Framing Charles

[MrBarnett]

The Scotch M&F was just an example given to illustrate the idea that a carman picking up goods from a railway station might have a regular working pattern.

When we’ve discussed Tabram in the past, you have warned against discounting the opinions of Dr Killeen. So presumably you accept his view that she was killed around 2.30. If that is correct and Lechmere killed her on his way to work, then his starting time on that morning would have been an hour or so earlier than on the morning he killed Nichols. Either that or he left an hour or so earlier than he needed to.

You pretty much ignore McKenzie in your book, but you do point out that she was killed ‘in the murder spots lining Charles Lechmere’s logical routes to work’. Of course, McKenzie was killed shortly after midnight on a Sunday morning - not on a logical route from Lechmere’s family in Cable Street(?). The day of the week may not be an issue, though, because we have no idea which days of the week Lechmere worked. Sunday may not have been his day off.

[MrBarnett]

The Scotch M&F was just an example given to illustrate the idea that a carman picking up goods from a railway station might have a regular working pattern.

When we’ve discussed Tabram in the past, you have warned against discounting the opinions of Dr Killeen. So presumably you accept his view that she was killed around 2.30. If that is correct and Lechmere killed her on his way to work, then his starting time on that morning would have been an hour or so earlier than on the morning he killed Nichols. Either that or he left an hour or so earlier than he needed to.

You pretty much ignore McKenzie in your book, but you do point out that she was killed ‘in the murder spots lining Charles Lechmere’s logical routes to work’. Of course, McKenzie was killed shortly after midnight on a Sunday morning - not on a logical route from Lechmere’s family in Cable Street(?). The day of the week may not be an issue, though, because we have no idea which days of the week Lechmere worked. Sunday may not have been his day off.

Scrub that about McKenzie being killed on a Sunday. I must have had a senior moment. And about McKenzie of all the victims!!!

But the time issue still remains. Why would Lechmere have been walking his work route just after the pubs closed?

[Abby Normal]

what times did the pubs close? 1:00am correct?

[MrBarnett]

what times did the pubs close? 1:00am correct?

Or was it 12.30?

[Fisherman]

The Scotch M&F was just an example given to illustrate the idea that a carman picking up goods from a railway station might have a regular working pattern.

Or not. Although it can be considered, it really is not much of an argument for innocence until we can put flesh on those bones, is it?

When we’ve discussed Tabram in the past, you have warned against discounting the opinions of Dr Killeen. So presumably you accept his view that she was killed around 2.30. If that is correct and Lechmere killed her on his way to work, then his starting time on that morning would have been an hour or so earlier than on the morning he killed Nichols. Either that or he left an hour or so earlier than he needed to.

What I primarily warned anbout was the notion that Killeen would not be able to tell if there was just the one weapon or two of them involved. Killeen spoke of a large, strudy dagger-like blade and a pen-knife, smallish blade. Thinking that he could not tell the difference in such a case was what I disliked. To establish a T O D is another matter, where we all agree that we must leave some learoom (although not the kind of learoom suggested for Chapman, thatīs not a lea-room, itīs a lea-ocean). Killeen said ABOUT three hours before the examination he made, putting the time to AROUND 2.30-2.45. And I have always said that becasue Lechmere said he left home at 3.20-3.30. there can be no knowing if this was true. If he was our man, then it may well be that he added time on days he was on the prowl.

You pretty much ignore McKenzie in your book, but you do point out that she was killed ‘in the murder spots lining Charles Lechmere’s logical routes to work’. Of course, McKenzie was killed shortly after midnight on a Sunday morning - not on a logical route from Lechmere’s family in Cable Street(?). The day of the week may not be an issue, though, because we have no idea which days of the week Lechmere worked. Sunday may not have been his day off.

I "pretty much ignore" a number of possible and even probable victims, and I give a reason for it: they do not strengthen the case I am presenting. McKenzie was killed on a Wednesday (which you know, of course, no probs), and just as you say, she was killed in the first hour of the day. And that does not fit the ordinary working trek time of Charles Lechmere. Meaning that in some respects, she fits the bill, in others, she does not.
Things like these are sometimes present in serial killing affairs - they look distinctly off, until the killer is caught and a trivial explanation is given. McKenzie may have been the Ripperīs victim and she may not have been. The damage she was dealt speaks for her being included, since it is rare damage and to a large degree in line with what the Ripper did. Then again so was what happened to Jane Beadmore. The difference is that McKenzie fits the geographical bill, whereas Beadmore does not. Therefore, I think that the Ripper must be the likeliest bid, but thatīs as far as it goes.
What I say about the spot is not that it is on his logical routes but instead that is right between them or something such.
All in all, there is good reason to believe she may have been a victim of the Ripper, but although her case does not cripple that suggestion, it does not strengthen it either, and so I left it out for that reason. Which is exactly how I describe it in the book.

[MrBarnett]

I "pretty much ignore" a number of possible and even probable victims, and I give a reason for it: they do not strengthen the case I am presenting. McKenzie was killed on a Wednesday (which you know, of course, no probs), and just as you say, she was killed in the first hour of the day. And that does not fit the ordinary working trek time of Charles Lechmere. Meaning that in some respects, she fits the bill, in others, she does not.
Things like these are sometimes present in serial killing affairs - they look distinctly off, until the killer is caught and a trivial explanation is given. McKenzie may have been the Ripperīs victim and she may not have been. The damage she was dealt speaks for her being included, since it is rare damage and to a large degree in line with what the Ripper did. Then again so was what happened to Jane Beadmore. The difference is that McKenzie fits the geographical bill, whereas Beadmore does not. Therefore, I think that the Ripper must be the likeliest bid, but thatīs as far as it goes.
What I say about the spot is not that it is on his logical routes but instead that is right between them or something such.
All in all, there is good reason to believe she may have been a victim of the Ripper, but although her case does not cripple that suggestion, it does not strengthen it either, and so I left it out for that reason. Which is exactly how I describe it in the book.

The inclusion of Tabram but exclusion of McKenzie just looks a bit odd. Geographically they’re on a par. In terms of their injuries, McKenzie is closer to other victims, Tabram is significantly different. All that Tabram has going for her over McKenzie is that at a pinch, allowing for inexperienced Killeen to have been 33% out in TOD or for Lechmere having left out an hour or so earlier than he needed, she can be made to fit with Lechmere’s work route/time. McKenzie’s location fits, but her timing is way out.

[Fisherman]

The inclusion of Tabram and exclusion of McKenzie just looks a bit odd. Geographically they’re on a par. In terms of their injuries, McKenzie is closer to other victims, Tabram is significantly different. All that Tabram has going for her over McKenzie is that at a pinch, allowing for inexperienced Killeen to have been 33% out in TOD or for Lechmere having left out an hour or so earlier than he needed, she can be made to fit with Lechmere’s work rout/time. McKenzie’s timing is way out.

One of the advantages of writing a book is that you get to make your own choices. A disadvantage is that people may call those choices of yours odd.

As I said before, I base my choice on the victims I believe make as clear a case as possible. In that mix, one may wonder about Tabram, but to me, she represents a possible reason for the transition between bolthole killer and street ditto. One may like that choice and one may dislike it, but itīs my book, my rules, Iīm afraid. After that, I am willing to discuss matters out here in extenso, of course.

I think that you and I would agree that there was a serial killer on the loose in 1888 who earned the moniker Jack the Ripper. I also believe we agree that it is impossible to say with certainty how many women of the suggested ones he actually killed or attacked. I try to make sense of things the way I see it, and I try to build as strong a case I possibly can in that respect. What none of the suggested victims can do is to exonerate Lechmere, I believe we may agree on that too.

[MrBarnett]

If Tabram is excluded from CAL’s tally, then the OM route, along which no murder occurred while he walked to work, becomes a major problem for the theory.

Perhaps he took that route every day and only made the diversion along Hanbury Street while in the company of Paul. It’s possible that, other than Nichols, no murder every occurred near the times and places he trudged to work.

[MrBarnett]

One of the advantages of writing a book is that you get to make your own choices. A disadvantage is that people may call those choices of yours odd.

As I said before, I base my choice on the victims I believe make as clear a case as possible. In that mix, one may wonder about Tabram, but to me, she represents a possible reason for the transition between bolthole killer and street ditto. One may like that choice and one may dislike it, but itīs my book, my rules, Iīm afraid. After that, I am willing to discuss matters out here in extenso, of course.

I think that you and I would agree that there was a serial killer on the loose in 1888 who earned the moniker Jack the Ripper. I also believe we agree that it is impossible to say with certainty how many women of the suggested ones he actually killed or attacked. I try to make sense of things the way I see it, and I try to build as strong a case I possibly can in that respect. What none of the suggested victims can do is to exonerate Lechmere, I believe we may agree on that too.

I agree!

Of course it’s your book. And we are its readers, the ones you are hoping to convince that CAL was the Ripper. The inclusion of one victim that seems to me to be a less likely victim of the Ripper and the exclusion of another who seems more likely, seems odd to me.

[Fisherman]

If Tabram is excluded from CAL’s tally, then the OM route, along which no murder occurred while he walked to work, becomes a major problem for the theory.

Perhaps he took that route every day and only made the diversion along Hanbury Street while in the company of Paul. It’s possible that no murder every occurred near the times and places he trudged to work.

A lot of things are possible! Lechmere may have been in Paris when Chapman - Kelly were murdered. But as it stands, we have a man who was found alone in Bucks Row, close by the murder site of Polly Nichols, at a stage where she would go on bleeding for many minutes. And that man had two routes to choos from when walking from Bucks Row to Broad Street that were just about equally quick, and the three other Whitechapel murders happened right along those routes.

As I have repeatedly pointed out, we may isolate every coincidence in the Lechmere case and provide it with an alternative, innocent explanation. But we will have our work cut out to so so, since there are spades of coincidences. The geography is just one of them. And so, the logical thing to do is to accept that these matters were o coincidences at all, but instead all markers of murder.

There were a thousand inhabited streets in Whitechapel. To reason that another killer (or two or three or four other killers) just happened to pick the twenty streets I point out as Lechmeres logical routes is to go up against a five million to one chance. If we were to add twenty more streets, Brushfield Street included, we end at a chance of one in two and a half million.
And that is if we disregard all the other tens of thousands of East End streets that were possible to kill in. And before we add the limitation that the murders must be early morning ones.

Looking at things from that angle, Iīd say that Charles Lechmere is a pretty good suspect. Itīs either that or all the things that point to him, the geography, the fact that Nichols still bled for many minutes after being found, the two rags, the name issue, the fact that he would not help to prop Nichols up, the fact that he disagreed with the police about what was said, etcetera, etcetera, are all just unlucky coincidences.

I am just as aware as you are what line the defence would take. But I am equally aware that if Lechmere could not give answers to the questions that must be asked, then he would likely be sent down by any conscientious judge and jury. Thereīs a limit to what one can accept as unlucky coincidences.

[Fisherman]

I agree!

Of course it’s your book. And we are its readers, the ones you are hoping to convince that CAL was the Ripper. The inclusion of one victim that seems to me to be a less likely victim of the Ripper and the exclusion of another who seems more likely, seems odd to me.

I have already convinced many, while I will never be able to convince others. I dare say that there will be a cluster of people who think I am right but who are not willing to say it. My personal hunch is that in the future, Lechmere will be the prime suspect for most people.

But letīs give you personally another chance to become a convinced Lechmereian, and lets do so by looking at the blood evidence. I have hinted at how I will make a new thread called "Every minute counts". I will do that now and once I have written my first post (which may not even be today, since it will be very lengthy), I will be much interested to see what you make of it. I will in the thread make the claim that we can be certain that Charles Lechmere is a likelier killer of Polly Nichols than anybody else. Hope to see you there: Suspects: Charles Lechmere: Every minute counts!

[Fisherman]

I agree!

Of course it’s your book. And we are its readers, the ones you are hoping to convince that CAL was the Ripper. The inclusion of one victim that seems to me to be a less likely victim of the Ripper and the exclusion of another who seems more likely, seems odd to me.

We do not judge matters like these the same way, all of us. I feel pretty certain that if you were to ask around, you would find more people supporting Tabram than McKenzie as a Ripper victim. Regardelss of that, the reason for including Tabram is that she lies before the C5, and so she offers a possibility for explaining the transition between bolthole and street murders.
McKenzie looks like a lazy effort way after the autumn of terror - but then again, so does the Pinchin Street victim, compared to her predecessors. The latter case should show us that we must not expect the murders to all look the same, even if the killer has time and a secluded locality on his hands! It was definitely the Thames Torso killer as per Hebbert - but the damage done was much different in many ways, as was the chosen dumping ground!

[Abby Normal]

I agree!

Of course it’s your book. And we are its readers, the ones you are hoping to convince that CAL was the Ripper. The inclusion of one victim that seems to me to be a less likely victim of the Ripper and the exclusion of another who seems more likely, seems odd to me.

hi gary
remember mckenzie was much later than the other ripper victims so perhaps that might have some thing to her being off a little in time and place in regards to lechs route than the others, as in perhaps his work situation changed. but i agree with you re the book, i would like to see her included more with that caveat/explanation, because she was more than likely a ripper victim, and also had the signature vertical rip to her abdoman not only like the ripper victims, but torsos as well.

[Fisherman]

hi gary
remember mckenzie was much later than the other ripper victims so perhaps that might have some thing to her being off a little in time and place in regards to lechs route than the others, as in perhaps his work situation changed. but i agree with you re the book, i would like to see her included more with that caveat/explanation, because she was more than likely a ripper victim, and also had the signature vertical rip to her abdoman not only like the ripper victims, but torsos as well.

McKenzies cut was seven inches long, not very deep and went from the bottom of her left breast down to the navel, so it differed significantly from what Nichols, Chapman and Kelly suffered. As I have already said, she does not strengthen the case, nor does she detract from it, and so I left her out.

[MrBarnett]

McKenzies cut was seven inches long, not very deep and went from the bottom of her left breast down to the navel, so it differed significantly from what Nichols, Chapman and Kelly suffered. As I have already said, she does not strengthen the case, nor does she detract from it, and so I left her out.

Her throat was also cut and there was a stab to her mons veneris.

As Abby says, perhaps Lechmere’s shifts had changed by 1889. Or perhaps his start time wasn’t always 4.00am during 1888.