Framing Charles

[Fisherman]

Tabram, Chapman and Kelly can also be said to have been killed ‘on his route’, especially if he encountered Kelly as he crossed Commercial Street where it appears she was soliciting that night. To shoehorn Tabram in we have to have an alternative work route, which isn’t the end of the world. It’s the timings that don’t fit quite so nicely with these three.

Admittedly, we do not have them all lined up as dying at around 3.30-3.45. However, if Phillips was correct, then Chapman may well fit into that exact slot, and there is no ruling out that Kelly may have died at this time too. It is only Tabram that offers what seems to be a more likely deviation, since Killeen suggested that she would have died at around 2.30-2.45. This was around three hours before the examination Killeen made, and so there will be some wiggle room.
Alfred Crow said that he noticed somebody on the landing at 3.30, and this will with some certainty have been Tabram. So he provides a likely late extreme as far as the timing is concerned.

If Killeen was correct, then Lechmere would have to have started out around an hour earlier on his working trek, and I donīt think that would be in any way odd if he set out to killer before work. Then again, if this was so, then why did he not bring the appropriate tools for eviscerations?

In this grouping, Tabram remains the trickiest victim to place on the list. However, since we do not know the circumstances, it may be that there is a very trivial explanation to things, as is so often the case.

Chapman and Kelly may well be perfect copies of Nichols in terms of timing - although there is no requirement for them to have been so, Lechmere may well have varied his time of leaving Doveton Street in order to allow for himself to kill.

[MrBarnett]

Another thing to mention is that the availability of horseflesh produced in the Capital fluctuated considerably. Apparently it was seasonal - more horses dying or requiring to be knackered in the winter for some reason. HB used to contact their provincial suppliers by telegram when they needed extra product. The example we saw above where there wasn’t enough meat on a particular day to warrant its being sent to Camden (where Pickfords had their largest depot) is interesting. There may have been times when CAL had to take horseflesh from Broad Street to HB in Islington - that could have why he (if it was him) was a few streets away from the Islington knacker’s yards when he ran over the small boy in 1876. That would fit very nicely.

[MrBarnett]

Another thing to mention is that the availability of horseflesh produced in the Capital fluctuated considerably. Apparently it was seasonal - more horses dying or requiring to be knackered in the winter for some reason. HB used to contact their provincial suppliers by telegram when they needed extra product. The example we saw above where there wasn’t enough meat on a particular day to warrant its being sent to Camden (where Pickfords had their largest depot) is interesting. There may have been times when CAL had to take horseflesh from Broad Street to HB in Islington - that could have why he (if it was him) was a few streets away from the Islington knacker’s yards when he ran over the small boy in 1876. That would fit very nicely.

Islington or Wandsworth - on the banks of the River Wandle no less - HB also had a large operation there.

[Fisherman]

Islington or Wandsworth - on the banks of the River Wandle no less - HB also had a large operation there.

Which rings a bell or two and links up with the torso murders.

I genuinely fail to see how he could not be a very good suspect. But you already knew that...

[MrBarnett]

Which rings a bell or two and links up with the torso murders.

I genuinely fail to see how he could not be a very good suspect. But you already knew that...

That comes as no surprise. ;-)

[Fisherman]

That comes as no surprise. ;-)

I realize that. I keep saying that Lechmere differs a lot from the standard offerings since he can be traced in great detail. That, however, is of course per se not any reason to point a finger at him - it is instead the fact that there are so many details that all lend themselves to an accusation that calls for attention. Not only can we check him in detail, but the details whisper of guilt.
One by one, it is easy to supply alternative innocent explanations. Taken together, such an exercise becomes folly.

And all the time, what I hear is ”All there is, is the name”, ”All there is, is his finding the body”, ”All there is, is the geography”, ”All there is, is the pulled down dress” and so on. And with that approach, all that is needed is a single innocent alternative explanation.

When assessing the whole case, no policeman worth his salt would start looking for a bucket full of such explanations. He would haul the carman in and go looking for the prosecutor.

... but you knew that too, didn’ t you?

[MrBarnett]

There are certain things that really intrigue me about CAL. One is the character of his old Ma. Maybe wrongly, I have her pegged as a very strong character who would have drummed an abhorrence of ‘unfortunates’ into her son. And I’ve just discovered/realised that three close members of her family - two husbands and a daughter - all seem to have died in neighbours’ houses. What does that mean? I’ve no idea, but it’s odd and adds a little more interest to Maria Louisa, the bigamous horse flesh dealer who, as the daughter of a butler to a prominent member of the Herefordshire gentry, had been brought up in a lodge the grounds of a fine country house and yet was forced by circumstances to bring up her son in Tiger Bay.

Then there’s the Pinchin Street thing. That case always strikes me as a hybrid Ripper/Torso event. It could be a coincidence, but if it isn’t, if it was the Ripper doffing his cap/sticking two fingers up to the Torso killer (or vice versa) or a combined Ripper/Torso man saying ‘look at me - I’m both’, then the choice of the location where the remains were dropped might well have conveyed a message.

And that location fits very nicely (I don’t think it could be bettered) as somewhere Lechmere might choose if he was trying to convey such a message.

It was virtually opposite where he had lived as a boy with his old Ma and his PC stepfather, the house they had lived in was still there in sight of the arch; Frederick Street that had run behind where the arch was located had been one of the most notorious of the Tiger Bay streets when he lived there; the torso was dumped a few feet away from the Whitechapel/St Georges boundary. If he, a St Georges boy, was the WM, what other spot in London would have carried anything even close to the significance of that spot?

Answers on a postcard...

[Fisherman]

There are certain things that really intrigue me about CAL. One is the character of his old Ma. Maybe wrongly, I have her pegged as a very strong character who would have drummed an abhorrence of ‘unfortunates’ into her son. And I’ve just discovered/realised that three close members of her family - two husbands and a daughter - all seem to have died in neighbours’ houses. What does that mean? I’ve no idea, but it’s odd and adds a little more interest to Maria Louisa, the bigamous horse flesh dealer who, as the daughter of a butler to a prominent member of the Hereford gentry, had been brought up in a lodge the grounds of a fine country house and yet was forced by circumstances to bring up her son in Tiger Bay.

It really is a mixture that sounds combustible, although I would not try and establish where such a concoction would lead. Just like you, I have Maria Louisa down as a very resourceful woman. And I know Edward sometimes lean towards her having known that her son was a killer. She has the kind of markers that allow for such a suspicion if you ask me. The fewest do (ask me).

Then there’s the Pinchin Street thing. That case always strikes me as a hybrid Ripper/Torso event. It could be a coincidence, but if it isn’t, if it was the Ripper doffing his cap/sticking two fingers up to the Torso killer (or vice versa) or a combined Ripper/Torso man saying ‘look at me - I’m both’, then the choice of the location where the remains were dropped might well have conveyed a message.

Agreed. You will be aware that I think it was about recognition; Hey you idiots, I am the only killer around here, sort of. Which is why there were no eviscerations. The abdominal incision, running all the way down, was a calling card shoved in the face of the police. And it would be odd in the extreme if the choice of Pinchin Street was just another coincidence, pointing in Lechmeres direction. Like the Goulston Street rag. And the St Phillips Church rag. And the ”misunderstanding” about that other PC in Bucks Row. And the pulled down dress. And the unlucky fact that Nichols went on to bleed for many minutes after Lechmere ”found” her. And how the real killer persisted in killing along Lechmeres logical pathways. And the fact that Stride died close to 1 Maryann Street. And that she necessarily had to do so on a Saturday night. And ..

And that location fits very nicely (I don’t think it could be bettered) as somewhere Lechmere might choose if he was trying to convey such a message.

Pinchin Street is the Ripper Heartland if you ask me.So I wholeheartedly agree.

It was virtually opposite where he had lived as a boy with his old Ma and his PC stepfather, the house they had lived in was still there in sight of the arch; Frederick Street that had run behind where the arch was located had been one of the most notorious of the Tiger Bay streets when he lived there; the torso was dumped a few feet away from the Whitechapel/St Georges boundary. If he, a St Georges boy, was the WM, what other spot in London would have carried anything even close to the significance of that spot?

Answers on a postcard...

None - as far as we know.

[MrBarnett]

Over on JTRForums a new poster has discovered a possible husband of MJK - man who was killed in a colliery explosion in 1881.

The man’s name wasn’t Davis or Davies, it was actually Evans although he used the name of Williams because when his father did a runner a Mr Williams brought him up. It was felt appropriate to mention both names at the inquest.

How many more examples do some people need of ‘proper’ names and assumed names both being revealed in court before they will acknowledge that CAL’s use of just ‘Cross’ is very odd?

[MrBarnett]

None - as far as we know.

Maria would have had two reasons for disliking the Tigresses of Tiger Bay.

First, she would have worried about her son coming into contact with them. Being ‘corrupted’ by them.

Second, she may have worried that her husband, several years her junior, whose job it was to come into contact with them, might stray off the straight and narrow. I can just imagine the girls winding PC Cross up as he and his wife went for a stroll, ‘Allo Tommy, darlin’! Are you popping round for a quickie tonight?’

[Fisherman]

Maria would have had two reasons for disliking the Tigresses of Tiger Bay.

First, she would have worried about her son coming into contact with them. Being ‘corrupted’ by them.

Second, she may have worried that her husband, several years her junior, whose job it was to come into contact with them, might stray off the straight and narrow. I can just imagine the girls winding PC Cross up as he and his wife went for a stroll, ‘Allo Tommy, darlin’! Are you popping round for a quickie tonight?’

And if they managed to procure business from him, that would arguably not make Maria Louisa any more charitable about them. And that may well have rubbed off on her son.

It is not hard to imagine such a scenario.

[MrBarnett]

And if they managed to procure business from him, that would arguably not make Maria Louisa any more charitable about them. And that may well have rubbed off on her son.

It is not hard to imagine such a scenario.

And if some of the younger, prettier ones ragged him, he might have experienced complex, mixed feelings of attraction and loathing.

[Kattrup]

Over on JTRForums a new poster has discovered a possible husband of MJK - man who was killed in a colliery explosion in 1881.

The man’s name wasn’t Davis or Davies, it was actually Evans although he used the name of Williams because when his father did a runner a Mr Williams brought him up. It was felt appropriate to mention both names at the inquest.

How many more examples do some people need of ‘proper’ names and assumed names both being revealed in court before they will acknowledge that CAL’s use of just ‘Cross’ is very odd?

Probably quite a lot, Mr B. In the example you refer to, it's the victim's name that is being clarified - establishing the identity of the deceased was an essential duty of an inquest, which is why it was "felt" appropriate to mention both names.

(Incidentally, I believe the names were actually the other way round, i.e. he was baptised William Williams but was known as William Evans because he was adopted by John Evans.)

[MrBarnett]

Probably quite a lot, Mr B. In the example you refer to, it's the victim's name that is being clarified - establishing the identity of the deceased was an essential duty of an inquest, which is why it was "felt" appropriate to mention both names.

(Incidentally, I believe the names were actually the other way round, i.e. he was baptised William Williams but was known as William Evans because he was adopted by John Evans.)

Ah yes, I got my Williams/Evans’s in a twist.

The witness who explained the name situation said that Williams was his ‘proper’ name. That concept surfaces again and again.

Cross’s ‘proper’ name was Lechmere. Unless he was out of synch with the rest of society, he knew that.

He wasn’t an illiterate labouring man who was unsure of his background. His father came from a prominent Herefordshire family, and his mother was the butler’s daughter. The significance of his ‘proper’ name was known to him. His mother had him and his sister baptised shortly after she ‘married’ Thomas Cross and the Lechmere name was on the baptism record.

This anomaly doesn’t go away.

[MrBarnett]

Ah yes, I got my Williams/Evans’s in a twist.

The witness who explained the name situation said that Williams was his ‘proper’ name. That concept surfaces again and again.

Cross’s ‘proper’ name was Lechmere. Unless he was out of synch with the rest of society, he knew that.

He wasn’t an illiterate labouring man who was unsure of his background. His father came from a prominent Herefordshire family, and his mother was the butler’s daughter. The significance of his ‘proper’ name was known to him. His mother had him and his sister baptised shortly after she ‘married’ Thomas Cross and the Lechmere name was on the baptism record.

This anomaly doesn’t go away.

I think it’s highly likely that he deliberately withheld the Lechmere name, even though he thought he should reveal it. But not necessarily because he was a murderer.

There are two other reasons why he might have wanted to do so.