning that his moving pattern may well fit with each and every one of the other four Whitechapel murders?

This is a man who is under suspicion of being the killer. Since we do not have any information about what he did on the Tabram, Chapman and Kelly murder mornings, the next best thing we can hope for is if we can establish that his logical pathways and timings seem to potentially fit with each and every one of the murders. And lo and behold ...

As for how a regular fixed time fits with the times of the murders, it would be useful to actually know these times. But we don´t. I would personally say that all the murders took place before Lechmere started his work, and so the Scotch Meat and Fish Express may have had very little to do with the chosen hours.